Foundationalism

Some men cry for unity, others for separation. Some men say lets all work together, others say never. Years ago men facing those who would introduce errors into Christianity wrote a series of pamphlets called The Fundamentals. These pamphlets identified what these men believed to be fundamental to Christianity. They chose to separater from those who rejected what they believed to be fundamental to the Christian faith. Unfortunately over time the term became corrupted and has come to refer to religeous extremeism. Also over time new errors have crept into Christianity. Yet there is little organized opposition to these errors. Those who claim to be fundamentalists often separate from each other. The Bible declares the need for unity but within some Christian circles there is very little unity. Others for the sake of unity would have us work with anyone who claims to be a Christian. Yet the Bible is clear that there is a time when Christians must separate. There is a need to return to the only true foundation of the Christian faith. Psalm 11:3 states, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Just as Christ is the foundation of the Church, the Bible is the foundation of the Christian faith. Unfortunately, there are many who call themselves Christians who reject part or all of the Bible as the Word of God. Christians ought to work together as much as possible, but there comes a time when they must separate.

All around the world, men cry for unity. They say that Christians need to put aside denominations and come together. Even within old time fundamentalist circles, men cry for unity in place of what others consider essential doctrine. Ought this to be? The scriptures are clear in this regard. There comes a time when those who believe the Bible must separate.

One group that the Apostle Paul dealt with was the Judaizers. This group desired to add works to salvation by insisting that believers not only take Christ by faith, but also obey all of the Jewish law, both the part given by God, and the traditions added by men. The Apostle Paul did not try to seek a common ground with the Judaizers. He did not try to work with them, but rather steadfastly opposed them. In Galatians 1:8 he stated, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” The Apostle Paul is emphatic that true Christians cannot work with those who do not preach the same gospel that we preach.

Yet it was not just the Gospel the Apostle Paul ordered us to separate over. In I Corinthians 5 the Apostle dealt with the issue of a Christian walking in open sin. While the passage primarily deals with church discipline, it also gives valuable principles for separation. I Corinthians 5:11 states, “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one, no not to eat.” In the culture to which Paul wrote, eating with someone implied close fellowship with them. If we are not to fellowship with someone, than certainly we are not to work alongside them.

It was not just Paul who ordered Christians to separate. The Apostle John did so as well. In II John 10-11 he states, “If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed: for he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds.” The doctrine the Apostle John refers to is the doctrine of Christ. In this passage John writes to those who receive travelling Christian workers into their homes to care for them in their journeys. He warns those who care for these men that they are associating themselves with false teachers. He tells them to separate themselves from them, that they not receive their condemnation as well.

Clearly there is a time to separate. But when should Christians separate? Should they separate over every little disagreement? Or should they just separate over the major ones? Who is to decide what a major disagreement is? The original fundamentalists chose several issues to separate over. They chose the issues in response to specific errors that had crept in. Unfortunately, new errors have crept into the faith. Christians have had varied responses to these errors. There are many views on exactly when to separate. Psalm 11:3 states, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” There is one foundation to the Christian faith, and that is the Bible. If you remove the Bible from the faith, than you remove every doctrine in the faith. The belief in the inspired, inerrant, preserved, authoritative word of God is the one foundational belief of the Christian faith.

The belief that the Bible is inspired by God is central to the Christian faith. II Timothy 3:16 states, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” The phrase “given by inspiration of God” literally means “God breathed.” The writers of scripture were not just inspired by God to put down their thoughts, rather God gave them the very words to write. If God did not inspire the Bible and all we have is a collection of mens writings that may or may not be true, then how can we know what is true? Some men say that the Bible is the Word of God when it speaks to you. Yet if this is true than we have no clear faith whatsoever. Some will say that a particular passage speaks to them, while others will say that it does not speak to them. For Christianity to have a solid foundation, the Bible must be the inspired Word of God.

Not only must the Bible be the the inspired Word of God, but it also must be inerrant. There can be no possibility of error in the Bible for Christianity to have a solid foundation. The story us told of two young boys who enjoyed stealing watermelons from a particular patch. The old man who owned the patch became tired of this practice and posted a sign saying, “One poisoned watermelon.” The boys came again to steal watermelons and read the sign. They were upset because they could not know which watermelon was poisoned. Then one of the boys had a bright idea. He crossed out the one on the sign and wrote two. The next morning the old man came out and read the sign. He was upset because now he could not use any of the watermelons because he could not know which other watermelon was poisoned. The Bible is like those watermelons. Once we admit the possibility of error, we cannot know which part is in error. Truly, for Christianity to have a solid foundation, the Bible must be inerrant.

One issue that has come of late in fundamentalism is the issue of the preservation of the Bible. In the mid 1800's two men named Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort decided that God had not preserved His Word, but that over the years copyists had introduced errors into the manuscripts. Over time this view began to seep into fundamentalism. This view rejects the many passages in the Bible that teach that God will preserve His Word. This view rejects the logic that shows that if God gave mankind His Word for all ages, than He would preserve it. This view rejects faith in God's power in favor of man's reasoning. The same problem with the inerrancy of the Bible arises here. If copyists have intentionally or unintentionally introduced errors into the Bible, then without the original manuscripts, also known as the autographa, we cannot know what is true and what is false. We cannot know what part is God's workd and what part is man's invention. For Christianity to have a solid foundation we must accept the Bible is the what it is, the preserved Word of God.

If the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, preserved Word of God, than it must be our authority for all our doctrines and practices. It is not enough to accept the Bible in some areas but try to explain it away in others. We must accept the Bible in all areas if it is the inspired Word of God. Many today who call themselves Christians reject parts of the Bible entirely. There are some issues where the Bible is not completely clear and we must apply principles taught in the Bible. The Bible could not be God's Word for all ages and specifically address every issue that has arisen or will arise without being a book that would make no sense to the average reader. Instead God chose to give principles that can be applied for all time. On application of principles good men may disagree, but when the Bible is clear on a subject there can be no disagreement if the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. The issue of rock music is an area where good men may disagree. The Bible does not say, “Thou shalt not listen to rock music,” but it dow give principles that some apply to the issue. On the other hand, the issue of women pastors is an area that the Bible is clear on. The Bible is very clear when it states that a pastor must be “the husband of one wife.” When a church ordains a woman as a pastor, they are rejecting the authority of the Bible. It is impossible to accept the Bible as the authoritative Word of God in some areas, and reject it in others. Either the Bible is the Word of God or it is not. For Christianity to have its foundation, we must believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God.

While unity among Christians is to be desired, the Bible is clear that there is a time when we must separate from other Christians. We ought not separate over every little disagreement, but when someone rejects the authority of an inspired, inerrant, preserved Word of God in an area in which it is clear, than we must separate. As men attempt to tear down the inspiration of the Bible, Christians must take a stand. As men deny the inerrancy of the Bible, Christians must stand firm. As men turn to versions of the Bible which deny that God preserved His Word, Christians must rise up for the Bible. As men deny the authority of the Bible in their lives and worship, Christians must stand firm on their foundation, the Bible. Psalms 11:3 tells us, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Satan still seeks to destroy the foundation of the Christian faith. It is time for Christians to rise up and stand firm for the foundation of our faith, the inspired, inerrant, preserved, authoritative Word of God.

So Many to Choose From

There is much discussion among Christians as to which version of the Bible to use. Translation philosophies and ease of use dominate the debate. Rarely does one hear a word concerning the underlying texts they are translated from and the philosophies concerning those texts. Some will argue for the use of older manuscripts on the grounds that because they are older, they are close to the originals. They fail to explain certain problems with these texts. One of the core philosphies of the texts used for modern translations is that God did not preserve His Word. They believe that over time copyists introduced errors into the texts, and that we must now use man's wisdom to determine what God wanted to tell us. They hold that an older text is automatically superior to a newer text. Unfortunately, people who hold this view miss several key problems. God has promised many times in His Word to preserve it. Also there is the logical problem. It would make no sense at all for God to say, "Alright, here is my Word for all time; see if you can keep it." Rather, when men sat down with the desire to create an accurate copy of God's Word, God enabled them to make an accurate word for word copy. Another problem that is ignored is the number of surviving texts. There are very few of these surviving older manuscripts, compared to a family of several thousand slightly newer manuscripts that agree almost word for word. Often unmentioned in discussion concerning which Bible version to use is the reason these older manuscripts survived. Texts of the Bible were few, so people read and reread the manuscripts that they had. They read them until they crumbled. The only ones that they did not do this to were the ones that they discarded because they had errors in them. In fact, the few older manuscripts that people refer to have known errors. It all comes down to faith really. Do we want to use Bibles that are translated from texts based on man's fallible wisdom or do we want to use Bibles that are based on texts rooted in trust in God and His preserving power. If the source for the translation is flawed, then the end product will be flawed. I use only the King James Version because it is the only version translated entirely from the traditional texts rooted in faith in God.

An Examination of the debate on dress standards

Deuteronomy 22:5 "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." The issue of dress standards has been contentious at times, with extreme positions taken by many on both sides. It is undeniable that the acceptable standard for men's and women's clothing has changed over the years. Now many would ask or even demand that we give up this debate, but I cannot do so. The Scripture is clear that there must be a distinction between men's and women's attire. Some will argue that the law has passed, yet some parts will never pass. When the scripture declares something to be an abomination unto God, it is declaring it to be against the very nature of God. Since God never changes, those things declared an abomination to Himwill always be an abomination to Him. Some will argue that at the time the Law was given men and women both wore robes, yet that was not completely the case. In Leviticus 16:4 we see the High Priest commanded to wear linen britches on the Day of Atonement. In fact, all Jewish men wore britches, or shorts underneath their robes. We get many of our ideas for how people dressed by looking at Egyptian and Greek archeology. Yet both of these cultures rejected the Lord and His laws, often to extremes. It is not wise to turn to ungodly cultures to see how godly people behaved. Some will often then advance the argument that a woman cannot be modest doing all activities in a dress. To this I will agree. However, I will state this, there needs to be a clear distinction in men's attire and women's attire. Some will state that in I Timothy 2:9 the phrase "modest apparel" should be translated "robe type garment." To this I will reply that a careful word study of the phrase used in this passage reveals that it is used in the sense of a generic garment. However, this passage gives us another important principle to follow, that clothing should not only be distinct, yet also modest. Unfortunately, most styles of women's attire today either are immodestly tight, or are to similar to men's attire. Good men may often disagree on the application of these principles, yet at the same time, they must acknowledge that to teach dress standards for men or women as doctrine is not wrong. Doctrine simply means teachings. The Bible has many things that we consider doctrine. As for me, I will continue to hold to my position that women's atttire needs to be modest, and distinct from men's attire.