A SHORT HISTORY OF DISPENSATIONALISM

A SHORT HISTORY OF DISPENSATIONALISM
by Thomas Ice
It is doubtful if there has been any other circle of men [dispensationalists] who have done more by their influence in preaching, teaching and writing to promote a love for Bible study, a hunger for the deeper Christian life, a passion for evangelism and zeal for missions in the history of American Christianity.
—Dispensationalist Critic, George E. Ladd
The first systematic expression of dispensationalism was formulated by J. N. Darby sometime during the late 1820s and 1830s in the British Isles. I believe that Darby’s development was the culmination of various influences which produced within his thought one of the most literal approaches to Bible interpretation in history and a theology which distinguishes God’s plan for Israel from God’s plan for the church. The most well known feature of dispensational theology is the much-debated pretribulational rapture doctrine.
ELEMENTS OF DISPENSATIONALISM
No single element of dispensational thought can be said to be the unique domain of dispensationalism alone. It is true that some hold to the Pre-Trib position that do not want to be called dispensationalists, but it is equally true that it was dispensational thought which provided the theological rationale for the Pre-Trib viewpoint. Even the important “Israel–church” distinction has been held by non-dispensationalists like Nathaniel West and George Peters. Dispensationalists are not just characterized by the elements of their theology, but also, their arrangement in relationship to one another.
In order to be a dispensationalist, one has to hold to a literal approach of interpreting the Bible. When compared to other interpretative approaches, dispensationalists take the text more literally. For example, belief in literal days and years in Genesis as well as literal days, months, and years in Revelation are maintained. This means that we see Bible prophecy from a futurist, as opposed to an idealist, preterist, or historicist perspective. A dispensationalist holds to the above mentioned “Israel—church” distinction as well as the Pre-Trib rapture. This means that current church-age believers are of the spiritual seed of Abraham, but are not spiritual Israel. Dispensationalists believe that God has a distinctive plan for ethnic and national Israel that includes their spiritual restoration and conversion, as well as a specific geographic destiny. On the other hand, the church began on the day of Pentecost and will end with the rapture. Her mission is to preach the gospel, disciple, and nurture believers, and to separate from evil by living a holy life in this current dark age. While the church age will be characterized by worldwide growth, at the same time the age ends in doctrinal and moral ruin and apostasy. Based on their literal interpretation of Scripture, dispensationalists believe that God has administered history in successive stages, during each of which man is tested, fails, and suffers judgment. This linear progress of history began in innocence, continued with man’s fall, was punctuated by the cross of Christ, and moves toward the second coming and the millennium.
www.pre-trib.org 1
DEVELOPING DISPENSATIONALISM
Although Darby was the first to systematize dispensationalism, I believe that rudimentary features can be found prior to the nineteenth century, especially in the early church and the three hundred years prior to Darby. Opponents often debate a pre- Darby heritage, but I think the evidence does support our claim that there are historical and theological antecedents to the modern system.
The Early Church
Crude, but clear, schemes of ages and dispensations are found in ante-Nicene fathers such as Justin Martyr (110-165), Irenaeus (130-200), Tertullian (c. 160-220), Methodius (d. 311), and Victorinus of Petau (d. 304). Dispensationalist, Larry Crutchfield concluded that,
Regardless of the number of economies to which the Fathers held, the fact remains that they set forth what can only be considered a doctrine of ages and dispensations which foreshadows dispensationalism as it is held today. Their views were certainly less well defined and less sophisticated. But it is evident that the early Fathers viewed God’s dealings with His people in dispensational terms. . . . In every major area of importance in the early church one finds rudimentary features of dispensationalism that bear a striking resemblance to their contemporary offspring (“Ages and Dispensations, “398).
Crutchfield charted these Fathers’ schemes in the following chart which I have reproduced in an abbreviated form.
Moses
Christ
Crutchfield outlined the early Fathers’ views on Israel and the church, which is another feature important to dispensationalism.
The Fathers (1) distinguished between the church and national Israel, (2) recognized distinctions among the differing peoples of God throughout biblical history, and (3) believed in the literal fulfillment of covenant promises in the earthly kingdom. . . . The contemporary dispensational position on Israel and the church is primarily a refinement and not a contradiction of the position of the ante-Nicene church(“Israel and the Church,” 271.
Justin
Martyr Noah
Christ
Millennium Millennium
Enoch/ Abraham
Adam Noah to to
Moses to
Christ to Eternity
Irenaeus
Tertullian Adam Noah Abraham Moses Christ Millennium
Noah Moses
www.pre-trib.org 2
There is no doubt that the position of the Fathers on the relationship between Israel and the church has problems. But certain elements in their thought place them close to, though not altogether within, the dispensational camp.
The Middle Ages
The Middle Ages were a time in which premillennialism, literal interpretation, dispensations, and an Israel–church distinction were largely absent from theological discussion or went underground.
The Reformation
The Reformation and post-Reformation periods did much to restore a more intensive study of the Bible to the church. For the first time ever, printing made literature accessible to most anyone. A greater effort was also put forth to systemize the Bible within the light of Protestant theology. About 250 years before Darby, Reformed scholars developed a school of theology that is known as “Covenant Theology.” With it, a precedent was established for viewing theology from the perspective of an important concept like “covenant. “ While others, like Jonathan Edwards (1703-58), wrote his “History of the Work of Redemption,” which viewed God’s salvation of man progressively in history. Such developments were preparing the way for the birth of modern dispensationalism.
Dispensationalist, Charles Ryrie, has shown that for about 150 years prior to Darby, an increasing number of theologians were articulating dispensational schemes of Biblical history (Dispensationalism Today, 71-74). Pierre Poiret's scheme is seen in his six volume work, The Divine Economy (1687) as follows:
I. Infancy—to the Deluge
II. Childhood—to Moses
III. Adolescence—to the prophets
IV. Youth—to the coming of Christ
V. Manhood—”some time after that”
VI. Old Age—”the time of man’s decay”
(V & VI are the church age)
VII. Renovation of all things—the millennium (Disp. Today, p. 71)
Note that Poiret stressed the ruin or decay of the church, a major theme in Darby’s thinking.
Isaac Watts (1674-1748), the famous theologian and hymn writer, also wrote about dispensations in a forty-page essay entitled “The Harmony of all the Religions which God ever Prescribed to Men and all his Dispensations towards them.” His definition of dispensations is very close to modern statements.
The public dispensations of God towards men, are those wise and holy constitutions of his will and government, revealed or some way manifested to
www.pre-trib.org 3
them, in the several successive periods or ages of the world, where in are contained the duties which he expects from men, and the blessings which he promises, or encourages them to expect from him, here and hereafter; together with the sins which he forbids, and the punishments which he threatens to inflict on such sinners, or the dispensations of God may be described more briefly, as the appointed moral rules of God’s dealing with mankind, considered as reasonable creatures, and as accountable to him for their behavior, both in this world and in that which is to come. Each of these dispensations of God, may be represented as different religions, or at least, as different forms of religion, appointed for men in the several successive ages of the world.
Watts dispensational scheme is as follows:
I. The Dispensation of Innocency
II. Adam after the Fall
III. The Noahic Dispensation
IV. The Abrahamic Dispensation
V. The Mosaic Dispensation
VI. The Christian Dispensation (Disp. Today, p. 73).
J. N. DARBY—THE MAN
Darby’s Life
Irishman, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) is unquestionably the father of modern dispensationalism. Darby came from a highly honorable family and received an excellent education. He entered Trinity College, Dublin, at the age of fifteen and graduated with highest honors as a Classical Gold Medalist at age eighteen.
Upon graduation he entered the legal profession and was called to the Irish Chancery Bar at age 21. Shortly after entering the legal field, he was converted to Christ. In 1825 he entered the ministry within the Church of England and was given an Irish parish. Darby engaged in a tireless and successful parish ministry that saw the conversion of hundreds of Roman Catholics to Protestantism. Within a year he was ordained as a minister in the Church of England.
Soon after ordination he was disillusioned by a decree from his bishop that all converts to Anglicanism would have to swear allegiance to the King of England. Darby saw this as a compromise with the Lordship of Christ and the decree greatly reduced his success with Catholics. For a number of years he tried to reform the church, but met with little success. In 1829 he resigned from Anglicanism and became independent, following the polity of the Brethren, with whom he had already been meeting for a few years.
Even though once engaged to the beautiful and wealthy Lady Powerscourt, Darby never married and lived an austere life, ignoring the things of this world, by blending piety with biblical scholarship. His only personal indulgence was the purchase of books for study, after that he gave most of his money to the poor.
Educational Influences Upon Darby
www.pre-trib.org 4
Many of the major tenets of Darby’s dispensationalism can be seen as influences of the faculty of Trinity College, Dublin where Darby was a student. His primary educational influence came from Professor Richard Graves. Graves, a futurist postmillennialist, believed that prophecy must be interpreted literally. Elmore notes, “As odd as it may seem to modern dispensational premillennial literalists, postmillennialists in Graves’ day were known for their literalism with respect to prophecy” (“A Critical Examination,” 66). Graves argued, as do dispensationalists, that “unfulfilled prophecy was to be literally interpreted, and the Abrahamic covenant treated as unconditional” (68). He also believed and defended a literal, future national conversion and restoration of Israel to their land. He believed that the “conversion of Israel was imminent. Then a new dispensation would be inaugurated on planet earth” (71). Graves called the new era “a grand era in the Divine dispensations” (72). “Graves distinguished between ‘the Jewish scheme’ (a phrase Darby would nearly wear out in years to come!) or dispensations and the Gentile or Christian dispensation” (72). This distinction was common among Anglicans in Darby’s early years (73).
Elmore concluded that many of the theological themes and vocabulary in Darby can be traced to Graves and the Dublin faculty.
The theological grist for Darby’s later synthesis was certainly present at Trinity College in his student days. Darby was trained in an atmosphere in which it was commonplace to refer to ‘the Church of Christ’ and ‘the Jewish Nation’ fulfilling different but related future roles. He was primed to anticipate a future dispensation in which Israel would play a distinctive part among the nations of the world, living in prosperity in their ancient land. (73-74)
While Darby supplied other ingredients to form dispensationalism, there is no question that like all people, he was influenced to a large extent by others in the formulation and development of his thought.
DARBY’S THOUGHT
Literal Interpretation
No one questions whether Darby believed and practiced a literal method of interpretation. However, his hermeneutic is more sophisticated than many casual observers recognize. Darby believed in literal interpretation in the sense that the 1290 days of Daniel 12 were really days, in contrast to the host of historicists in his day who saw them as years. Darby thought that this kind of “spiritualization” of the text could only be used to support human ideas.
Elmore notes that “when it comes to evaluating any interpretation of Scripture or theological formulation,” Darby “seems to admit two levels of evidence: (1) direct statements of Scripture, and (2) deductions from direct statements of Scripture” (131). Like most literalists, Darby did not believe in “wooden literalism” that disallows figures of speech, typology, and the theology of the Bible to guide exegesis. Rather, he followed “a literal, face-value approach to the text,” while maintaining “a balance between detailed exegesis and biblical theology of books and writers, always having the
www.pre-trib.org 5
progressive nature of revelation in mind” (198-99). “Darby believed that the language of the Old Testament allowed for additional theological content to be revealed later, but no redefinition of its theological content” (198) as do many covenant theologians.
Dispensations, Israel, and the Church
From his earliest days, Darby, like Graves, believed not only in the future conversion of the Jews, but also restoration to their homeland. By taking promises to both Israel and the church literally, Darby thought that God’s single plan of salvation is harmonized for God’s two peoples—Israel and the church. Israel, God’s earthly people, are destined to rule over the Nations with Christ before their resurrection. The Church, God’s heavenly people, will reign with Christ in the same kingdom, but in resurrection bodies.
Darby’s distinction between God’s plan for Israel and the Church formed the basis for his most controversial contribution to Evangelical Christianity—the pretribulation rapture of the Church. Even strong opponents to this doctrine admit that it is logical if God is going to literally fulfill His ancient promises to Israel. The Church must be removed before God resumes His work with Israel, enabling the two programs to fully participate in the millennial kingdom.
Like many before him, Darby saw God’s progressive revelation of His plan in terms of dispensations. Unlike C. I. Scofield, Darby did not begin his first dispensation until after Noah’s flood.
Darby’s view of the church was crucial to his development of dispensationalism, especially his view (shared by many in his day) of the present ruin of the church. Elmore observed:
By separating any earthly governmental concepts from the Anglican doctrine of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church, Darby maintained a high view of the gathered church without aligning it with any race or national government fashioned after Old Testament Israel. By emphasizing Pauline uniqueness, he separated the Church unto its heavenly destiny. (312-13)
DARBY'S CONTRIBUTION
Darby is the father of dispensationalism. “Although he was not a systematic theologian, he was an expositor of ‘dispensational truth.’ He synthesized exegetical truths to show the full story-line of the Bible, God’s activity in human history” (Elmore, 312). Darby’s
employment of the hermeneutical principle of literal interpretation for all of Scripture, including prophecy, naturally led to the distinction between Israel and the Church. This resulted, of course, in the understanding that the hopes of Israel and those of the Church were of a different nature. (Crutchfield, 341)
Dispensationalism came to North America through Darby and other Brethren before
the Civil War. After the war dispensational teachings captured the minds of a significant number of Christian leaders, and by 1875, its distinctives were disseminated throughout Canada and the United States. Dispensationalism spread through
www.pre-trib.org 6
preaching, conferences, the founding of schools, and literature. By the turn of the century dispensationalism was well known and quickly became the most popular evangelical system of theology.
DARBY VISITS NORTH AMERICA
Darby made seven trips to the U.S. and Canada between 1862 and 1877 spending a total of seven of those sixteen years in America. He spent most of that time in Canada and four American cities: New York, Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis, where many early leaders of American dispensationalism lived. Pastors James Hall Brookes (1830-1897) of Walnut Street Presbyterian Church, St. Louis and A.J. Gordon (1836-1895) of Clarendon Street Baptist Church, Boston were patriarchs of American dispensationalism who came under Darby’s influence. It was through the ministry of such men, more so than Darby, that dispensationalism spread in America.
AMERICAN FOUNDING FATHERS
James Hall Brookes
The father of American dispensationalism was James Brookes. He studied at Miami University and Princeton Seminary, and was one of the first to host Darby at his church. In the 1870’s, Brookes wrote Maranatha, which was widely distributed and popularized a dispensational view of prophecy. Brookes also edited The Truth magazine and chaired the Niagara Bible Conference, both of which played critical roles in spreading dispensational beliefs among Christian leaders. As a result, he became the accepted leader of a large circle of pastors, evangelists and Christian workers. He will perhaps, best be remembered as the man who introduced C.I. Scofield to dispensationalism shortly after his conversion.
Adoniram Judson Gordon
Baptist Pastor A. J. Gordon (1836 -1895), for whom Gordon College and Gordon- Conwell Seminary is named, was another early dispensational leader. He was an important leader in the Prophecy Conferences and edited The Watchword. Through personal persuasion and his pen, he affected many on the East coast with dispensational views. Gordon lead D. L. Moody to accept dispensationalism.
PERIOD OF EXPANSION
Arno C. Gaebelein
Arno Gaebelein (1861-1945) migrated to the U.S. from Germany in his youth. Although he was initially a pastor, he is best known for his work in Jewish evangelism and as editor of Our Hope magazine. Timothy Weber noted of his abilities that Gaebelein “acquired such an expertise in the Talmud and other rabbinic literature and spoke such flawless Yiddish that he often had a difficult time convincing many of his audiences that he was not a Jew trying to ‘pass’ as a Gentile.” (Living in the Shadow, 144)
Gaebelein did much to spread dispensationalism through his speaking, books, and
www.pre-trib.org 7
magazine Our Hope.
William E. Blackstone
Like many early dispensationalists, William Blackstone (1841-1935) was also involved in a ministry of Jewish evangelists. Blackstone lived in the Chicago area and was the “Hal Lindsey “ of his day when he wrote the best-selling book Jesus Is Coming (1878). Blackstone, even though a Christian, is also viewed as one of the fathers of the Zionist movement. He worked constantly for the return of Jews to Israel and lobbied politicians, convened conferences, and raised funds for the cause. “At a 1918 Zionist Conference in Philadelphia, Blackstone was acclaimed a ‘Father of Zionism.’” (Weber, 140) In 1956, Israel dedicated a forest in his honor. Weber says of this unique Jewish—Christian relationship, dispensationalists “were able to stress the evangelization of the Jews while at the same time they supported Jewish nationalistic aspirations” (141).
Cyrus Ingerson Scofield
Kansas attorney C.I. Scofield (1843-1921), was converted to Christ at age 36. Later, during the 1880’s in St. Louis, James Brookes discipled Scofield teaching him dispensationalism. An ordained Congregationalist, Scofield, pastored both Congregational and Presbyterian churches. He also was active in missions and founded the Central American Mission. He is well-known as a systematizer and popularizer of dispensationalism through his widely-known and controversial Scofield Reference Bible (1909). His work has done more to spread dispensationalism throughout the English-speaking world than anything else. However, dispensationalism was already a growing movement before Scofield. His Bible simply made it more popular. Scofield was highly regarded in dispensational circles and his influence remains to this day.
Lewis Sperry Chafer
Presbyterian Bible teacher Lewis Chafer (1871-1952), Scofield's disciple, culminated his ministry with the publication of an eight-volume dispensational systematic theology. Chafer systemized dispensationalism and spread its influence through founding Dallas Seminary (The Evangelical Theological College) in 1924. Dallas has been the center of dispensationalism for seventy years and has many well-known faculty, among them: E.F. Harrison, A.T. Pierson, H.A. Ironside, Henry Thiessen, J. Vernon McGee, Merrill Unger, Charles Feinberg, Lewis Johnson, John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, Dwight Pentecost, Howard Hendricks, and Norman Geisler. Well-known graduates include Hal Lindsey and Charles Swindoll. Chafer and Dallas Seminary have been the largest single influence for spreading dispensationalism in Christian higher education.
REASONS FOR GROWTH
From a human perspective there are many reasons why dispensationalism has grown to become a dominant force in American religious life in less than seventy-five years. First, it grew because many believers were dissatisfied with dominate views of prophecy
www.pre-trib.org 8
at the end of the 1800’s. Postmillennialism was the popular view of eschatology, but increasingly things did not appear to be following its optimistic script. Premillennialism seemed to provide a more realistic explanation. The dominate historicist premillennialism, with its date-setting and current events speculation, fell into disfavor, while dispensationalism’s “any-moment” view of the rapture provided a more sensible premillennialism.
Second, dispensationalism had a tailor-made answer to a growing technological society. As life became more complicated, so did explanations of God’s plan for history in dispensational charts. This era appreciated complicated and logical explanations.
Third, with the rise of liberalism in denominational churches, dispensationalism provided answers to these attacks. Liberalism denied the historical veracity of Scripture with its literal interpretation and dispensational distinctions. Dispensationalism allowed a layman to answer liberal ministers thru Scofield's notes. The premillennial view of the Church Age ending in apostasy appeared to be coming to pass in the rise of liberalism and was very appealing.
Fourth, dispensationalism fit nicely with the growth of verse-by-verse Bible exposition. This was evidenced by the rise of interdenominational Bible conferences such as Niagara.
Fifth, dispensational theology furnished a reasonable explanation for how God could be sovereign over a world that seemed to be increasingly evil. Americans had difficulty retaining postmillennial optimism in view of the Civil War and World War I, the development of slums, immigration, rising crime, big business, and other social conditions related to industrialization. Dispensationalism made sense to many Calvinists who were pessimistic about individual human nature and it followed that society as a whole was in the same condition. Just as individual salvation requires a miracle from heaven, so would society if it were to be changed. Kraus noted that dispensationalism emerged from within the womb “of orthodox Calvinism.” (Dispensationalism in America, 60).
Taking all this into account, it must still be pointed out that the basic theological affinities of dispensationalism are Calvinistic. The large majority of the men involved in the Bible and prophetic conference movements subscribed to Calvinistic creeds.” (59)
Finally, a very important appeal of dispensationalism was its view about the restoration of Jews to Israel in the last days. Dispensationalism’s view of the two peoples of God, Israel and the church, appealed to those who placed importance upon God’s future plan for Israel.
CURRENT STATUS
Dispensationalism has always been a growing and developing theology. However, since World War II, there has been some decline. Some causes include: the revival of posttribulationism, attacks from covenant theology, the rise of dominion theology and postmillennialism, the philosophical shift toward idealism which negatively impacts literal
www.pre-trib.org 9
interpretation, a drive for consensus within Evangelical scholarship, the push for ecumenical unity, the overall decline of interest in doctrine, and finally, attacks launched from some Pentecostals and Charismatics who once were dispensational. Yet, all is not gloom and doom and dispensationalism is not dying. It is has experienced a resurgence of interest within the evangelical academic community and it continues to be a popular theology with great influence upon the Christian world.

The False Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration

The False Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration

by John R. Rice


I can understand your rearing and your training. It is of a very distinctive kind, and easily recognized in the Church of Christ and Christian Church preachers and debaters. The Scriptures do make clear the answer to this problem and the Scriptures never contradict themselves. They should be taken for face value. I believe this and pray you do as well.

I. "SAVED BY FAITH" IS A BIBLE DOCTRINE REFFERING TO WHAT A SINNER MUST DO TO BE SAVED

1. The Bible Does Teach That One Who Trusts in Christ Is Saved.

Unless one starts with the plain, honest intention to take the Bible at face value and not argue against any clear statements in the Bible, of course he cannot expect to come out right. And many scriptures plainly say that one who trusts in Christ then has everlasting life, or is not condemned, or shall not come into condemnation, or is saved.

"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" John 3:15-16.

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" John 3:18.

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" John 3:36.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" John 5:24.

"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day" John 6:40.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life" John 6:47.

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" Acts 10:43.

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" Acts 16:31.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" Ephesians 2:8-9.

Here is a Bible doctrine repeated again and again. To quibble about it or to try to make it mean something else besides what it plainly says would not be an dealing with Scriptures. Now, if we approach the bible with an honest, open heart to the truth, we will find that all the other teaching about salvation fits with these clear plain statements that one who trusts in Jesus Christ is saved, is born again and has everlasting life.

To an honest unsophisticated reader, these verses assure the one who trusts in Christ that he is then and there "saved," has "everlasting life," "is not condemned," "shall not perish." Now did God mean to say what these verses say, or is God like a shyster, making it appear on the surface as it really is not? Does God have some hidden parts of His contract not stated here? Does God hide some conditions in His contract in smaller print elsewhere? In other words, is God not quite open and aboveboard in dealing with the poor ignorant sinners on the matter of salvation? To ask such a question ought to answer it for honest people. away with all this foolishness of complicating the plan of salvation, trying to find other Scriptures that contradict or limit what God so clearly promises here. So, one who believes in Christ, trusting Him to forgive, has salvation then and there, according to many many plain statements in the Bible.

2. "Saved by the Blood," "Saved by Grace," Does Not Contradict at all the Clear Teaching that a Sinner May Simply Trust in Jesus Christ for Salvation and be Instantly Born Again.

Alexander Campbell said, "That faith by itself neither justifies, sanctifies, nor purifies, is admitted by those who oppose immersion for the forgiveness of sins. They all include the blood of Christ." But Alexander Campbell was not logical, and I fear not even sincere in making that kind of statement.

When I talk about what a sinner must do to be saved or when the Bible talks about what a sinner must do to be saved, it often says something like: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," or "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." It is obvious that "saved by grace" refers to God's grace, not the sinners grace. When we say "saved by the blood," it is obvious that we are talking about the blood of Christ, not the blood of the sinner. No sensible person ever claims that the sinner must provide the blood for salvation. One who brings that up either is simply following a pattern he has been taught, or he wishes to confuse the issue.

Of course we believe in the atoning blood of Christ. But that is God's part. Of course we believe in the loving grace of God unmerited that provides salvation for all who will believe. But that is God's part. When we speak of what a sinner must do to be saved, it is still the plain teaching of the Bible that "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life" (John 3:36), and "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be saved" (Acts 16:31).

3. Being "Born Again" Is What the Sinner Gets in Salvation, Not what He Does.

You say, "In John 3:3,5, Christ said that if we wanted to enter the kingdom of God we must be born again." Again, surely every honest Bible student knows that God speaks here of what He does. when one is born of God, it is God who does it. When one is "born of the Spirit," it is God, the Holy Spirit, of course, who makes that change. That does not change nor does not limit the clear statement of many Scriptures that one who puts his trust in Christ is born again. God works the miracle of the new birth according to 2 Peter 1:4: He is made a partaker "of the divine nature." That miraculous change in nature, making one a child of God, is what God does, not what the sinner does.

4. Repentance as a Condition of Salvation Does Not Deny the Teaching of "Saved by Faith," it is Not a Separate Act of the Sinner but Part of the Same Decision.

It is true that God does teach repentance as the plan of salvation. (Notice I did not say as one plan of salvation, but it is the plan of salvation, the same plan as faith.) People are commanded to repent and repentance is indicated as a way to be saved in Matthew 4:17 where Jesus said the same thing, "Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." It is clearly taught in Luke 13:3,5, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." In Luke 16:30, the rich man in hades is quotes as knowing that his brothers must repent of go to hell. In Acts 2:38, Peter commanded those at Pentecost to repent. Acts 17:30 says that God hath "commanded all men everywhere to repent." In 2 Peter 3:9 we are told that God is "not willing that any should parish, but that all should come to repentance." So repentance is the way of salvation, and repentance is what a sinner must do to be saved.

But as many, many Scriptures tell us, believing or trusting in Christ is the way to being saved. Then, God must mean that repentance and faith are together, that they are inseparable, that one who repents has believed, and one who believes has repented, understanding always that we mean what the Bible means by heart repentance and heart trust in Christ. Since "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life," then, evidently he has repented.

you see, repentance and faith simply describe two views of the heart attitude a sinner has when he turns to Christ for salvation. He turns from his sins, and so we call that repentance. He turns from his rebellion against God and his sins against God, so we call that repentance. But no one can genuinely turn from his sins, in the Bible sense of repentance, without turning to Christ. So, one who turns to Christ, depending on Him for salvation, has believed in Him, but he also turned from his sins. The one great heart -turning, the one great decision that took place, involved repentance if you mean one's attitude of mind toward his sin and God; it was faith if you mean his reliance on Christ for forgiveness. So, faith and repentance are called "inseparable graces" and so they ought to be called. And what God hath joined together let not man put asunder. To try to make these plain statements of Scripture contradict each other is not only twisting the Word of God but it is wickedly wrong and no one ought to do it.

When the prodigal son left the hogspen and his sinful course, he was repenting, he was turning, but he was headed toward his father and reliance on his father's mercy and forgiveness, and so that was faith too. And that is a proper illustration of saving faith and honest repentance. They are a part of the same thing or they are simply different ways of looking at the same matter. The prodigal son was going from the hogspen. He was going toward his father. But it was one decision in his heart and one trip that he made. So it is with repentance and faith. When one turns from his sin in his heart to trust in Jesus for forgiveness and salvation, he has both repented and believed (or trusted).

So the bible says and means it when it says, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." So the bible says and means it, that God "is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." It is never right to use one Scripture against another or to interpret one Scripture to contradict another.

II. WHAT DOES "BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST" MEAN IF NOT THAT BAPTISM SAVES?

You say, "Won't you agree with me that to be 'in Christ' is to be 'saved' and to be 'not in Christ' is to be 'unsaved'? If you agree with me on that and believe that baptism does not save, what does Romans 6:3 and Galatians 3:27 mean?"

Romans 6:3 says, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" Galatians 3:27 says, "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Now, what do these verses mean?

I think that Romans 6:3-5 tell very clearly the intent of baptism, its form and meaning. It is a burial, a planting (not a birth): "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. for if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." So baptism pictures the burial and the resurrection of Christ and our participation in His death and burial. We count the old man dead and buried. We are raised up to live a new life because we have a new heart. Baptism thus is a picture, a ceremony with a definite meaning.

Notice also that twice in verse five it is called "the likeness of his death," and "the likeness of his resurrection."

Now does "baptized into Jesus Christ" mean that baptism puts us in Christ? Again your trouble is in the little preposition into. It is the translation of the Greek word eis, used some 1800 hundred times in the New testament. It is an indefinite preposition of reference. it is variously translated in, at, unto, toward, et cetra. the simplest meaning is "referring to," or "with reference to." So, Romans 6:3, "...that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized referring to Jesus Christ were baptized referring to his death."

And in Galatians 3:27 the meaning simply is, "For as many of you as have been baptized referring to Christ [or pointing to Christ] have put on Christ," that is, have publicly and symbolically acknowledged Christ.

You see, we have an exact copy of that use of the word in 1 Corinthians 10:1,2, "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea," And that "baptized unto Moses" again uses the little preposition eis, so the Bible says, "baptized eis Jesus Christ," "baptized eis his death," and baptized eis Moses." So if baptism puts the penitent sinner into Christ, then all the nation Israel were put into Moses. If the one is literally put into, then the other is literally put into. In this inspired Scripture, God uses exactly the same language.

But if you take the way the word is used throughout the New Testament and as an indefinite preposition of reference, then the Israelites were baptized crossing the Red Sea, surrounded by the cloud and the sea, were baptized with reference to Moses and his leadership just as a Christian is baptized with reference to Moses and his leadership just as a Christian is baptized with reference to Jesus Christ, pointing to His death and resurrection. We ought to use terms like the Bible uses them and we ought to mean what the Bible means. and to take it that these Scriptures contradict the other plain statement, that one who believes in Christ is already saved and has no condemnation, is misusing the Word of God. No Scripture ever contradicts another Scripture, if it be rightly interpreted.

III. ACTS 2:38 DOES NOT GIVE BAPTISM AS ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION.

Acts 2:38 is used to support baptismal regeneration. With verse 39 following, it says:

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

Some things I call to your attention is clear to the Bible believer who has an open mind.

1. It is clear here that these people wanted two things.

They said, "men, and brethren, what shall we do?" They did not simply say, "What must I do to be saved?" The question that is so plainly asked and answered in Acts 16:30, 31. Peter has been talking to them about this great outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Christians, how it was foretold by the Prophet Joel and how Christ whom they crucified has now shed forth this power of the Holy Spirit. So they want to be saved and they want what Peter and the other Christians have. They wanted to be saved and they wanted to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

And the answer takes that in mind. First, they were to repent and thus be saved. Then they were to be baptized, referring to the remission of their sins which they would have gotten when they repented ant then they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. So repentance is here the way to salvation; and baptism, if it be with the heart that understands its meaning and really means to be raised up to live a new life and do the soul-winning work of Christ, is here mentioned as the way to "the gift of the Holy Ghost."

2. And here is the problem, too, which you mentioned, that in Acts 2:38 Jesus said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the remission of sins..."

And you have thought and some others have thought that "for the remission of sins" meant "in order to get remission of sins," or "so that they would get remission of sins." However, that is not the meaning. The preposition here translated for is again the little Greek preposition eis, an indefinite preposition of reference used so many times in the Bible. Just as in 1 Corinthians 10:2 speaks of the children of Israel baptized with reference to Moses, so here Peter spoke of being baptized with reference to their remission of sins which they would receive when they repented.

The Holy Spirit very carefully and exactly selected the words that He used. There is a Greek preposition hina which means "in order to," or "so that." That is not the preposition used here. That Greek preposition hina is used in the New Testament according to Young's Analytical Concordance and translated one time albeit, one time because, one time so as, twice as so that, and 542 times as simply that and to the intent one time and to the intent that one time. So, if Peter had meant "baptized that ye may receive the remission of sins," he would have used that Greek preposition. The Greek terms are very exact.

The Greek preposition eis is never used to mean "in order to," or "to the end that."

It is true that the word eis is translated "for," but even with that translation it would be not necessarily mean that one should be baptized in order to get remission of sins. A man is paid for his work already done, not in order to get him to work. A woman is praised for her beauty, not in order to make her beautiful. A child is punished for his disobedience, not in order to get him to be disobedient. To make a meaning here which would contradict the use of the preposition all through the Bible and which would contradict the clear Bible teaching on the plan of salvation as given in many other verses, is the wrong use of the Scriptures, is the wrong interpretation.

IV. "BORN OF WATER" IN JOHN 3:5 DOES NOT MEAN BAPTISM

In John 3:5 Jesus said to Nicodemus: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." This has been widely quoted as teaching that baptism is essential to salvation. However, people did not get the doctrine from Scripture; they got the interpretation of the Scripture from a doctrine they already established. Our Catholic friends taught salvation by rites of the church, and those who follow after this human reasoning twist Scriptures to make them fit the doctrine they have already accepted. Note the following evidences:

1. Baptism Is a Picture.

Romans 6:5 says, "For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection."

First Peter 3:20 and 21 says that just as Noah and his eight souls were " saved by water...The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us." In only some figurative sense was Noah saved by water, and baptism is here called a "figure,"

But baptism is a figure of death and resurrection and not a figure of birth! People are baptized picturing the burial and resurrection of the Savior and picturing the fact that we count the old sinner dead and now raised up to live a new life in Christ. If Jesus had wanted to use baptism as a picture of a birth He could have done so, but He did not, nor did any other Bible writer.

2. Water Is Used as a Symbol of the Word of God, and the Part It Plays in Salvation.

Ephesians 5:25 and 26 says, "...Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." Here the Bible is saying that Christ loved those He would save, gave Himself on the cross for them, and this body, including all the Christians, He sanctifies or sets apart and cleanses with the washing of water by the Word. So the Word of God has a part in salvation.

That is what Psalm 19:7 says: "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul."

So 1 Peter 1:23 says, "being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

And Romans 1:16 says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." So evidently God uses two elements in His part in regeneration. He uses the Word of God, the Gospel. He uses the Holy Spirit to convict and regenerate. No one is ever saved without this twofold work which God does when one believes in Christ. One hears the Gospel and as repentantly to trust in Christ, he is born of the Spirit. So in John 5:24, "Verily, verily, I say onto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." The Bible so clearly and repeatedly teaches that the Word of God is used in saving a sinner, that one must hear the Gospel in order to be saved. We can be sure the same meaning is intended here.

Titus 3:5 bears witness to John 3:5, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." There is the twofold element again of cleansing through the Gospel, the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.

No, Jesus did not say that salvation meant born again in baptism. And no Christian ought to add that meaning to the Scripture and thus set out to contradict many, many other Scriptures all through the Bible on the plan of Salvation.

It is evidently intentional that the second "of" in John 3:5 is not in the original, so in the King James Version it is placed in italics. What the Scripture says in Greek is "born of water and Spirit." That is one act of God, that is, of the Gospel preached and the Holy Spirit who regenerates the believing person.

V. Explain "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" from Mark 16:16

Let us read the whole verse: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." What is it that damns a person? It is that he does not believe or trust in Christ.

Again we must remember that all Scriptures fit together and no Scripture contradicts another Scripture. and again the Bible can be taken at literal face value, so it does not take an extra amount of logic or argument to settle any principal matter. Certainly God did not leave the plan of salvation without a clear teaching. And, as we mentioned before, many, many times the Lord has plainly said, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life," and "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."

So the one who believes in Christ here is saved when he believes. When he is baptized, he is still saved. So both Scriptures are true and they fit together.

But note carefully that believing and being baptized are not the same thing. Some people would explain away the Bible teaching that one who trusts Christ is immediately saved by saying that baptism is a part of faith, and that one never has completed faith until he is baptized. No, for the Bible here clearly says, "He that believeth and is baptized." So believing does not include baptism.

However, in biblical times it was customary and proper and right for people to be baptized immediately when they were saved as in the case of the Philippian jailer who was baptized at night, in Acts 16, and as in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch who was baptized immediately when he was saved on the highway. One cannot see faith in the heart, but one can see the public profession of faith in baptism. So it is proper and customary to put the two together, for they go together. People who believe in Christ and get saved should be baptized immediately as a public confession of their faith. And one who believes in Christ has everlasting life; he is not condemned, he is passed from death onto life as many Scriptures say. But if you want to say, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," it is still true. He was saved when he believed. He is still saved when he is baptized. And why make it mean something else that would twist the Scriptures and pervert other plain statements? It is clear in the same verse that "he that believeth not shall be damned."

VI. 1 peter 3:21 says, "Baptism doth also now save us"

But that is not all this Scripture says, and its meaning is clear if you note its context. There, speaking of the word of God which Christ preached through the Spirit in Noah before the flood, 1 Peter 3:20, 21 says, "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

It is obviously only a figure of speech to say that Noah and eight souls were saved by water. And then we should not be surprised in verse 21 that the Scripture says, "the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us." Here baptism is simply mentioned as a figure, a symbol, of salvation. It pictures the sinner, the old man dead and now buried, and the new person risen to live in Christ. Why avoid the clear statement that just as you might say figuratively, Noah and his family were saved by water, so, "the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us?" Baptism is a figure, a symbol, a picture of salvation. It does not save. It declares salvation.

And the next verse is evidently intended to safeguard us on the matter so we would not misunderstand the Scripture, for that same verse goes on to say, "(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." So baptism does not put away the filth of this old carnal nature. It is simply "the answer of a good conscious toward God." And the saving that we get is "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ," after His death on the cross, which is pictured in baptism. This is "the answer of a good conscious," a conscience already purged, before one is baptized.

Our Catholic friends say that when Jesus gave the Lord's Supper and He said, "This is my body," He meant that the bread actually becomes the body of Christ and the cup actually contains the blood of Christ literally, and that these are a new sacrifice. That is unscriptural. but to make baptism a saving ordinance by misinterpreting 1 Peter 3:21 is the same sin, the same perversion of Scripture.

VII. Did Paul wash away his sins in baptism?

You claim that baptism saves or that one cannot be saved without a physical baptism and sometimes quote Acts 22:16 as evidence that physical baptism saves. There we are told that Paul, speaking in the Hebrew tongue to the great crowd who would mob him in Jerusalem, said that Ananias came to him, told him of God's wonderful call to him and Paul quotes Ananias as saying, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Here the Bible tells us what Paul said that Ananias said. Of course, we do not suppose that Paul was claiming to give an exact quotation, and he probably did not. The Bible does not guarantee that all the things that men say, which are reported in the Bible, were true. Sometimes the Devil is quoted and good and bad men are quoted. We know that the record of Paul's quotation is right and that Paul actually reported that Ananias said, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins..." But what the Spirit of God tells us actually happened in inspired language in Acts 9:17 was: "And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightiest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."

Ananias, in words not given here in the inspired account in Acts 9, may have said the very words that Paul was quoted him as saying. But they are not put in the divine account of the conversation in Acts 9, and evidently for a good reason. but Paul, speaking to the Jews who were familiar with the ceremonies of the law and knew all the object lessons and types of the Passover, the sacrifices, the priesthood, and the Temple service, would be accustomed to figures of speech in religious matters. and so Paul here used figurative language which he quotes from Ananias, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Are we to suppose then that here God has another plan of salvation that is different from John 3:15, 16; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40; John 6:47; Acts 10:43; Acts 16:31, and Ephesians 2:8, 9? Is Paul here contradicting his own plain statement to the jailer in Acts 16:31, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved?" Does Paul here mean to contradict his own plain statement to the people of Antioch in Acts 13:39, "And by him all that believe are justified from all things," that is, that they were already saved before baptism? Of course, no contradiction is intended and Paul did not mean to teach here what he otherwise plainly did not teach, that baptism is essential to salvation. It is not.

In fact, Paul goes into great detail in 1 Corinthians 1: 13-19, that he came not to baptize, that he baptized very few himself, that he did not want to emphasize baptism "lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." For if you put baptism in the plan of salvation you minimize the cross and salvation by grace, and Paul many times made clear he did not want to do that.

VIII. The Bible tells of many people saved without a physical baptism

Yes, many people in the Old Testament and many people in the New Testament were saved by faith in Christ without baptism as the Scriptures plainly tell us.

1. Old Testament saints were saved by faith without baptism

We have the record of many people in the Bible who were saved without baptism. I remind you that God has never had but one plan of salvation. In the Old Testament is was "not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" (Hebrews 10:4). In fact, the eleventh chapter of Hebrews tells us of case after case of people in the Old Testament who were saved by faith alone. It emphasizes that it was not their acts of faith that saved them, but their faith alone that saved them. Acts 10:43 makes clear that the only plan of salvation taught in the Old Testament was by faith in Christ, just as it was preached in the New Testament. There Peter said, "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."

Remember, there never was any plan of salvation but by faith. Every Old Testament sacrifice and ceremony was a picture and a shadow and a type of the Lord Jesus Christ, "the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world!"

Now, all of these Old Testament saints were saved without baptism, for there is not a word in the Old Testament about baptism. Baptism then, is not a part of God's plan of salvation.

The patriarch Abraham is used as an example of the plan of salvation both for the Jews and the Gentiles in Romans chapter 4. I feel this matter is so important that I take space here to quote Romans 4:1-12:

"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised."

It could not be plainer. Abraham was saved by faith without baptism. that was before he was circumcised. And circumcision was simply a sign, "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also." It could not be clearer that the same plan of salvation that applies now has applied all through the centuries. It was so in David's time so that David could describe "the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works."

Remember this as well, it is clearly stated in Acts 10:43 that all the prophets in the Old testament and the New Testament taught the same plan of salvation that "whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."

2. People saved without a physical baptism in the New Testament

Since the same plan of salvation was preached in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and people were saved in the Old Testament without baptism, you would expect them to be saved in the New Testament without baptism -and they were. In Luke 7:37-50 is the story of a woman, a notorious sinner. Verses 47 to 50 in that seventh chapter of Luke tell us plainly that her sins were forgiven her and that her faith had saved her. Carefully read these Scriptures:

"Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace."

Jesus plainly stated that the women was immediately forgiven and was now saved by faith. She knelt at the feet of Jesus, trusted Him, and went away a saved woman. She was saved without baptism.

In Luke 18:35-43 we are told about the healing and conversion of a blind man. verse 42 tells plainly, in the words of Jesus Himself, just how he was saved: "And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee." Notice that salvation was received right there before he was baptized.

That is the same plan of salvation given throughout the Book of John; in John 1:12; 3:14-18, 36; 5:24; 6:37, and many other places. It is the same plan taught by Peter after Pentecost (Acts 10:43). It was the same plan taught by Paul the apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 13:38, 39; 16:30, 31; Ephesians 2:8, 9; Romans 3:28; and Romans 4:5-8). People were saved in the Old Testament by faith without baptism. They were saved during the life of Jesus by faith without baptism and they were save after Pentecost by faith without baptism.

That publican, about whom the Savior has told us of in Luke 18:13, 14, was saved without baptism. Standing there in the Temple, he prayed saying: "God be merciful to me a sinner," Jesus tells us about him then, that, "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified!" He was saved then -without baptism.

3. the thief on the cross was saved without baptism

The most remarkable case of this kind is the thief converted on the cross as told in Luke 23:39-43. When that poor man turned to the Lord Jesus Christ and asked to remember him in His kingdom, the Lord Jesus replied, "Verily I say onto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise!" He died that day on the cross as we are told in the Scriptures and so could not have been baptized. That day, according to the express statement of the Savior, he went with Jesus to Paradise. At some glorious happy day, all who trust in Christ will see him there.

No, baptism is not essential for salvation.

We must remember that "to him (Jesus) give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:43). God has saved many many people without baptism and so He saves people today without baptism.

IX. Saving faith means a penitent reliance on Jesus Christ for salvation

It is only fair to remind you what is everywhere apparent in the Bible, not all who say, "Lord Lord," are saved, as Jesus Himself plainly tells us in Matthew 7:21-23. Not all who believe the Bible are saved, for we are told that "the devils also believe, and tremble." So, acceptance of a fact mentally is not saving faith, and of course, nobody pretends it is. if you think of faith as simply believing certain doctrinal facts, then of course, you have missed the whole point. A fervent trust in Christ, a reliance on Christ to save you, is faith. Mental acceptance of certain doctrines is not faith in the sense of John 3:16, and all the other blessed promises of salvation by faith.

The more one relies on water the less he relies on blood. The more one relies on baptism, the less he relies on Christ. Any act of righteousness that one depends on becomes a snare. That was the trouble with Israel. Paul said, "For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."

Let us set aside this foolishness and join together in righteous fellowship, again taking up our sword against apostasy.

Prayer does it matter?

Prayer does it matter?

There is an immense difference between a worldview that is not able to answer every question to complete satisfaction and one whose answers are consistently contradictory. There is an even greater difference between answers that contain paradoxes and those that are systemically irreconcilable.

Once again, the Christian faith stands out as unique in this test, both as a system of thought and in the answers it gives. Christianity does not promise that you will have every question fully answered to your satisfaction before you die, but the answers it gives are consistently consistent. There may be paradoxes within Christian teaching and belief, but they are not irreconcilable. To those who feel that Christianity has failed them because of prayers that went unanswered, it is important to realize what I am saying here.

I sat with a man in my car, talking about a series of heartbreaks he had experienced. “There were just a few things I had wanted in life,” he said. “None of them have turned out the way I had prayed. I wanted my parents to live until I was at least able to stand on my own and they could watch my children grow up. It didn’t happen. I wanted my marriage to succeed, and it didn’t. I wanted my children to grow up grateful for what God had given them. That didn’t happen. I wanted my business to prosper, and it didn’t. Not only have my prayers amounted to nothing; the exact opposite has happened. Don’t even ask me if you can pray for me. I am left with no trust of any kind in such things.”
I felt two emotions rising up within me as I listened. The first was one of genuine sorrow. He felt that he had tried, that he had done his part, but that God hadn’t lived up to his end of the deal. The second emotion was one of helplessness, as I wondered where to begin trying to help him.
These are the sharp edges of faith in a transcendent, all-powerful, personal God. Most of us have a tendency to react with anger or withdrawal when we feel God has let us down by not giving us things we felt were legitimate to ask him for. We may feel guilty that our expectations toward God were too great. We may feel that God has not answered our prayers because of something lacking in ourselves. We may compare ourselves with others whose every wish seems to be granted by God, and wonder why he hasn’t come through for us in the way he does for others. And sometimes we allow this disappointment in God to fester and eat away at our faith in him until the years go by and we find ourselves bereft of belief.
G. K. Chesterton surmised that when belief in God becomes difficult, the tendency is to turn away from him—but, in heaven’s name, to what? To the skeptic or the one who has been disappointed in his faith, the obvious answer to Chesterton’s question may be to give up believing that there’s somebody out there, take charge of your own life, and live it out to the best of your own ability.
But Chesterton also wrote, “The real trouble with the world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite.”(2) He is right. Only so much about life can be understood by reason; so much falls far short of any reasonable explanation. Prayer then becomes the irrepressible cry of the heart at the times we most need it. For every person who feels that prayer has not “worked” for them and has therefore abandoned God, there is someone else for whom prayer remains a vital part of her life, sustaining her even when her prayers have gone unanswered, because her belief and trust is not only in the power of prayer but in the character and wisdom of God. God is the focus of such prayer, and that is what sustains such people and preserves their faith.
Prayer is far more complex than some make it out to be. There is much more involved than merely asking for something and receiving it. In this, as in other contexts, we too often succumb to believing that something is what it never was, even when we know it cannot be as simple as we would like to think it is.

DISPENSATIONALISM

DISPENSATIONALISM


Since the positions and conclusions in Endtimes.org are in line with the Dispensational System of Theology, or point of view, the terms need to be explained. There is no need to fear these terms. They describe some simple concepts related to our understanding of the Old Testament Covenants and how God will develop His kingdom program. Even if you have negative feelings about the term Dispensationalism, please go through the following brief explanation of what it is. It could be that it has never been clearly explained. Dispensationalism has influenced the doctrinal beliefs of many churches, including the Baptist church, the Bible churches, the Pentecostal churches, and many other non-denominational Evangelical churches. You may even be Dispensational in your thinking although not be calling yourself a Dispensationalist. Christian is always a better term, but terms like Dispensationalist helps to define where we are coming from when it comes to our views on Endtimes and the present and future Kingdom of God.



Definition

A Dispensation - The system by which anything is administered. In Christian terms, looking back, it refers to a period in history whereby God dealt with man in a specific way. (Conscience, Law, Grace)
Dispensationalism - A system of theology that sees God working with man in different ways during different dispensations. While 'Dispensations' are not ages, but stewardships, or administrations, we tend to see them now as ages since we look back on specific time periods when they were in force.
Dispensationalism is distinguished by three key principles.
1 - A clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church.
2 - A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation
3 - The understanding of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind.
Ok, what does this mean in layman's terms. Read on.



What about the Dispensations?

The key to Dispensationalism is not in the definition or recognition of a specific number of dispensations. This is a misunderstanding of the opponents of Dispensationalism. Almost all theologians will recognize that God worked differently through the Law than He did through Grace. That is not to say that salvation was attained in a different manner, but that the responsibilities given to man by God were different during the period of the giving of the Law up to the cross, just as they were different for Adam and Eve. The Jews were to show their true faith by doing what God had commanded, even though they couldn't keep the moral Law. That's what the sacrifices were for. When the apostle Paul said that as to the Law he was blameless, he didn't mean that he never sinned, but that he obeyed God by following the guidelines of the Law when he did sin, and animal sacrifices were offered for his sins by the priests in the temple. Salvation came not by keeping the law, but by seeing it's true purpose in exposing sin, and turning to God for salvation. The Jews weren't saved based on how well they kept the law, (as many of them thought) as that would be salvation by works. They were saved through faith in God, and the work of Christ on the cross was counted for them, even though it hadn't happened yet.

Dispensationalists will define three key dispensations, (1) The Mosaic Law, (2) The present age of Grace, and (3) the future Millennial Kingdom. Most will agree about the first two, and Covenant theology will disagree about the third, seeing this as the 'eternal state'. (Since they don't see a literal Millennial Kingdom - the future literal fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom.)

A greater breakdown of specific dispensations is possible, giving most traditional Dispensationalists seven recognizable dispensations.

Innocence - Adam
Conscience - After man sinned, up to the flood
Government - After the flood, man allowed to eat meat, death penalty instituted
Promise - Abraham up to Moses and the giving of the Law
Law - Moses to the cross
Grace - The cross to the Millennial Kingdom
Millennial Kingdom - A 1000 year reign of Christ on earth centered in Jerusalem
While not everyone needs to agree on this breakdown, the point from the Dispensationalists view is that God is working with man in a progressive way. At each stage man has failed to be obedient to the responsibilities set forth by God. The method of salvation, justification by faith alone, never changes through the dispensations. The responsibilities God gives to man does change however. The Jews were to be obedient to the Law if they wished God's blessing of Land. If they were disobedient, they would be scattered. However, God promises to always bring them back to the land promised to Abraham in the Abrahamic Covenant. After the cross, believers no longer need the Law, which pointed to Christ as the one that would take away sin through his perfect sacrifice. (Heb 10) We are under a new Law, the Law of Grace. We have more revelation about God, and are no longer required to keep ceremonial laws given to the Jews. The moral law is always in effect as a guide, but we are no longer condemned by it, since we have a savior that has overcome for us.

Remember that making a distinction between these time periods is not what makes someone Dispensational. Recognizing the progressive nature, and seeing the church as part of Plan A and not Plan B is what makes someone Dispensational. Dispensationalists see a clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the church. God is not finished with Israel. The church didn't take Israel's place. They have been set aside temporarily, but in the Endtimes will be brought back to the promised land, cleansed, and given a new heart. (Gen 12, Deut 30, 2 Sam 7, Jer 31)

Just to clarify what I mean by Plan A and Plan B, I can see how some would say that the church is God's Plan B. However, God knew that the Jews would reject their Messiah. Daniel 9 tells us that the Messiah would be cut off, or killed, and Isaiah 53 speaks of the suffering servant. To call the church Plan B sounds too much like it was his second best plan, as if his efforts were thwarted. God has one redemptive plan for all mankind that was foretold in Genesis 3. The Messiah would come and defeat Satan and death. Now, this doesn't mean that his plan for Israel, and the promises/covenants made with the forefathers are null and void. They are not.



So what is the key to Dispensationalism?

The literal method of interpretation is the key. Using the literal method of interpreting the biblical covenants and prophecy leads to a specific set of core beliefs about God's kingdom program, and what the future will hold for ethnic Israel and for the Church. We therefore recognize a distinction between Israel and the Church, and a promised future earthly reign of Christ on the throne of David. (The Davidic Kingdom.) This leads a person to some very specific conclusions about the Endtimes.

Israel must be re-gathered to their land as promised by God.
Daniel's seventieth week prophecy specifically refers to the purging of the nation Israel, and not the Church. These were the clear words spoken to Daniel. The church doesn't need purging from sin. It is already clean.
Some of the warnings in Matthew 24 are directed at the Jews, and not the Church (since God will be finishing His plan with national Israel)
A Pretribulation rapture - Israel is seen in Daniel as the key player during the tribulation, not the Church. God removes the elect when he brings judgment on the world. i.e. Noah, John 14, 1 Thess 4:16.
Premillennialism - A literal 1000 year Millennial Kingdom, where Christ returns before the Millennium starts. Revelation 20 doesn't give us a reason to interpret the 1000 years as symbolic. Also, Dispensationalists see the promised literal reign of Christ in the OT. Note the chronological order of events between Revelation 19-21.
Charles Ryrie in his book 'Dispensationalism' points out that some Christians have actually called Dispensationalism heretical. Actually it is people that use words like 'heretical' for non essential doctrinal beliefs that are the ones that cause division in the Church. Whether a person believes in a literal future Millennial Kingdom is not essential Christian doctrine. It doesn't rank up there with the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the Atonement, etc. A house divided against itself will not stand. When we get to heaven, or the Millennial Kingdom, whichever will come first, we will understand the truth of all the word of God, but until then there are essential doctrines of the faith that are worth going to battle over. Others are not, since we don't want to be found going to battle with each other, and therefore, with Jesus Christ Himself.



The History of Dispensationalism

While the opponents of Dispensationalism will point out that as a system of theology it is relatively new, it is notable that there is evidence from the early church writers that there was clearly an understanding that God dealt with His people differently in progressive dispensations, and that Israel wasn't seen as replaced by the Church. A small reference to some of these writings is found in 'The Moody Handbook of Theology" by Paul Ennis. He mentions the following Christians as being in the history of the development of Dispensationalism.

Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165)
Iranaeus (A.D. 130-200)
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-220)
Augustine (A.D. 354-430)
Of the above Ryrie says "It is not suggested nor should it be inferred that these early Church Fathers were dispensationalists in the modern sense of the word. But it is true that some of them enunciated principles which later developed into Dispensationalism, and it may be rightly said that they held primitive or early dispensational concepts." With this understanding, the following have written in support of some or all dispensational principles.

Some Dispensational writers

Pierre Poiret (1646-1719)
John Edwards (1637-1716)
Isaac Watts (1674-1748)
John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)
C.I. Scofield (1843-1921)
Lewis Sperry Chafer
Charles Ryrie
Dwight Pentecost
John Walvoord

What do Muslims believe?

What do Muslims believe?

Right belief about God, the universe, and humanity is of primary concern to the Islamic religion. The holy book of Islam, the Quran states, "Righteous is he who believes in Allah and the Last Day and the Angels and the Scriptures and the Prophets" (2:177, go here for more on the Quran). Belief in these doctrines as well as many others are important to Muslims both past and present.

Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam teaches that there is one God in the universe, giving Muslims a monotheistic worldview Also like Judaism and Christianity, Islam teaches about the ministerial office of the prophet, although not all of these faiths agree on who is, and who isn't, a prophet. For example, Christians believe John the Baptist was a prophet and Jews and Muslims don't. And Muslims believe that Muhammad was a prophet, yet Jews and Christians don't. All three faiths also believe in an afterlife, although the makeup of those destinations can be immensely different from each other.

Muslim Beliefs about Allah

The single most important belief in Islam, and arguably the central theme of Islam, is that there is only one God. The name of God is Allah, which is simply Arabic for "the (al) God (Ilah)." The term is related to Elohim, the Hebrew word for God.

Muslim Beliefs about the Prophets

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, is revered as "the Seal of the Prophets" - the last and greatest of the messengers of God. He is not divine in any way, for the strict monotheism that characterizes Islam (as well as Judaism) does not allow for such an interpretation. Other prophets are important in Islam as well, all of which are shared with the Jews or the Christians.

Muslim Beliefs about Human Nature

According to the Quran, Allah "created man from a clot of blood" at the same time he created the jinn from fire. Humans are the greatest of all creatures, created with free will for the purpose of obeying and serving God.

Muslim Beliefs about Life and Salvation

For a Muslim, the object of life is to live in a way that is pleasing to Allah so that one may gain Paradise. It is believed that at puberty, an account of each person's deeds is opened, and this will be used at the Day of Judgment to determine his eternal fate.

Muslim Beliefs about the Afterlife

Like Christianity, Islam teaches the continued existence of the soul and a transformed physical existence after death. There will be a day of judgment and humanity will be divided between the eternal destinations of Paradise and Hell.

Six Articles of Faith

There is no official creed to which one must adhere to be considered a Muslim. All that is required is to believe and recite the Shahada: "There is no God but God, and Muhammad is his Prophet." Beyond this core belief, however, Muslim doctrine is often summarized in "Six Articles of Faith." Many Muslims believe that one must adhere to the six articles to be considered a Muslim.

Muslim Views of Other Religions

The Quran is clear that there must be "no compulsion in religion" (2:256). Yet Islam is not indifferent to conversion either - Muslims consider their religion to the be the one true religion, and invite people of all races, nationalities and religions to be part of it.

Secondary Separation Right or Wrong?

The concept and practice of so-called “secondary separation” is a divisive issue within fundamentalism. It is appropriate now, more than ever, to examine the matter in light of Scripture. What follows is an all-too brief survey of several respected fundamentalist leaders of the past 50 years on this very matter. Their views are briefly presented and analyzed, and some conclusions will be drawn at the end. Hopefully, this modest study will edify the body and exhort fundamentalists to be captive to the Scriptures, wherever they may lead.

At the outset, a brief definition of fellowship must be offered so we’re all on the same page going forward. Loosely, “fellowship” is defined as a union for spiritual purposes. More precisely, a partnering of individuals, churches, organizations or any other group for the purpose of promoting Biblical truth, based on a common spiritual foundation. Therefore, when we discuss a separation among brethren, we are really pondering the question, “With whom or what can I legitimately enter into a spiritual partnership with?” (Oats).

What in the world is “secondary separation?”
Ernest Pickering

A secondary separatist would be one who will not cooperate with (1) apostates; or (2) evangelical believers who aid and abet the apostates by their continued organizational or cooperative alignment with them; or, as employed by some (3) fundamentalists who fellowship with those in the previous category. (217)

Rolland McCune:

“Secondary separation” is the refusal to cooperate with erring and disobedient Christians who do not adhere to primary separation and other vital doctrines. (146)

Douglas McLachlan:

Familial separation is the unfortunate necessity of functional severance from members of the family who are true Christians, when doctrinal or ethical compromise creeps into their lives or ministries. (132)

John R. Rice:

Do you see that since this secondary separation is an artificial, man-made doctrine, in every case it must depend on one’s personal, variable judgment? How much better to follow the simple rules in the Bible. Since there is no clear-cut Bible teaching on the question, secondary separation is a manufactured doctrine that leads to great confusion. And, sad to say, it also leads to passing judgment on Christian brethren, judging people’s motives, and this leads to division and strife among people who really are serving the same Saviour, who believe the same Bible, who preach the same Gospel, and both seek to win souls. That is unfortunate and, I think, unscriptural. (228)

In light of the above, my own working definition of so-called “secondary separation” is this:

A secondary separatist is a Christian who will not cooperate with:

apostates
true Christians who aid and abet the apostates by their continued organizational or cooperative alignment with them
true Christians, when a Scripturally defensible claim of doctrinal or ethical compromise creeps into their lives or ministries
This is a concise definition, and one all fundamentalists would do well to adopt. Many would disagree, and I believe they are wrong. John R. Rice, as we will see, draws his circle of fellowship around the fundamentals of the faith and allows very wide latitude within this boundary. His views may surprise many, especially fundamentalists of the Sword of the Lord vintage.

John R. Rice
Rice was strongly against secondary separation. His primary focus was revivals and soul-winning, and his theology on separation reflects this. For Rice, the threshold of orthodoxy was the fundamentals of the faith—period. Rice would accept any Christian so long as he espoused (1) faith and salvation in Christ, (2) the Bible, (3) the virgin birth, (4) blood atonement, (5) the deity and (6) bodily resurrection of Christ (182, 224). I have chosen to spend a great deal of time on Rice because I believe he speaks for a great many frustrated fundamentalists on this matter.

The important thing is, is a man for Christ and the Bible? If he is, and he makes no divisive issues and strife, then fellowship with him. So the Scripture teaches. That means I can fellowship with some who fellowship with some they ought not to fellowship with. (182)

[W]e have an obligation to have brotherly love and kindness and charity toward those who are weak in the faith, but just so they are “in the faith. (224)

Rice would likely separate from fundamentalists who were in favor of secondary separation, citing Rom 14:1 as support.

Listen, you are not to run with anybody if it means quarreling and strife and division and hair pulling and hell raising. Say to that one, “God bless you, but go your way, and I will go mine.” If there is going to be strife and no real unity and no real heartfelt joy and results for God, then sometimes we cannot cooperate with Christians who make strife over minor issues. They are weak in the faith and they make an insistent division over it. (184)

Rice decried what he saw as undue obsession with division at the expense of evangelism. Fighting modernism was not Rice’s main priority—evangelism was.

The tendency to go to extremes appears in the matter of defending the faith and standing up for Christ and the Bible. Those of us who would defend the faith and expose false prophets are constantly urged to attack good Christians, to spend our time and energy in fighting good Christians who may not agree with us on some matters or may be wrong on lesser matters but are born-again, Bible-believing, soul-winning Christians. We have followed a simple course down through the years. We are against infidels and false teachers. We are for good Christians. (196)

Rice’s most passionate plea was for Christians to have perspective. The great division, he warned, is between those who are saved and those who are lost. “Let us face it honestly: Are we going to fight for God’s people and against Satan’s people? That is what we ought to be” (197).

Rice’s critique of secondary separation
Rice’s guiding verses on this matter were Ps 119:63 and Rom 14:1 (221). He outright denied that Scripture teaches separation from brethren. “No, there is nothing in the Bible like that” (224). He saw separation as an “all or nothing” proposition. He did not allow for the different “levels” of separation that Ernest Pickering wrote about, which we will examine in the next article. He defined the doctrine as follows:

But what is called ‘secondary separation’ means not only must the Christian be separated from liberals, modernists, unbelievers, but he is to separate from anybody who does not separate enough from unbelievers. (218)

Rice charged that Christians are commanded to fellowship and love other Christians (Jn 13:34-35), and this very love, not division, should guide Christians in this matter. Fractious, subjective battles among real Christians divide the body and hinder the cause of Christ.

But still the weight of the Scripture here is tremendous. We should love other Christians as Christ loved us. Our love for others ought to be such an obvious fact that people will know Christians are different. So only a very serious matter ought ever hinder the fellowship of good Christians who love each other. (222)

Most fundamentalists who uphold separation from brethren point to 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 as support. Their arguments will be presented shortly, but I ask Christians to examine the passage for themselves and reach their own conclusions. Rice expressly denied that 2 Thess 3:6-15 teaches secondary separation, labeling this “a clearly biased interpretation” (226). He maintained it merely taught that the disorder in question was eating without working (224-225).

Going back to his call for unity for the sake of evangelism, Rice protested that secondary separation resulted in arbitrary decisions. “Where can one draw the line? Unless he takes the plain Bible position of separation from the unsaved and the restrained fellowship with Christians who live in gross sin, one will make subjective decisions according to his own preference” (226-228). Fred Moritz dismisses such objections as a “smokescreen,” and calls for biblical discernment on the matter (84).

Finally, Rice appealed to examples of other Godly fundamentalists to bolster his case, men who did participate in inter-denominational fellowship for the sake of the Gospel, including Moody, Billy Sunday, R.A. Torrey, Bob Jones, Sr., H.A. Ironside, W.B. Riley, Bob Schuler and J. Frank Norris (228-234).

Rice’s work on separation was published in the midst of his very public falling out with Bob Jones, Jr. Any honest Christian will admit that views change with perspective, as hard-won knowledge, wisdom and experience are brought to bear upon tough issues. Perhaps Rice would have taken a harder line on separation earlier in his ministry. Regardless, a position must be evaluated in light of Scripture, not by the character of the man promoting it.

Rice’s plea for unity is appealing, but incorrect. He errs by failing to acknowledge different levels of fellowship and ignores Scriptures which clearly teach separation from brethren. In this respect, Rice epitomized a particular fundamentalist mindset which is antithetical to militant separatism. George Marsden remarked,

Antedating fundamentalist anti-modernism was the evangelical revivalist tradition out of which fundamentalism had grown. The overriding preoccupation of this tradition was the saving of souls. Any responsible means to promote this end was approved. (67)

Westminister - from Huffington Post -

Would you be surprised to learn that a tenured professor of the Old Testament is the center of controversy at a Christian seminary? What if I said he's "retiring" by action of the school's board -- another way of saying "terminated," according to a former department chair?

No? I didn't think so.

Every year there are multiple stories in the news about conservative Christian schools -- Bryan College, Calvin College or Cedarville University, for example -- who are terminating faculty over beliefs. In the case above, the professor is Douglas Green. He is not the first to be forced out of his position at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia; he's also not likely to be the last.

The newest controversy at Westminster is a reminder that the old definition of the fundamentalist -- someone who not only knows what's right for himself or herself, but also what's right for everyone else -- remains true. It is also a reminder that fundamentalist tidal changes bring with them a constant stream of negative consequences.

By way of full-disclosure: my experience with Westminster was as a student, entering near the beginning of a decade of upheaval. Those days -- which represent a world I no longer belong to -- helped to change the way I view religion and the way I approach my profession (more here). In fact, it partly led me to write a book on academic freedom in religious higher education.

As you would expect, Westminster is in my book, and right before it even had a chance to go to press, they managed to push out another faculty member. In other words, the making of the fundamentalist sausage isn't over. And if you want to understand what makes fundamentalists tick, Westminster is a good place to start.

First, Some Bible-y Stuff
Westminster is a conservative, Calvinist-Reformed school and it is currently obsessed with an error-less Bible. Any idea that asserts a limited knowledge by the human authors is seen as relinquishing that belief. This is where Green comes in.

Green says that the Bible -- and books in it like Genesis, for example -- should be read in two ways: Firstly, read "Genesis on its own terms," as an "unfolding story," meaning, "as an Israelite book, and not (yet) a Christian book!" The second way means letting "the Jesus-ending of Israel's story reshape the way you interpret" Genesis, which "is the way you read Genesis as a Christian book."

So what's the problem?

His way of reading the Bible, says Westminster, "creates a disunity between the human and divine authors," and is "inconsistent" with their doctrinal standards. They think he should only read the Bible as a Christian book, never resulting in a disagreement between the Old and New Testaments.

Okay, that's enough of the details, because I'm certain your eyes might have sunk to the back of your head in boredom and you really need them functioning to read the rest of this piece and express outrage in the comments below.

What you really need to know is that Westminster is so serious about how precisely their faculty approach the Bible that they really don't bother to pretend to listen to other perspectives. In fact, they glory in their rightness and it is this, and how they enforce it among faculty, that is the core of fundamentalism, even if they wouldn't accept that label.

Fundamentalists Know Best
In a recent interview with Kelly James Clark here on The Huffington Post, Peter Enns (who likewise "resigned" in 2008) said that Westminster's seventeenth-century theological tradition "is perceived by its adherents to enjoy an unassailable permanence," without a need for "serious adjustments, let alone critical reflection..."

For example, at the eve of a decade of controversy, one of its most-revered professors, Richard Gaffin, wrote in the school's journal that the Calvinist-Reformed faith is the only "true religion." Other traditions of Christianity are "less perfectly or defectively developed" when compared to Westminster's Reformed Calvinism.

As if that isn't enough to infuriate most Christians, he continues on to say that Reformed theology "is not so much working together with those traditions out of a common theological orientation, as it is seeking to correct them." This perspective epitomizes the theological alpha-male culture I saw develop as a student at Westminster and which quickly engulfed the school.

Fundamentalists Take-Over Fast
Westminster's history has not been without controversy; it was founded as a break-away school from Princeton Seminary over theology in 1929. Despite this background, dismissing tenured faculty over disagreements was a rare thing. These are scholars from schools like Harvard, Yale and Emory University, so who would expect them to be on the exact same page?

Only one tenured faculty member was terminated under its first president and none were removed under the next two. But it is hard to dismiss the current change of direction as nothing new. Under its current president, Peter A. Lillback, three tenured faculty members -- Samuel T. Logan, Peter Enns and Douglas Green -- have been removed with severance agreements in just under ten years. Lillback's administration is heavily connected to conservative Right Wing Evangelicalism. For example, his self-published book on George Washington was praised by Glenn Beck and Westminster recently contributed a brief in the Hobby Lobby case that came before the U.S. Supreme Court.

When I arrived as a student, Westminster had a growing, more diverse student body and was known for academic rigor. It had even invited guests to speak who were involved in ecumenical dialogue, like Charles Colson. Going from that to what it is today is a testament to the fundamentalist tour de force.

In the height of the controversy over Samuel T. Logan and Peter Enns, eight board members resigned and another faculty member, Steve Taylor, left on his own because Enns was not given a hearing and he no longer saw room for progressive scholarship at the school.

But removing people is the cost of doing God's business when you are a fundamentalist school. Carl R. Trueman, academic dean when both Enns and Logan were pushed out, bragged about their strategy, saying they "organized and prepared for every eventuality, putting into place safety nets and multiple 'Plan Bs', they identified the places where influence could be wielded, mastered procedure, fought like the blazes when they had to, stood strong and immovable in the face of violent opposition and outmanoeuvred their opponents by continual attention to meeting agendas, points of order, procedural matters and long-term coordinated strategy."

Students like myself showed concern, but, says Trueman, they "did not waste time and energy on irrelevant sideshows like rhetorical petitions" from students, since "angry but sincere petitioners generally lose, while sincere but canny parliamentarians generally win." And with Douglas Green leaving, Westminster apparently continues to win in their move to purify their ranks.

Heroes of Our Own Stories
And there you have it; fundamentalists have absolute "truth," or as Westminster's mission states it, a commitment to "the systematic exposition of biblical truth known as the Reformed faith." Nothing can change their minds, leaving the "less perfectly or defectively developed" Christians stranded in their wake.

We are all the heroes of our own stories, so it is easy to justify almost anything, including how we treat people. At some point, however, Westminster's story became a rampant institutional narcissism. And like Narcissus, it may eventually die in trying to possess itself.