Ich ben ein Fundamentalist [Part 2]

From Meteoric Rise to Flaming Crash in One Century

In my previous article, I mentioned that there were two things about Baptist Fundamentalism that I found useful and good: their focus on the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and their zeal for evangelism. In this issue, we trace those two things as they played out in the Fundamental Baptist ranks in the United States, particularly in Texas, where I am most familiar with the movement, being part of it for a number of years.

Despite the fact that the two focuses of Fundamental Baptists seemed at first glance to be fine and proper things, the truth of the matter is that in an effort to be “successful,” both those commendable goals were soon corrupted in the ranks of Fundamental Baptists, and this state of affairs continues to plague the movement [what’s left of it] to this very day. I will use these two things to illustrate this corruption of truth.

First, there is the corruption of evangelism, expressed most clearly in Fundamentalism by the practice of decisionism, and its concomitant perversion, the “altar call,” or “invitation” system, sometimes called ritualized regeneration. The second corrupting thing is more a view than a practice. What is a sound doctrine, the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures and the assertion of the sufficiency and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, is by the Fundamentalists diluted into the pathetic, perverted and profoundly ignorant view called “King James Only-ism.” That these things are part and parcel of Fundamentalism is vividly displayed and attested to by the fact that I saw them both portrayed in use this very last weekend here in Holland, MI. These perversions have not abated a bit among Fundamentalist churches - and they seem all the more proud of the fact, instead of the shame that they ought to feel.

Decisionism, the foundation of the altar call

We will speak to the issue of the perversion of Biblical evangelism which we termed ritualized regeneration or decisionism first, since I believe it is directly related to the other errors. What do I mean by ritualized regeneration? By this charge I mean to suggest that the Fundamentalists have abandoned Biblical evangelism altogether and replaced it with a ritual that to them passes for what among the Fundamentalists is thought to be the new birth. In fact, the idea that salvation or the new birth is a human decision or based on a human decision is in fact a horrible heresy which strikes at the very heart of the Gospel of Christ. Instead of a practice that should be pursued, it is a perversion that ought to be immediately condemned and eradicated from the earth. Strong language, for sure, but deserved; I will argue my case in future installments here on my blog.

In the Fundamental Baptist mind, the new birth is a decision made by man. To aggravate the matter, they follow the Arminian view of the ordo salutis, putting faith and repentance before the new birth. It is “man’s part,” the common verbal invitation puts it: “God has done his part, now it’s your turn to do your part.” Then there is this one: “Satan has cast his vote for you. God has cast his vote for you. Now you must vote to determine who will win your soul.” Those kinds of statements, or something close to them, are heard repeatedly in Fundamental Baptist churches even though such statement manifestly teach the very same doctrine of soteriology as the Catholic Church! That’s right: it is in essence the same as what the Catholic Church teaches, as well as the Arminianism of the Methodist Church. In fact, it is so obvious that I sometimes, with a bit of biting sarcasm, call my Fundamental Baptist friends “Catholic-Baptists,” or “Methodist-Baptists,” because their doctrine of salvation is far more closely related to the doctrines of those denominations than to any historic Baptist view. The irony of this is that Fundamentalism has always considered the Roman Catholic Church as its mortal enemy, with Methodism and its entire sanctification not far behind . And yet, at the turn of this new century, it is clear and obvious that Fundamental Baptists apparently teach essentially the same view as those two denominations: soteriological synergism.

Synergism versus Monergism

What it that? One excellent web site has this definition:

Monergism: The view that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects regeneration of Christians. It is in contrast with synergism, the view that there is a cooperation between the divine and the human in the regeneration process. Monergism is a redemptive blessing purchased by Christ for those the Father has given Him (1 Pet 1:3, John 3:5,6, 6:37, 39). This grace works independently of any human cooperation and conveys that power into the fallen soul whereby the person who is to be saved is effectually enabled to respond to the gospel call (John 1:13; Acts 2:39, 13:48; Rom 9:16).

B.B. Warfield, a noted Reformed theologian, says it most plainly in an article entitled “The Plan of Salvation.” He maintains, and rightly in my estimation, that there are at the end of the day but two forms of salvation: synergism and monergism.

The opposition between the two systems was thus absolute. In the one, everything was attributed to man; in the other, everything was ascribed to God. In them, two religions, the only two possible religions at bottom, met in mortal combat: the religion of faith and the religion of works; the religion which despairs of self and casts all its hope on God the Saviour, and the religion which puts complete trust in self; or since religion is in its very nature utter dependence on God, religion in the purity of its conception and a mere quasi-religious moralism.

Further, Warfield said of Pelagianism, the system which I believe is at the root of Fundamental Baptist theology as practiced in the churches today, the following:

The Pelagian scheme therefore embraces the following points. God has endowed man with an inalienable freedom of will, by virtue of which he is fully able to do all that can be required of him. To this great gift God has added the gifts of the law and the gospel to illuminate the way of righteousness and to persuade man to walk in it; and even the gift of Christ to supply an expiation for past sins for all who will do righteousness, and especially to set a good example. Those who, under these inducements and in the power of their ineradicable freedom, turn from their sins and do righteousness, will be accepted by the righteous God and rewarded according to their deeds.

This distinction is a telling one. A fair reading of the paragraph above, one can see the parallels with the modern Arminian Fundamentalist church. Phrases such as “inalienable freedom of will” and “fully able to do all that can be required of him” peal forth regularly from Fundamentalist pulpits. The Fundamental Baptist today would, upon reading the above, say: “So? What’s the problem with that?” The very notion which the practice of decisionism suggests is that the work of salvation is a cooperative work between God and the sinner and not the sole and sovereign work of the Spirit of God in granting spiritual birth from above. God has his part in convicting of sin, but man has his part in deciding whether or not he [the sinner] will allow God to save him. In that view, common in Fundamental Baptist ranks, God appears to be the Great Cajoler, who spends His time trying to get people to believe the Gospel but is unable to prevail with any sinner unless and until that sinner, by some plenary power of human free will, allows God to work his “magic.” It is this awful theology that ironically makes the Fundamental Baptist practice of decisionism a first cousin of Catholicism. Catholicism believes the exact same thing: man must cooperate with God to be saved. In the instance of Catholicism, man’s part is doing works of merit (good works), and though the Fundamentalist would be loath to admit so crass a thing as that, in fact their own system and practice equate to the very same thing. Man must first exercise his faith [which, they, the Catholics and Arminians say, God grants to all men] to give God permission or to allow God to give him the new birth. To put it bluntly, the new birth in the Fundamental Baptist mind is God reacting to the faith of man, not the sinner responding to God’s work of regeneration [the new birth; being born from above] by believing and repenting. In this they unfortunately put the cart before the horse. And it is a serious, and even an eternally fatal error.