maranatha baptist theological journal volume 1.1
DESCRIPTION
The E-Journal of Maranatha Baptist Seminary, addressing theological and practical issues from a biblical viewpoint.TRANSCRIPT
Maranatha
Baptist Theological Journal
Maranatha Baptist Bible College
Maranatha Baptist Seminary
Volume 1, Number 1
Spring 2011
Maranatha
Baptist Theological Journal www.mbbc.edu/journal ISSN 2160-1623
Published semi-annually by
Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary 745 W. Main Street Watertown, Wisconsin 53094
920.261.9300 www.mbbc.edu www.mbbc.edu/seminary
Editor: Larry R. Oats
Communications and books for review should be addressed to the editor. The Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is published two times a year (spring and fall). The Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is a ministry of Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary. Copyright © by Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary. All rights reserved. Materials in this publication may not be reproduced without the permission of the Editor, except for reproduction for classroom use by students or professors.
Maranatha
Baptist Theological Journal
Volume One, Number One
INTRODUCTION 1
LARRY OATS
PRESIDENT’S PAGE 5
MARTY MARRIOTT
MARANATHA IS BAPTIST 9
DAVID SAXON
MARANATHA IS FUNDAMENTALIST 27
FRED MORITZ
MARANATHA IS DISPENSATIONAL 67
BRUCE MEYER
MARANATHA IS MINISTRY 103
BRIAN TRAINER
MARANATHA COMMITMENT STATEMENTS 125
BIBLE AND SEMINARY FACULTY
Introduction
Welcome to the first edition of the Maranatha
Baptist Theological Journal. This peer-reviewed journal
is the product of Maranatha Baptist Bible College and
Seminary. The purpose of the Maranatha Baptist
Theological Journal is to promote biblical scholarship
from a Baptist, dispensational, and conservative
theological position. Articles will be academic and
practical, biblical and theological, focused on the
needs of the pastor and church leader, and, above all,
faithful to God‘s Word.
Maranatha Baptist Seminary and Maranatha
Baptist Bible College educate men for pastoral and
related ministries and women for ministry
opportunities in cross-cultural studies, counseling,
and other biblically-based ministries.
Maranatha seeks to strike a balance between the
necessary academic studies suitable for an advanced
education with the practical experiential needs of the
fulltime minister. Therefore, Maranatha Baptist
Seminary has chosen to hire men as fulltime
professors in the academic areas of biblical studies,
theology, history, and languages. Professors in
pastoral studies and cross-cultural studies are
adjuncts who are currently involved in the area of
ministry in which they teach; in this way, our students
will be learning from current practitioners in the
arenas of practical theology.
2 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Maranatha also seeks to assist men and women
who desire to remain where they are, while still
obtaining some biblical education. Some of these may
already be in a ministry they do not want to leave.
Others are not in fulltime ministry and have no call to
be, but they may want to enhance their ability to serve
in a volunteer capacity in their churches. Still others
are interested in entering ministry, but are unsure of
God‘s call on their lives and are not yet ready to uproot
their families and move to begin their seminary
education. Toward these ends, Maranatha Baptist
Bible College offers an online Bible Certificate
program, consisting of our undergraduate Bible core
and an online Masters of Arts in Bible. This allows
those who wish to remain in their current location to
actively pursue formal education. Maranatha
Seminary also offers virtual classes; these are our
traditional semester-based classes offered through the
internet, using technology on the Seminary site that
allows the student to see and hear both the professor
and the students, to view the class notes, PowerPoints,
and other materials the professor uses, and to ask
questions and participate in the discussion in real
time. Maranatha Baptist Seminary also offers one-
week modules in January, May, and June.
Maranatha believes that a Christian servant is
most effective when he or she has a comprehensive
working knowledge of the Old and New Testaments
and systematic theology. Maranatha believes that the
interpretation of Scripture needs to be thoroughly
grounded in a grammatical-historical hermeneutic that
Introduction 3
is based on a dispensational approach to the
Scripture. Maranatha believes that the most effective
Christian servant is one who gives himself to the
diligent study of the biblical text itself, especially in the
original languages if at all possible. The rewards of a
thorough academic preparation and continued study
of the Word over a lifetime of ministry are eternal.
Maranatha also believes that the education of a
person in ministry, whether as a vocation or volunteer,
is a continuing process. For that reason, Maranatha
has begun its own Theological Journal to assist
individuals in their ongoing education. The Maranatha
Baptist Theological Journal seeks, therefore, to provide
for the serious student of the Word a continuing series
of articles from which the teacher or preacher may
draw upon for sermon preparation, teaching,
evaluation of theological trends, background
information, proper exegesis, and other areas of
interest and benefit for the ministry. While the
majority of the articles will be written by the
Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary faculty
and administration, contributing writers from our
movement will also provide additional articles
periodically.
This initial volume will be different than following
volumes. In this volume, we seek to identify who we
are, by providing you with articles that outline the
primary theological qualifiers of Maranatha. We are a
Baptist institution, thankful for our heritage, and
adhering to a New Testament ecclesiology. We are
fundamentalists, for we believe that there are core
4 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
doctrines of Scripture that cannot be compromised
without losing the truth of Scripture and the
confidence of salvation. We are dispensational, which
means that we hold to a literal, or perhaps better
called, a normal interpretation of Scripture. We are
ministry-oriented. All of the academic tools and
positions would be worthless if our students were not
committed to serve in local churches, mission fields,
schools, and other Christian ministries. We are
theologically conservative. The Maranatha Position
Statement that concludes this volume is an extension
and explanation of our doctrinal statement that will
give the reader a clearer understanding of Maranatha‘s
theological positions. We trust that you will be blessed
and challenged as you read this first issue of the
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal.
Larry R. Oats
Editor
President’s Page
Maranatha has a rich and uncompromising
heritage in Baptist fundamentalism. I came to the
campus as a junior in 1974 with no understanding of
the ancient origins, recent history, or defining
principles of Baptists. I left the campus several years
later to serve the Lord, profoundly appreciative of our
heritage and thoroughly committed to the practice of
Baptist distinctives.
The duty to earnestly contend for the faith once
delivered to the saints is part of Maranatha‘s
institutional fabric. As I continued study in several
other schools, I discovered that the dedication, resolve,
and sacrifices necessary to fundamentalist principles
were lacking. My professors at Maranatha not only
taught the important truth of biblical separation
inherent in fundamentalism, but they were daily living
the principles. These professors could have taught in
other more prestigious schools, but they chose to
minister ―outside the camp‖ in special fellowship with
Christ and following His example. It was apparent to
this young student that it had cost something for them
to serve the Savior in the context of obedient
separation from apostasy and compromise.
One only has to reflect on the name ―Maranatha‖—
Behold, He comes—to know that the College is
committed to a dispensational hermeneutic. The last
stanza of the school hymn reads:
6 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
―Maranatha,‖ He cometh! Behold in the sky,
A SHOUT! a VOICE, the TRUMP OF GOD! Our Lord is
drawing nigh!
Believe Him, receive Him, look up and thou shalt be
TO THE PRAISE OF HIS GLORY with Him eternally!
Church-age believers are looking for His coming in
the Rapture. After that, the Lord will again begin to
deal directly with Israel, keeping His promises to His
chosen nation and completing His plan for her
millennial prominence.
Maranatha recognizes God‘s unique plans for both
Israel and the church. Maranatha‘s mission, defined
by God‘s plan for making Himself known in this
dispensation, is to train leaders for ministry in the
local church and in the world. Preparation for ministry
requires local church involvement, as well as personal
witness to the world in the context of campus
discipleship. Leadership opportunities on campus and
in local church participation, prepare students for
serving the Lord in any life vocation. They learn the
importance of discipline, duty, and deference to others,
as well as the highest values in time and for eternity.
Volume 1 of the Maranatha Baptist Theological
Journal (MBTJ) features four articles. The first three
describe Maranatha‘s foundational distinctives.
Maranatha‘s position theologically is Baptist,
fundamental, and dispensational. The institution‘s
methods and goals for student discipleship are
described in the last article of this volume.
President‘s Page 7
Our hope is that this volume will both inform
readers of Maranatha‘s identity and advance them in
spiritual understanding and Christian living. If these
goals are realized, we will be grateful to the Lord.
Marty Marriott
President
Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary
MBTJ 1/1: 9-26
Maranatha is Baptist
David Saxon1
Shortly after arriving to teach at Maranatha
Baptist Bible College in 1999, I heard from one of my
colleagues that he was ―first a Baptist, and second a
fundamentalist.‖ I found that interesting because I had
always formulated my identity in the opposite fashion:
―first a fundamentalist, and second a Baptist.‖ My
reasoning was that one must believe the fundamentals
of the faith before the beliefs that make one a Baptist
even matter. The fundamentals relate to the gospel,
after all. What could be more foundational—
fundamental—than the gospel?
After serving at Maranatha for a number of years
now, I am beginning to understand my colleague‘s
formulation of the question. He is certainly not
suggesting that the Baptist distinctives are more
important, essential, or foundational than the
fundamentals of the faith. They are, however, more
defining. Affirming that one is a fundamentalist
certainly links one with a great and historic tradition
of belief in and defense of the gospel. The New
Testament, however, clearly proclaims that the central
institution in this dispensation for promulgating the
1Dr. Saxon is Professor of Bible at Maranatha Baptist Bible
College and Adjunct Professor of Church History at Maranatha
Baptist Seminary.
10 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
gospel is the local church. Saying that one is a
fundamentalist says little about one‘s understanding
of the local church and its purposes. Once one affirms
that he is a Baptist, understood historically, then he
has said a great deal about how he believes God is
working in this dispensation. For us at Maranatha,
being a Baptist includes adherence to the
fundamentals of the faith but adds additional
clarifying information about where we stand and why
we are here.
Maranatha is certainly a fundamentalist institution
and has been throughout its history. Furthermore,
Maranatha is committed to dispensational
hermeneutics. But the designation that made its way
into the very title of the institution is Baptist.
The Importance of Careful Definition
In an age characterized by ecumenical dialog, there
is a prevailing tendency to identify core elements in
one‘s faith that other Christians share and to celebrate
the unanimity that results from focusing on those
doctrines. In the case of organizations like the World
Council of Churches, such a process has led to the
abnegation of doctrinal commitment and the
relativizing of the very concept of truth. The result is a
pluralistic, postmodern religion that rejects the
Scriptures as the authoritative norm for theological
reflection.
Among evangelicals who claim to accept the
binding authority of God‘s Word, the distillation
Maranatha is Baptist 11
process results in different types of organizations and
movements, such as the Evangelical Theological
Society, Together for the Gospel, and the Christian
Coalition. These are three very different
organizations/movements, but each represents a
group of evangelicals who unite around a common
thread of agreement, despite widespread disagreement
in other areas.
Interestingly, fundamentalism is the same kind of
movement. When conservative premillennialists began
gathering at the Niagara Conference in the 1870s, they
exulted in the fact that they represented a wide
spectrum of Protestant denominations in North
America. They were united by their allegiance to the
fundamentals of the faith and the premillennial hope
of Christ‘s return. This limited focus has allowed
fundamentalism to be a transdenominational
movement ever since. When fundamentalists gather as
fundamentalists and for fundamentalist purposes, they
need not agree on non-fundamental issues, such as
church polity or hermeneutics.
For any fundamentalist, regardless of his
denomination, this allegiance to the fundamentals of
the faith is, in some ways, his highest ecclesiastical
allegiance. Before he settled whether or not to immerse
or sprinkle, he had to settle whether or not Jesus
Christ is God. The blood atonement takes precedence
over whether the church answers to the congregation,
the presbytery, or the bishop; i.e., the political
question is of little moment if we have not been
redeemed by the blood of Christ. The fact that the
12 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
fundamentals are the heart of the Christian faith and
determine whether or not someone is saved means
that there will always be some level of unity with
anyone who affirms those fundamentals alongside us
and declares his or her readiness to defend them.
Nevertheless, in this process of focusing on the
essential and fundamental and setting aside the
nonessential or non-fundamental lies a genuine
danger. Kevin Bauder, with a different purpose than
that of this article, has leveled a stringent criticism of
fundamentalism that addresses this danger:
―Fundamentalists have displayed a tendency to focus
upon the affirmation of an ever-shrinking list of core
doctrines (and, to be sure, those doctrines deserve
focus) at the expense of neglecting both doctrinal detail
and doctrinal breadth. Because they are cut off from
the Christian past, fundamentalists have little sense of
the extent to which they have truncated the whole
counsel of God.‖2
Once we have affirmed the gospel and the
doctrines that underlie the gospel, namely, the
fundamentals, we still have not said everything that is
important for the work of God in this dispensation.
Maranatha is committed not only to
fundamentalism, but also to the hermeneutic of
dispensationalism and Baptist ecclesiology, primarily
because we believe that the church—the local church,
in particular—is a doctrine of great importance to the
work of God in this dispensation. As Israel was the
2In the Nick of Time, August 21, 2009.
Maranatha is Baptist 13
vehicle for divine action in the world during the
dispensation of law, so now God is working through
the local church to call out a people for His name. How
the church is constituted and how it functions are,
therefore, crucial questions that we dare not set aside
as unimportant matters.
Like the Catholics, Presbyterians, and Episco-
palians, Baptists chose their name from an aspect of
their ecclesiology, namely, their commitment to
believer‘s baptism by immersion. I doubt that any
Baptist would affirm belief in NT baptism as his
highest theological commitment, but Baptists chose
this appellation because it pointed to a truth that was
and is constitutive for Baptist churches: the fact that
NT churches are made up of regenerated and
immersed believers, whose one and only true baptism
is that which followed their salvation. The so-called
―Baptist distinctives‖ are basically scriptural
corollaries to this fundamental premise.
How Maranatha Got to This Point
Maranatha‘s history is rooted firmly in northern
Baptist fundamentalism. Her founder and first
president was B. Myron Cedarholm (1915–1997). After
studying at Eastern Baptist Seminary, Cedarholm
served as the pastor of a small Baptist church in
Philadelphia for five years before receiving a call to
serve with the new Conservative Baptist Association of
America in 1947. For three years Cedarholm
functioned as one of the missionary-evangelists of the
14 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
organization, and then in 1950 he was elected as the
second national general director. He served as the
general director until leaving the Association in 1965.3
Initially, the CBA of A was committed to preserving
Baptist theology, which, its members believed, was
suffering erosion in the Northern—soon to be
American—Baptist Convention. As CBAmerica
historian Stephen LeBar puts it, ―The very word
‗conservative‘ gives identity to the movement, because
the intent was to conserve (to keep, to retain) the basic
biblical distinctives that have historically distinguished
Baptists as a people of God.‖4 Liberals in the NBC had
been attacking or undermining the gospel since the
founding of the convention in 1907. The great
fundamentalist battles of the 1920s among the
Baptists had related primarily to the liberal assaults
on the fundamentals of the faith. In those battles
Baptists had participated in the great inter-
denominational conservative efforts, such as the
World‘s Christian Fundamentals Association, led by
Minneapolis pastor W. B. Riley, in addition to
distinctively Baptist organizations, such as the
Fundamentalist Fellowship and the Baptist Bible
Union.
3For a convenient survey of Cedarholm‘s life before coming to
Maranatha, see Kim Ledgerwood, Rich in Mercy: Forty Years of God’s Mercy at Maranatha Baptist Bible College (Watertown, WI:
Maranatha Baptist Bible College, 2008), 17–25.
4Stephen LeBar, ―Conservative Baptist Association of America Historical Perspective,‖ 2006, http:// www.cbamerica.org/
documents/history_CBA/CBA%20 Historical%20Perspective.pdf.
Maranatha is Baptist 15
While recognizing the value of interdenominational
efforts in certain contexts, the Midwestern Baptists of
the 1940s and 50s believed they needed to carry on
the fight for the gospel within the context of NT—i.e.,
Baptist—ecclesiology. This is noticeable in the first
three ―fundamental principles‖ of the CBA of A listed
by Director Cedarholm, as summarized by LeBar:
1. It was a confessional body, declaring its
fundamental doctrines. However, Cedarholm
went on to say, ―The CBA believes that details
of interpretation and application are the
prerogative of the local church, under the
illumination of the Holy Spirit.‖
2. It was a fellowship of independent churches.
He emphasized that the Association is not a
denomination. It has no power to make
decisions for the churches or to impose
programs upon them. It has no desire to
establish centralized authority, ecclesiastical
connectionalism or dependent organizations
that the churches must support. ―However,
there rightly exists among the churches an
interdependency.‖
3. It had ―no organic relationship to the
organizations which its churches support.‖
Each of the agencies was independent of the
others.5
5Ibid.
16 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
The tension that Baptists have always felt between
centralization and autonomy is clearly present here.
The point is this: battling liberalism is important and
can probably be carried out by churches more
effectively if they ally with one another. Nevertheless,
doing church as the NT specifies is nonnegotiable, and
these Baptists insisted that they would not sacrifice
the autonomy of their local assemblies for any larger
purposes.
During Cedarholm‘s tenure as General Secretary of
the CBA of A, the great debate over Billy Graham and
his ecumenical evangelism erupted among the
churches Cedarholm served. The well-documented
rupture of the organization occurred in the early
1960s, with a fundamentalist minority separating from
the Association by 1965.6 Cedarholm clearly sided
with the fundamentalists and resigned that year,
accepting a call from Pillsbury Baptist Bible College to
be its second president.
The Minnesota Baptist Convention, like the
Conservative Baptists, emerged from the NBC,
separating officially in 1946. Ten years later, R. V.
Clearwaters, pastor of Fourth Baptist Church of
Minneapolis, led the MBC to convert Pillsbury
Academy into a Bible college. Pillsbury opened its
doors in 1957 under the leadership of Clearwaters
6For a portrayal of the events from the standpoint of the
evangelical majority, see Bruce Shelley, A History of the Conservative Baptists (Chicago: Conservative Baptist Press,
1981). Accessed at http://www.cbamerica.org/cba_ Resources
/Documents.php.
Maranatha is Baptist 17
and, shortly thereafter, Monroe Parker. Both of these
men were also to figure prominently in the
fundamentalist fight in the CBA of A, and both were
warm associates of Myron Cedarholm; therefore,
Pillsbury‘s reason for existence was the desire of
Minnesota Baptists to have a fundamentalist context
for training their young people. The school was equally
committed to fundamentalist separatism and Baptist
ecclesiology.7
Cedarholm‘s presidency of Pillsbury was
numerically successful but featured unfortunate
controversy between Cedarholm and Clearwaters. This
controversy did not relate to theological matters; both
men were staunch Baptists and fundamentalists. In
1968 Cedarholm resigned from Pillsbury and began
Maranatha Baptist Bible College in Watertown,
Wisconsin. Theologically, Maranatha belonged to the
same tradition as Pillsbury and the militants who had
left the CBA of A (who now constituted the
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship). Maranatha existed
because fundamentalists needed Bible colleges, but,
like Pillsbury, it was oriented toward a certain
community within fundamentalism, namely, those
committed to Baptist polity.
This orientation was obvious to the first generation
of students at Maranatha. First, Cedarholm preached
7For an interesting history of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College,
see Jon Pratt, ―Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, A Legacy of Serving the Lord‘s Church: The Story of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College,‖ Vox Ecclesia 6:1 (Feb 2009), 6:2 (Apr 2009), and 6:3 (June 2009). Accessed at http:// edenbaptist.org.
18 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
on the local church so often that students‘ Bibles
almost literally fell open to Matthew 16:18. Second, the
academic dean was Richard Weeks, whose enthusiasm
for Baptist history was infectious. His collection of rare
Baptist works still remains a treasure trove for
Maranatha students. Third, the students discovered
that Maranatha‘s focus was unswervingly on local
church ministry. Throughout the school‘s history, the
faculty, staff, and student body have actively engaged
in ministry in the area churches. For his first twenty-
three years in ministry, Cedarholm poured himself into
local churches, and he obviously regarded his work in
higher education—both at Pillsbury and at
Maranatha—as an expansion of that focus rather than
a re-direction or mitigation of it.
Integrally involved in this vision for the local
church is the fulfillment of the Great Commission.
From the beginning, the Baptist insistence that
evangelism is a mandate to the local church to be
carried out through the local church dominated the
philosophy of Cedarholm and Maranatha. The goal of
evangelism is regenerated people, immersed into a
local body of believers, and experiencing discipleship
through the proclamation of the Word.
Thus, while acknowledging that non-Baptist
fundamentalists faithfully win souls and build
churches, Cedarholm and the other early leaders of
Maranatha conceived of every aspect of their ministries
as integrally connected to their identity as Baptists.
Therefore, to say, ―I‘m a Baptist first and a
fundamentalist second,‖ is another way of saying, ―I‘m
Maranatha is Baptist 19
never just a fundamentalist; I am always a Baptist
fundamentalist.‖ The NT church is the context in
which the gospel—the fundamentals of the faith—is
lived out.
It is not surprising, then, to discover that these
leaders, especially Richard Weeks, devoted
considerable effort to carefully elucidating exactly what
constitutes a Baptist. What he achieved has become a
distinctive facet of Maranatha‘s ethos.
Maranatha’s Formulation of the Baptist
Distinctives8
Dr. Richard Weeks, Maranatha‘s first academic
dean, was an avid bibliophile and Baptist historian.
Well educated, he had pastored for several years in
Chicago before he went to Pillsbury and then finally to
Maranatha to teach Baptist Polity and Baptist History,
among other classes. Not content with the usual
BAPTIST acrostic for the Baptist distinctives, he began
a study of the various lists of distinctives identified by
a wide variety of Baptist writers—old and new,
northern and southern, American and European, and
especially fundamental Baptists of the early 20th
century. Out of this study he created a list of what he
8The majority of the next section was previously published in
Sunesis, an electronic publication of the Bible faculty of
Maranatha. See ―The Logic of Brapsis2: A More Excellent Way to
Spell Baptist‖ (Summer/Fall 2006) at http://www.mbbc.edu/ page.aspx?m=1490.
20 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
viewed to be the key Baptist distinctives, without
trying to force them into an acrostic grid. He also
established an order to these distinctives, considering
not so much that some distinctives are more important
than others, but rather that some distinctives tend to
flow out of other distinctives. The result was
BRAPSIS2. The following paragraphs will not seek to
prove each distinctive scripturally, since such
reasoning is readily available in other Maranatha
publications and, indeed, in any faithful analysis of
Baptist polity. Instead, this discussion will focus on
the logic that drove Dr. Weeks to organize the Baptist
distinctives as he did.
The first distinctive, of course, is ―B—Bible, the
sole authority of faith and practice‖ in the local
church. Other Protestant denominations might object
that they also hold this principle, which, indeed, is
generally regarded by historians as the formal
principle of the Reformation (justification by faith
being the material principle).9 What is distinctive about
Baptist theology is that Baptists regard the New
Testament as the source of their polity and the ruling
authority in their churches. Because the distinctives
are, by definition, ecclesiological and show how
Baptists differ from Protestant denominations, this
first distinctive has the role of establishing that the
9The authority of Scripture is the ―formal‖ principle in the
sense that it establishes the framework within which all the other
advances occurred. Justification by faith is the ―material‖ principle in that it was the main theological issue to be
hammered out.
Maranatha is Baptist 21
rest of the points will find their authority in the NT
alone. This claim instantly sets Baptists apart from
Reformed models of the church that look to the Old
Testament and episcopal models that depend on
tradition for their principal authority. Incidentally, this
Baptist claim that the NT is the sole authority for
ecclesiological faith and practice is implicitly
dispensational, since dispensationalists insist that the
church is solely a NT phenomenon. The first and most
important point that Baptists derive from the
Scriptures regarding the local church is the makeup of
its constituency: ―R—a regenerated and immersed
church membership.‖ At a stroke, this thoroughly
biblical assertion rules out pedobaptism, the parish
church structure, and the state churches that
constituted Christendom from the fourth century until
modern times. If the church is made up only of
believers—those who have consciously chosen Jesus
Christ as their Savior—then the local church is
obligated to reflect as accurately as humanly possible
the body of Christ. Thus Baptist churches accept into
their membership only those who have professed both
by word and by scriptural baptism that they belong to
Christ. If ―B‖ is the formal principle of the Baptist
distinctives, consider that ―R‖ is the material principle;
that is, each of the remaining distinctives flows
logically out of the concept of the church as reflected
in the NT: a body of visible, baptized believers.
Can such a body answer to any authority outside
itself other than Christ? Can the local assembly guard
its purity if it answers to a human authority such as a
22 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
bishop or a presbytery? Baptists say no, affirming ―A—
the autonomy of the local church.‖ Baptists do not
deny the kinds of fellowship, cooperation, and
fraternity between local churches that are
demonstrable from the NT, but they recognize in each
local assembly the right and responsibility to carefully
guard its own purity. The purity of the church is the
corollary of the immediate headship of Christ over the
assembly. In other words, the stubborn Baptist
insistence on autonomous churches is just another
way of saying the ―submission of the local church is to
Christ alone as its Head.‖ Viewed in this way, it is easy
to see that ―P—the priesthood of the believer‖ is the
personal application of the principle implicit in the
autonomy of the church. Just as local churches
cannot be made to answer to manmade institutions,
such as the papacy, other episcopal overlords, or
extra-church presbyteries, so the individual believer
within the context of the local assembly answers to
Christ alone. We do not need the church to give us
authorized interpretations of Scripture or a priest to
hear our confession or dispense grace to us, and we
ourselves exercise the ministry of reconciliation. In
short, we do not need a priest because we are priests.
Can such a principle have even wider application?
Is there a sense in which every man answers directly
to Christ rather than to some ecclesiastical authority?
If, in fact, every man will stand individually before God
and give an account, then it necessarily follows that
each man is personally responsible for his own beliefs.
Baptists have historically defended the ―S—soul
Maranatha is Baptist 23
liberty‖ right of every man to enjoy the freedom to
determine his own religious beliefs. No room exists in
such a view for coercion of religious persuasions or
ecclesiastical activities or for persecution of any sort.
The Baptist struggle for religious liberty is a glorious
theme in church history. It is remarkable that a great
many Baptists have paid the ultimate price for their
convictions while at the same time staunchly
defending the soul liberty of the very ones that were
persecuting them.
The final three distinctives in Dr. Weeks‘ list do not
connect as obviously to the previous four, but they are
important components of the Baptist witness. Having
already affirmed that only immersed believers belong
in the church, BRAPSIS2 now argues that Baptists are
not sacramentalists: they believe in only the two
ordinances commanded by Christ in the NT: hence,
―I—Immersion and the Lord‘s Supper, the only two
ordinances.‖ Of course, one must flesh out this
distinctive quite a bit to make it truly descriptive of the
Baptist position. By insisting that baptism is
immersion and only immersion, Baptists are tacitly
arguing that baptism is symbolic only, not
sacramental. How one performs baptism conveys the
symbolism the NT intends by the rite. Baptists believe
that the crucial fact about baptism is its ability to
picture the believer‘s death, burial, and resurrection
with Christ. When churches alter the mode of baptism,
they not only disobey the express command of Christ
(who, after all, said to ―baptize,‖ a Greek word that
clearly means to immerse) but also destroy the
24 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
symbolism of what the NT intends to be simply a
symbol. While some sacramentalists have immersed
(such as the Greek Orthodox), few have insisted on
immersion because the sacramental churches regard
the rite itself, not the symbolism of the rite, as the
crucial thing. Baptists react strongly against any
attempt to associate spiritual transactions with
physical or ecclesiastical activities. Here, perhaps, is
the connection with the previous distinctive. Each soul
is answerable directly to God; that is a fundamentally
spiritual assertion. External acts, such as the
ordinances and ecclesiastical affiliations, reflect or
perhaps symbolize spiritual realities, but they do not
create or sustain those realities.
Such reasoning naturally also leads Baptists to
understand the Lord‘s Supper symbolically as well.
Communion with Christ is not conveyed in some
special way by the physical activity. Dr. Weeks closed
his list with the two varieties of separation that should
result if one takes the previous six distinctives
seriously. Before this article addresses them, however,
note that the acrostic does not assert that Baptists
have only two offices. Dr. Weeks certainly believed in
only two offices, and the Baptist Heritage class at
Maranatha incorporates the belief in the two offices of
pastor and deacon in the lecture on the autonomy of
the local assembly. Historically, however, some
Baptists adopted the Reformed belief in ruling elders
who are distinct from the pastoral office. Today, some
Baptist churches are employing this Reformed model;
others are urging a plurality of elders but insist that
Maranatha is Baptist 25
the pastor and elders have the same office though
sometimes varying levels of practical authority. In any
event, Dr. Weeks believed it historically inaccurate to
say that Baptists were distinguished by a belief in two
offices, and therefore he did not include this point in
BRAPSIS2. This is yet another indication that Dr.
Weeks‘ acrostic was carefully designed with both
historical and theological factors in mind.
It is interesting that Dr. Weeks believed that both
―S1—Separation of Church and State‖ and ―S2—
Separation: Ethically and Ecclesiastically‖ are Baptist
distinctives. The first of these points, which flows
logically out of the Baptist belief in soul liberty, is
undisputed and remains a magnificent contribution of
the Baptist churches to modern Western civilization.
Dr. Weeks also taught that Baptists are intrinsically
separationists. Given the substantial number of
Baptists in church history who have failed to maintain
either ecclesiastical or personal separation, one can
imagine this point in BRAPSIS2 facing significant
challenge. Nevertheless, ecclesiastical separation is the
necessary corollary of belief in autonomous churches,
and ethical separation is the biblical outworking of the
priesthood of the believer. It is interesting that since
1930, the large majority of fundamentalists have been
Baptist. As noted earlier, fundamentalism is defined by
the doctrines essential to gospel proclamation and
thus necessarily spans conservative denominations;
perhaps, though, the separation that has defined the
fundamentalist movement finds its most natural
affinity to Baptist ecclesiology. In short, Dr. Weeks‘
26 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
inclusion of separation, while controversial, may itself
provide an interesting insight not only into our
distinctiveness as Baptists but also our identity as
Baptist fundamentalists.
Conclusion
Maranatha views its historic commitment to being
Baptist as a commitment to the NT model of the
church. We value our non-Baptist brethren,
particularly those committed to fundamentalism, and
appreciate their contributions to the work of Christ.
Nevertheless, we are convinced that to the degree that
we successfully inculcate NT teachings into our
students, to that same degree those students will
choose to be Baptists.
This is a day in which many eschew labels and
regard them as unnecessarily divisive. We, however, do
not know of any other effective way of proclaiming our
adherence to the polity of the NT as it has been
understood historically by Baptists than by
proclaiming ourselves Baptists; and we do not hesitate
to align ourselves with the glorious history of men and
women who ministered, suffered, and sometimes died,
not for the label, but for the biblical truths the label
communicates.
Maranatha is Fundamentalist
Dr. Fred Moritz1
Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary was
born in a theological tradition of fundamentalist,
Baptist, separatist, dispensationalist theology. My
assigned task is to speak about Maranatha as a
fundamentalist school. Others will write articles
dealing with other distinctive positions.
As far as we know, the term ―fundamentalist‖ was
coined by Curtis Lee Laws. The Fundamental
Fellowship within the Northern Baptist Convention
met for the first time in 1920 at the Delaware Avenue
Baptist Church in Buffalo, New York. After that
meeting Laws, editor of the Watchman Examiner, wrote
stating: ―We suggest that those who still cling to the
great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal
for the fundamentals shall be called
‗Fundamentalists.‘‖2
Blaine Myron Cedarholm (1915–1997) founded and
served as the first president of Maranatha. Dr.
Cedarholm ministered out of the fundamentalist
1Dr. Fred Moritz was formerly the Executive Director of the
Baptist World Mission and is currently Professor of Systematic Theology, Maranatha Baptist Seminary.
2Larry D. Pettegrew, ―Will The Real Fundamentalist Please Stand Up?‖ Central Testimony (Fall 1982): 1, 2.
28 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
theological conviction that the Bible is the Word of God
and that those who believe it must ―earnestly contend
for the faith‖ (Jude 3). Cedarholm was the son of an
early fundamentalist preacher. His father, Anton
Cedarholm, had ministered as a singer for Evangelist
Dr. R. A. Torrey. He later served the Burton Avenue
Baptist Church in Waterloo, Iowa, as pastor. Through
his radio and pastoral ministry the church experienced
God‘s blessings.3
B. Myron Cedarholm was educated at the
University of Minnesota, Eastern Baptist Theological
Seminary, and Princeton Seminary. After a successful
five-year pastorate at the Lehigh Avenue Baptist
Church in Philadelphia, he was called to serve as an
evangelist with and then become the General Director
of the Conservative Baptist Association of America.
From 1947 through 1965 the association, during Dr.
Cedarholm‘s tireless and dynamic ministry, grew from
one hundred churches to 1800 in the fellowship.
Maranatha‘s founder began his ministry in the
framework of the Northern Baptist Convention, and he
left over the theological liberalism that pervaded the
convention and auxiliary organizations. He then
devoted eighteen years to the CBA of A and then
severed his connections to that movement because of
the compromises of ecumenical evangelism and the
New Evangelicalism. Throughout his ministry he
maintained a testimony of absolute fidelity to the Word
3http://familyaltarbroadcast.com/anton.html accessed July
30, 2010.
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 29
of God and the biblical fundamentals that provide the
framework for fundamentalism. He believed the
fundamentals, and in the words of Curtis Lee Laws, he
did ―battle royal‖ for them throughout his ministry.
I was a nine-year-old boy when Dr. and Mrs.
Cedarholm first came to our church for a Sunday
evening service. I still have the volume on Baptist
history that he gave me just before I enrolled at
Pillsbury Baptist Bible College in 1959. He later offered
advice about the choice of a seminary when I was a
junior in college. That advice has positively affected the
course of my entire ministry. He often served as a
trusted counselor when I was a pastor. We served
together in the ministry of Baptist World Mission. His
influence, advice, and convictions were positive and
godly. He evidenced a passion to glorify God and to
advance His work around the world through the
preaching of the gospel and the planting of local
churches. I thank the Lord for Dr. Cedarholm‘s godly
influence as a fundamentalist, Baptist, dispensa-
tionalist, and separatist leader.
Fundamentalism as a movement has not been
static. Many changes have occurred in doctrinal and
practical emphasis over the years. Some of these
changes have occurred because new attacks on
Scripture arose and new forms of compromise
developed. Some of these developments have been
positive, and others have been negative. The purpose
of this article is to describe the historical
framework in which fundamentalism developed
and to understand the nature of the movement.
30 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Maranatha unashamedly self-identifies as an
institution of higher learning within the
framework of historic fundamentalism.
It is impossible to fully understand what
fundamentalism is and how it came about until we
understand the historical setting in which it
developed. In order to accomplish this task, it will be
necessary to at least sketch the development of
theological liberalism because that movement provided
the backdrop of attacks on Scripture against which
fundamentalism arose and developed.
The Rise of Liberalism
Theological liberalism appeared as a movement in
the middle of the 19th century. A survey of the history
makes it clear that this denial of Scripture began to
develop about two centuries earlier.
Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677)
Spinoza was a Portuguese Jew who was born in
Amsterdam. He grew up with a Jewish education, but
was expelled from the Jewish community in
Amsterdam in 1656.4
His philosophy is important because his ―extremely
naturalistic views on God, the world, the human being,
and knowledge serve to ground a moral philosophy
4Steven Nadler, ―Baruch Spinoza‖ in Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (2005), 2. Accessed at http://plato.stanford.edu/
entries/spinoza, May 14, 2008.
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 31
centered on the control of the passion leading to virtue
and happiness. They also lay the foundations for a
strongly democratic political thought and a deep
critique of the pretensions of Scripture and sectarian
religion.‖5
Spinoza‘s philosophy contained the seeds of the
rational theological liberalism that later developed. He
almost equated nature with God. ―Spinoza could be
read as trying either to divinize nature or to naturalize
God.‖6 His critics called his positional view of God
―atheistic materialism.‖7 He also placed great emphasis
on human reason. He reacted against the power
exercised in governments by religious authorities and
saw the clergy as ambitious and self-serving, desiring
to control their followers. He also reacted against the
support that civil governments gave to religious
authorities.
Spinoza also adopted an apostate view of the Bible.
He denied that the Bible is a revelation from God, but
instead argued that it is a source of natural truth,
saying it only teaches a simple, moral message: love
your neighbor. He accused Bible believers of idolatry
and worshiping words on a page. He denied that God
had any special place in His plan for Israel. He viewed
Scripture as strictly a product of history, not as a
supernatural revelation from God. He denied that
Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible and that
5Ibid., 1.
6Ibid., 6.
7Ibid., 9.
32 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
the prophets predicted the future. He held that a later
scribe (perhaps Ezra) compiled the entire Old
Testament from existing records. Further, Spinoza
denied that miracles ever occurred.8
Spinoza lived 200 years before the formal
appearance of theological liberalism, but this brief
survey establishes that his teachings advocated ideas
which later developed into the full system of liberalism.
It is also easy to see the seeds of the movement later
known as secular humanism in Spinoza‘s thinking.
Spinoza‘s ethic (―love your neighbor‖) also appears in
John Hick‘s approach to pluralism.
Johann Salomo Semler (1725–1791)
Semler was a German church historian and
biblical critic.
He was the first to reject with sufficient proof
the equal value of the Old and the New Testaments,
the uniform authority of all parts of the Bible, the
divine authority of the traditional canon of
Scripture, the inspiration and supposed correctness
of the text of the Old and New Testaments, and,
generally, the identification of revelation with
Scripture. . . . He led the way in the task of
discovering the origin of the Gospels, the Epistles,
the Acts of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse. He
revived previous doubts as to the direct Pauline
origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, called in
question Peter's authorship of the first epistle, and
8Ibid., 19–23.
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 33
referred the second epistle to the end of the 2nd
century. He wished to remove the Apocalypse
altogether from the canon. In textual criticism
Semler pursued further the principle of classifying
MSS in families, adopted by R. Simon and J. A.
Bengel.9
Jonathan Edwards’ Early Alarm
Edwards (1703–1758) is best known as one of the
leaders of the Great Awakening in America. This
revival occurred in 1734–35 and again in 1740–43.
George Whitefield and Gilbert Tennent were also
greatly used as preachers during these movements of
the Spirit of God.
Edwards is also remembered as one of America‘s
greatest theologians. It is most interesting to note that
Jonathan Edwards saw the beginnings of liberalism at
this time and viewed their development with alarm.
Near the end of his life, he wrote against a
philosophical skepticism that he saw coming to
prominence. ―The crucial issue was the widely popular
idea that reason should be the judge of revelation.‖10
This was the application of the Enlightenment to
matters of religion and theology.
Edwards grounded his preaching, theology, and
writing in Scripture. His view of Scripture and God‘s
9―Johann Salomo Semler‖ http://www.1911 encyclopedia.
org/Johann_Salomo_ Semler. Accessed May 9, 2008.
10George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, A Life (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2003), 476.
34 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
works in creation was that ―each was ‗a system‘ and
‗the voice of God to intelligent creatures.‘ Each pointed
to the mysteries of God‘s ‗unsearchable wisdom.‘ Yet
each was also intended to be a guide to rational
creatures.‖ Edwards understood that God gave
Scripture for the purpose of revealing Himself and
truth to mankind. He further ―tried to view Scripture
from God‘s perspective, as intricately designed . . . to
reveal the great end of creation, God‘s redemptive
love.‖11
The religious developments that alarmed Edwards
were markedly different than his view of Scripture as
God‘s Word and revelation to the human race. The
critics against whom Edwards wrote advocated ―that
Scripture was to be interpreted like other books‖ and
was ―most essentially a product of human history.‖12
Critics were, as early as Edward‘s time, arguing that
Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible,
and they were attacking the reliability of the Gospel
accounts of Christ‘s resurrection.13
Edwards recognized that if the Bible was a product
of history and not a result of God‘s revelation, then
there would be no absolute authority for human
conduct. ―Christian revelation would be dissolved into
cultural relativism.‖14
11Ibid., 478–79.
12Ibid., 480.
13Ibid.
14Ibid., 487.
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 35
It is important for us to understand this because
the themes of theological liberalism were present fifty
to one hundred years before they coalesced and
became widely known.
Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768–1834)
Schleiermacher, a German theologian, preacher,
and classical philologist, is generally recognized as the
founder of modern Protestant theology. His major
work, Der christliche Glaube (1821–22; 2nd ed. 1831;
The Christian Faith), is a systematic interpretation of
Christian dogmatics.15
One of the first things we must understand about
Schleiermacher is his view of religion. He believed that
the essence of religion consists ―primarily in feeling;
belief and action are secondary.‖16 Religion was
―basically a feeling of dependence upon God.‖17 Even
the neo-orthodox theologians said that ―Schleiermacher
led the great defection whereby liberal theology
focused on human potentiality and religiosity at the
expense of God's own reality, majesty, and grace.‖18
15―Friedrich Schleiermacher,‖ http://www.britannica.
com/eb/article-9066148/ Friedrich-Schleirmacher. Accessed May
31, 2008.
16―Friedrich Schleiermacher,‖ http://www.island-of-freedom.
com/SCHLEIER.HTM. Accessed May 31 2008.
17Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation, The Struggle for A Pure Church, 2nd ed. (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 2008),
83.
18―Friedrich Schleiermacher.‖
36 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Some of his most destructive work to biblical faith
was done in his writings on hermeneutics—the science
of biblical interpretation. ―Friedrich Schleiermacher is
usually regarded as the first scholar to insist that
biblical hermeneutics must be part of a general theory
of understanding.‖19
He questioned and denied the inspiration and
supernatural character of the Bible.
Given the great variety of ideas of inspiration, it
is best, first of all, to test what sort of consequences
the strictest idea leads to, i.e. the idea that the
power of the spirit extends from the inception of the
thought to the act of writing itself. Due to the
variants, this no longer helps us. . . . If one then
asks why the Scriptures did not arise in a totally
miraculous way without the involvement of
humans, we must answer that the divine spirit can
have chosen the method it did only if it wanted
everything traced back to the declared author.
Therefore, this interpretation must be correct. The
same point holds with respect to the grammatical
side. But then every element must be treated as
purely human, and the action of the Spirit was only
to produce the inner impulse.‖20 [Emphasis mine.]
He denied that Scripture universally applies to all
people. ―But for this reason we must not suppose that
19Moises Silva, ―Has the Church Misread the Bible?‖ in
Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, ed. Moises Silva
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 20, n.7.
20Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher, ―General Theory and Art of Interpretation‖ in The Hermeneutics Reader, ed. Kurt Mueller-
Vollmer (New York: Continuum, 2000), 78.
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 37
their writings were addressed to all of Christendom. . .
. Whether the view that everything in the Scriptures
was inspired means that everything must relate to the
whole church? No.‖21
I must pause here to say that this liberalism that
denied the supernatural character of Scripture and
approached it from an experience orientation survives
to this day, and sometimes in the most surprising of
contexts. A few years ago I taught a course entitled
―History of Fundamentalism‖ to a group of Kenyan
pastors near Nairobi. When the preceding quotations
from Schleiermacher were read to those pastors, they
―pounced‖ on those statements and related that this is
exactly the rationale that charismatics in Kenya use to
justify allowing women in the ministry. The
charismatics allege that Paul did not write 1 Timothy 2
for the entire church, but only to address a specific
situation in Ephesus.
Wayne Grudem documents this same point in
Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth.22 In Chapters
3–12 he deals extensively with 118 different arguments
the feminists/egalitarians use to advocate their
position. There are two major issues that lie at the
heart of this debate. Grudem deals with the first issue
in Chapter 9, entitled, ―Evangelical Feminist Claims
About How to Interpret and Apply the Bible.‖ I was
amazed to read some of the interpretive approaches to
21Ibid., 80.
22Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth
(Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 2004).
38 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Scripture that the egalitarians use. They contend that
Moses, Paul, and other biblical writers used language
that reflected patriarchal and Greek cultures. They fail
to acknowledge that God inspired that language.
Some, including Walter Kaiser, try to prove that 1
Corinthians 14:34, 35 ―are not Paul‘s words, but are a
quotation from the Corinthians that Paul rejects.‖23
Hermeneutics has been a great debate in the
theological world for several years. The humanistic
idea that we must interpret Scripture no differently
than any other work of literature is at least as old as
Schleiermacher. Some Evangelicals are affirming that
position today. The hermeneutical approach of the
egalitarians often reflects that philosophy, and it
should cause alarm to Bible believers.
Karl Heinrich Graf (1815–1869) and Julius Wellhausen
(1844–1918)
Graf and Wellhausen‘s theory, also known as
―higher criticism,‖ was the final development that gave
shape to the idea we know as theological liberalism.
Judaism and Christianity had historically accepted the
fact that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible
and recognized that someone had been inspired by the
Holy Spirit to write Deuteronomy 34, which is the
story of Moses‘ death. He would not have been present
to write that! But none of these discussions and
questions raised any doubt about Moses being the
author of the five books. The Graf-Wellhausen theory
23Ibid., 238.
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 39
―grew out of a movement to find rationalistic, natural
explanations for the biblical text. Once one assumes
that supernatural revelation cannot occur, any other
explanation must take precedent.‖24
The Graf-Wellhausen theory developed over several
years. Jean Astruc, a French physician, argued that
two different names for God are used in Genesis
Chapters 1 and 2. In 1753 he wrote a work entitled
Conjectures in which he proposed the idea that two
authors, using the two different names for God, wrote
the separate chapters.25 Others took this theory and
added the idea that there was a ―priestly‖ writer and
also a separate writer for Deuteronomy. Thus the
theory became known as the JEDP theory. Not only
did these ideas deny that Moses wrote the Pentateuch,
but they also placed the dates for the Pentateuch
much later than is normally accepted. Graf brought
these developments together in his book The Historical
Books of the Old Testament, which was published in
1866.26 Wellhausen is the man who popularized these
views and wrote Prolegomena to the History of Israel in
1878. Others later developed the theory that Isaiah did
not write the entire book that bears his name, but that
two, or possibly three, or even four different authors
24Don Closson, ―Did Moses Write the Pentateuch?‖
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/moses.html, 3.
Accessed May 31, 2008.
25Colin Smith, ―Critical Assessment of the Graf-Wellhausen
Documentary Hypothesis,‖ http://vintage. aomin.org/JEDP.html 2002, 1. Accessed May 31, 2008.
26Ibid., 2.
40 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
wrote that book. Others asserted that Daniel was not
written during Israel‘s captivity, but after.
It is significant to note that Charles Darwin‘s book
The Origin of the Species was published in 1859 at the
very time this theory was being fully developed and
becoming popular. Sometimes one will read about
―historical consciousness,‖ which ―can thus be defined
as individual and collective understandings of the
past, the cognitive and cultural factors which shape
those understandings, as well as the relations of
historical understandings to those of the present and
the future.‖27 This theory holds that all we understand
about history (and biblical history in this instance) is
limited by the cultural factors in which people live and
function. This theory would naturally deny the reality
of revelation from God, and it would deny the
possibility of supernatural occurrences.
The resultant theological liberalism rests on
several philosophical presuppositions.
1. As noted above, it was an attempt to find
rational, natural explanations for the biblical
text.28
27―Definition of Historical Consciousness,‖ http://
www.cshc.ubc.ca/about.php. Accessed September 1, 2010.
28This is another of mankind‘s deliberate attempts to deny
God‘s revelation and reject His authority over their lives. It is a reflection of the Bible indictment of man‘s sin as recorded in
Romans 1:18–32.
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 41
2. This denies the idea that God created the
world by a direct act.
3. It denies the idea that the Bible is a revelation
from God. It is a repudiation of biblical
inspiration and authority.
4. It also attacks the validity of the supernatural
and of miracles.
5. It reduces Scripture to an account of how
man‘s religious thinking developed in an
evolutionary manner. It was built on the
assumption ―that religions move from a
primitive to a more advanced form over
time.‖29
6. Its result is to destroy the Bible as a standard
for human conduct. According to this theory,
The Ten Commandments and all other biblical
teaching simply reflect man‘s moral standards
at any given time in history. The same would
be the case for Old Testament and New
Testament pronouncements against homo-
sexuality or Paul‘s statements about women
in local church leadership roles.
7. It was an attack on both the Old and New
Testaments. The Graf-Wellhausen theory
centered on Old Testament studies and
popularized the movement. The earlier works
of Semler, Baur, and Strauss mounted a
similar attack on the New Testament. The
29Rick Simonsen, ―History of Fundamentalism‖ (Thika,
Kenya: Independent Baptist Graduate Bible Institute, 1996), 2.
42 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
work of Schleirmacher attacked Scripture on
the basis of hermeneutics, or how we interpret
the Bible.
This is a brief sketch of theological liberalism as it
developed from Spinoza to the mid-nineteenth century.
It was against the onslaught of these denials of
Scripture that fundamentalism developed and against
this philosophy that so many Bible believers stood.
Before leaving this part of our discussion, we
should note that liberalism gave rise to a new
movement after World War I known as Neo-Orthodoxy.
That movement was characterized by the teachings of
Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Paul
Tillich, C. H. Dodd, and others. Barth‘s theology ―came
to be known as ‗dialectical theology,‘ or ‗the theology of
crisis‘; it blossomed into a school of theology known as
neo-orthodoxy, which influenced theology for decades
and included thinkers like Emil Brunner and Reinhold
Niebuhr. Many Catholic theologians (like Hans Küng)
and evangelical theologians (like Donald Bloesch) have
acknowledged Barth's key influence on them.‖30
We do not devote attention to Neo-Orthodoxy in
this article because this movement evolved after
fundamentalism began to develop. Fundamentalists
withstood and exposed the errors of Neo-Orthodoxy,
but it developed after fundamentalism began to take
form.
30http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/2000/issue65/5.23.html.
Accessed September 1, 2010.
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 43
The Birth of Fundamentalism
Throughout history God has raised up believers
who trust His Word and stand for it against the tide of
unbelief. He did that work as liberal theology made its
inroads in churches and schools. That phenomenon
took place on both sides of the Atlantic.
Fundamentalism, as a defined movement, arose in the
1870s as a reaction against theological liberalism. The
designations ―fundamental‖ and ―fundamentalist‖ are
of uniquely American origin, but the same spirit of
loyalty to God‘s Word and willingness to defend the
faith was apparent in Europe as well.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon
The most famous instance of one defending the
faith in Europe was the ―Downgrade Controversy‖ in
England. Charles Haddon Spurgeon led the defense of
the faith and fought the battle almost by himself.
Spurgeon saw the inroads of liberalism in the Baptist
Union of Great Britain. In 1887 he published two
articles in The Sword and Trowel, a paper that he
published from the Metropolitan Tabernacle in
London. In the articles he alleged that men in the
Baptist Union were going to ―downgrade‖ or leave the
―higher ground‖ of ―faith in the inspired Word of God
and the fundamental doctrines therein presented.
They were accepting lower, more humanistic views of
44 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Scripture.‖31 Dallimore characterized Spurgeon‘s
attitude toward the inroads of the higher criticism and
evolution as ―militant opposition.‖32
Up to this time the Baptist Union had no formal
doctrinal statement, so Spurgeon publically called for
the Baptist Union to adopt a statement of faith that
clearly stated evangelical doctrine. He further urged
the Baptist Union to stipulate that a church or
individual must subscribe to that statement to
continue membership.33
The Baptist Union avoided the issue in their
meeting that fall at Sheffield, England. Thus, on
October 28, 1887, Spurgeon resigned his membership
in the Baptist Union. In his resignation letter he wrote:
―It is our solemn conviction that where there can be no
real spiritual communion there should be no pretence
of fellowship. Fellowship with known and vital error is
participation in sin.‖34
On April 23, 1888, the Union met again. More than
2000 attendees voted on a resolution that was
designed to appease the liberals and the Bible
believers, but the resolution amounted to a
repudiation of Spurgeon. The record is that more than
31Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation: The Struggle for A Pure
Church, 2nd ed. (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 2008),
88.
32Arnold Dallimore, Spurgeon (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of
Truth Trust, 1988), 203.
33Ibid., 205.
34Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon (Carlisle, PA: The
Banner of Truth Trust, 1966), 150.
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 45
2000 voted for the resolution and only seven voted to
support Spurgeon.35 Many of those who voted to
repudiate Spurgeon were graduates of his college or
pastors whom he had helped in some way. The
historical account records that there was great
cheering when the vote was recorded. It is often very
difficult to stand for truth, and many times we must
stand alone, or practically alone.
Fundamentalism as a Movement
Some ―historians believe the birth of
fundamentalism could be set at 1876. It was in 1876
that an interdenominational Bible conference met at
Swampscott, Massachusetts, to discuss the rising tide
of modernism. This was only the beginning of a series
of Bible conferences that ran throughout the late
1800s.‖36 This original Bible conference changed
locations several times and settled in New York. It
became known as the Niagara Bible Conference. In
1878 those attending this conference published a
confession that listed fourteen biblical teachings as
―fundamental‖ to biblical Christianity:
1. The verbal, plenary inspiration of the
Scriptures in the original manuscripts
35Pickering, 88–90; Dallimore, 210–212; Murray, 155, 156.
36Larry Harriman, ―How We Came to Be Where We Are Today,‖http://ifbreformation.org/OriginsofIBFs.aspx#C5.
Accessed June 2, 2008.
46 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
2. The Trinity
3. The creation of man, his fall into sin, and his
total depravity
4. The universal transmission of spiritual death
from Adam
5. The necessity of the new birth
6. Redemption by the blood of Christ
7. Salvation by faith alone in Christ
8. The assurance of salvation
9. The centrality of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures
10. The constitution of the true church by genuine
believers
11. The personality of the Holy Spirit
12. The believer‘s call to a holy life
13. The immediate passing of the souls of believers
to be with Christ at death
14. The premillennial Second Coming of Christ37
From this beginning, further revisions emerged.
The most well-known listing is the famous ―five
fundamentals,‖ which are commonly cited today. At
the beginning the ―five fundamentals‖ included:
1. The inerrancy of Scripture
2. The virgin birth of Christ
3. The substitutionary atonement of Christ
4. The bodily resurrection of Christ
37David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Funda-
mentalism Since 1850 (Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications,
1986), 375–79.
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 47
5. The authenticity of miracles38
―Later fundamentalists usually combined number
five with one of the first four and included some
statement on the second coming of Christ.‖39
Fundamentalism as a movement developed in several
ways. The Bible conference movement flourished in the
United States. In addition to the Niagara Bible
Conference were D. L. Moody‘s Northfield,
Massachusetts, conference; R. A. Torrey‘s conference
at Montrose, Pennsylvania; the Gull Lake and
Maranatha conferences in Michigan; the Winona Lake
Bible Conference and Cedar Lake Conference in
Indiana; and Mount Hermon in California. These
conferences and others were founded as places to
teach and preach the Word of God and to emphasize
the fundamentals of Scripture.
Fundamentalists also published literature to
promote the cause of biblical Christianity. Moody Bible
Institute began a printing ministry in 1894. That
ministry published Moody Monthly magazine for many
years and still prints books and Christian literature as
Moody Press.
The Scofield Reference Bible was first published in
1909. This study Bible presented and popularized
dispensationalism. Speaking in 1990 at a World
Congress of Fundamentalists meeting in London,
38Larry D. Pettegrew, ―Will the Real Fundamentalist Please
Stand Up?‖ Central Testimony (Fall 1982): 1, 2.
39Ibid.
48 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Stewart Custer observed that by popular usage the
Scofield Bible became the de facto Bible of fundamen-
talism. This study Bible is still printed and used, and
for at least fifty years it was the most commonly used
Bible by American Bible believers.
The Fundamentals was a twelve-volume series
issued by the Testimony Publishing Company between
1910 and 1915. This was a compilation of articles on
major biblical themes. It covered doctrinal issues like
the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the
reality of miracles, the testimony of Christ to the Old
Testament, sin, eternal judgment, and justification.
A number of publishing houses began during this
era. These companies printed many books and
commentaries for those who believed the Word of God.
These included Zondervan, Eerdmans, Baker,
Dunham, and several others.
Fundamentalists reacted against the liberalism in
denominational schools. The result was the founding
of many Bible institutes and colleges across the
nation. Most of these were independent of any
denominational control. Some (such as Gordon and
Northwestern) were founded under the auspices of a
local church, with the pastor serving as president. The
following list is a sample and cites only some of the
most prominent of the schools.
1. A. B. Simpson was the founder of the
Christian and Missionary Alliance, which
was a fellowship of churches. He also
founded a Bible institute in 1872, known
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 49
today as Nyack College, the first of the
fundamentalist schools.40 This school was
never strongly identified with fundamen-
talism, though its doctrine was evangelical.41
2. D. L. Moody founded Moody Bible Institute
in Chicago in 1886.
3. In 1889 A. J. Gordon founded a Bible
institute in Boston that now bears his name
— Gordon College.
4. Northwestern Schools were founded by
William Bell Riley in Minneapolis in 1902.
5. The Bible Institute of Los Angeles was
founded in 1908, and in 1912 R. A. Torrey
became its first dean.
6. Dallas Theological Seminary was founded in
1924 under the leadership of Lewis Sperry
Chafer.
7. Bob Jones, Sr. founded Bob Jones College
(now Bob Jones University) in 1927 as part
of the same fundamentalist protest against
liberalism.
Some schools were also founded within
denominational frameworks as protests against the
liberalism in the denominations.
The Northern Baptist Convention was founded in
1907. Prior to that time the Baptist churches in the
40Beale, 89.
41From a personal conversation with historian Robert Delnay,
June 5, 2008.
50 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
north were independent, being affiliated with local and
state associations, and loosely bound together on a
national level by mutual interests in schools, mission
boards, and publishing houses. The ―architect‖ of the
Northern Convention was Shailer Matthews, a liberal
theologian and dean of the school of religion at the
University of Chicago. The Bible-believing churches
across the northern U.S. were deceived into joining the
convention, which was under the control of liberals
from the day it was born.
Most of the schools that became part of the
Northern Baptist Convention were either liberal or
heavily influenced by liberals. Bible believers were
concerned about trends in the convention and tried to
get control of it from the liberals. As part of that
attempt they began some new schools that were
committed to the inspiration and authority of
Scripture. Northern Baptist Theological Seminary was
founded in 1913 in Chicago. Some noteworthy
fundamentalist graduates of Northern were R. V.
Clearwaters, George Carlson, Robert Delnay, and
Richard Weeks. Well-known New Evangelical
graduates were Carl Henry (who later taught there)
and Warren Wiersbe. Eastern Baptist Theological
Seminary was founded in Philadelphia in 1925. As
previously noted, B. Myron Cedarholm graduated from
Eastern. Both of these schools have since left
fundamentalism. In 1927 the Baptist Bible Union
gained control of Des Moines University in Iowa. The
school struggled and folded in 1929.
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 51
Within Presbyterianism, Westminster Seminary
was formed in 1929 as a theologically orthodox school
within the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
Westminster‘s founding took place after the battle over
liberalism and biblical Christianity at Princeton
Seminary.42
Identifying Fundamentalism
This study leads us to the task of identifying what
fundamentalism was in its genesis. What was it that
the Bible believers from the 1870s stood for and
believed? What drove them and motivated them to take
the stand they took, pay the price they paid, and found
the institutions they brought into being? What
distinctive coalesced into the movement that Curtis
Lee Laws dubbed as ―fundamentalism?‖ What was the
fundamentalism to which R. A. Torrey, Anton
Cedarholm, and later B. Myron Cedarholm
subscribed?
A Theological Component
We cannot consider the history that led to
fundamentalism without understanding that theology
was at the heart of the nascent and then the fully
developed fundamentalism. The foundational doctrine
of the movement was certainly Bibliology. Modernism
42George W. Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America
(Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1973), 88.
52 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
had attacked the Bible, and the fundamentalists boldly
affirmed the supernatural character of God‘s Word.
Beyond that, fundamentalists subscribed to a fairly
comprehensive, commonly held body of doctrine. This
fact is substantiated by the fourteen points in the
Niagara statement and the broad spectrum of doctrinal
themes that were articulated in The Fundamentals.
Men and institutions who believed that the Bible was
the Word of God reacted when that faith was attacked
by scholars and leaders who had become apostate.
They formulated statements of doctrine to which they
could mutually subscribe. They wrote to enunciate
and defend biblical doctrines. They built churches,
schools, and mission agencies to perpetuate that
doctrinal framework. They believed the Bible and what
it taught. That conviction was ―in their souls,‖ and
they stood for it. The fourteen points of Niagara and
the ―five fundamentals‖ of the Presbyterians were
popular representations of those beliefs. The
Fundamentals (now available in four volumes) fleshed
out those beliefs in some detail.
William Ward Ayer understood this genius of
fundamentalism. Speaking to the National Association
of Evangelicals in 1956, he put the issue in historical
perspective:
Fundamentalism represents a resurgence of
ancient practices, which began not with Martin
Luther but at Pentecost. Fundamentalism is
apostolic, and the doctrine of justification goes back
to Paul. That branch from which the
fundamentalist movement sprang lived obscurely
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 53
through the ages and had never been completely
silenced even in the Dark Ages . . . What
fundamentalism did was to awaken the slumbering
apostolicism from lethargy. The theme of the
Reformation, like the cry of the fundamentalists
today, was ―back to the Bible and the Apostles,‖
with no mediator between men and God except
Christ. Fundamentalists are in the direct line of
succession to those preaching this same message.43
Ayer is right! Certain doctrinal and theological
distinctives have marked fundamentalists because
they come from the Word of God.
A Militant Component
Those who embraced this position were adamant in
their statement of their own position, and they were
also bold to expose and refute the higher criticism that
bred the denial of the Scriptures. In the 1880s
Spurgeon was outspoken in his opposition to the
invading apostasy. A reading of Hengstenberg, David
Baron, and others reveals that they ―took on‖ the
assertions of the higher critics and other opponents of
biblical revelation. The Fundamentals contained
several articles exposing the new theology. All these
indications took place before Curtis Lee Laws coined
the term ―Fundamentalist.‖ Just before the Laws
article appeared, W. B. Riley preached at the first
43William Ward Ayer, speech to the National Association of
Evangelicals, April 1956, quoted in Louis Gasper, The Fundamentalist Movement, 1930–1956 (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1981 reprint), 2, 3.
54 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
meeting of the Fundamentalist Fellowship in Buffalo.
His message dealt with unbelief in the Northern
Baptist schools. He affirmed his friendship and
affection for the leaders of several of those schools and
then proceeded to name them and expose their
unbelief.
Before moving on, let us pause here to reflect that
those two characteristics of fundamentalism are far
older than Spinoza in 1650, Schleiermacher in the
early 19th century, Graf, Wellhausen, or any of the
men who stood against them. They are not mere
historical reactions against unbelief that was current
at the time. Nor are those two characteristics built on
tradition because we look back to Curtis Lee Laws‘
famous statement. It is against that historical
backdrop and in that theological tradition that
fundamentalism was born.
But before the end of the first century Jude wrote
and said: ―Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write
unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for
me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should
earnestly contend for the faith which was once
delivered unto the saints‖ (Jude 3). There is a body of
truth that God has ―once for all delivered‖ to His
people. That is the ―whole counsel of God‖ (Acts
20:27). It must be declared as Paul preached it to the
Ephesians. It must be contended for as Jude exhorted.
The truth is God‘s truth. We believe it because He
revealed it. We are bold to contend for it at any cost
because He exhorts us to do that very thing. We are
convinced that there is a body of revealed truth which
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 55
must be accepted and which forms the basis for our
faith. We are further persuaded that ―the faith once
delivered to the saints‖ must be earnestly contended
for. That conviction and persuasion comes from the
Word of God itself.
Fundamentalism and Separatism
This militant component of fundamentalism
eventually manifested itself in another way—that is,
fundamentalism necessarily became characterized by
separatism. Some have criticized early fundamentalists
because later fundamentalists exhibited a separatist
spirit that was not evident in the early stages of its
development. Rolland McCune has observed: ―One
may rightfully distinguish between non-conformist
fundamentalism (pre-1930) and separatist fundamen-
talism (post-1930).‖44 McCune cites Beale noting that
―the separatist position did not solidify as a distinct,
militant movement until the 1930s.‖45 The early
fundamentalists sought to effect corrective measures
in their respective denominations. When those
attempts failed they separated from the apostate
denominations and formed new denominational
structures and new service agencies.46
44Rolland D. McCune ―The Self-Identity of Fundamentalism,‖
Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (Spring 1996): 28. McCune is
citing David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity, 5.
45Beale, 5.
46It is beyond the purview of this particular paper, but we
must at least note that this is the separatism against which Harold John Ockenga reacted. In his book The Epistles to the
56 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
When there was no recourse in Presbyterianism,
the new Westminster Seminary and a new
Presbyterian ecclesiastical structure came into
existence. When the battle over liberalism was lost in
the Northern Baptist Convention, fundamentalists
formed new associations of churches, such as the
Baptist Bible Union, then the General Association of
Regular Baptist Churches, and later, the Conservative
Baptist Association of America. New mission agencies,
schools, and other service ministries also began. In
interdenominational circles, new fellowships of
churches like the Independent Fundamental Churches
of America (IFCA) and new schools, mission agencies,
publishing houses, and evangelistic outreach
ministries were formed. Fundamentalists had no
choice but to practice biblical separation when they
could not reverse the trends toward liberalism.
Pettegrew observed:
Thessalonians, Proclaiming the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1962), 3:136–37 he argued ―That there is a form of unbelief which may be permitted to exist within the churches;‖ and based
on 2 Timothy 2:16–26 he further argued that ―we are responsible
to seek to turn apostates from their error instead of separate from them.‖ [Emphasis mine] It must be observed that Ockenga rightly
emphasized the biblical command to seek the restoration of those
who embrace false doctrine (v. 24–26). At the same time we must
note that Ockenga completely overlooked the commands to
separation in the earlier verses of that passage (v. 16–19, 21–23). Garth M. Rosell, The Surprising Work of God: Harold John Ockenga, Billy Graham, and the Rebirth of Evangelicalism (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 174–78 says that Ockenga
viewed separatism as ―wrongheaded and dangerous.‖
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 57
What does all this tell us about the modern
fundamentalist movement? Without question,
ecclesiastical separation has rightly become a more
important aspect of the fundamentalist movement
in recent years. Some would even say that it has
become the distinctive.47
McCune assesses this issue saying of separatism:
―It is at once both the most maligned and/or
misunderstood distinctive of fundamentalism and
probably the most defining one. Fundamentalism and
separation walk in lockstep.‖48
Fundamentalism and Interdenominationalism49
We have already seen that fundamentalism places
primary emphasis on the supernatural character of
the Bible as God‘s revelation to the human race. It is
safe to say that fundamentalists are what they are
because they believe Scripture to be a revelation from
God, written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That
conviction is the fundamentalist‘s foundation — it is
our very reason for being.
We who are Baptists are quick to assert that the
very same tenet, the authority of Scripture, is also the
reason we are Baptists. The same Word that teaches
us our doctrine also mandates our practice. Chester E.
Tulga, longtime Research Secretary of the
47Pettegrew, 2.
48McCune, 27-28.
49This section from Fred Moritz, Contending for the Faith
(Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2000), Chapter 1.
58 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, stated: ―The basic
tenet of the historic Baptist faith is that the Bible is
the Word of God and the sole authority of faith and
practice.‖50 British Pastor and historian Jack Hoad
states: ―It is the Biblical doctrine of the church, with
an unqualified submission to scripture as the Word of
God, which becomes the test of what is a baptist
church. . . . The baptist is a scripture-ruled believer.‖51
In the New Testament, we find that local churches
were independent of any outside controlling authority.
They enjoyed a voluntary, fraternal relationship with
one another (Acts 15:1–35). We find that only saved
people became members of New Testament churches
(Acts 2:47). The New Testament teaches only two
officers in the local church—pastors and deacons (1
Tim 3:1–13) and only two symbolic ordinances—
baptism and the Lord‘s supper (Rom 6:3–5; 1 Cor
11:23–34). Scripture declares that each believer is a
priest before God and has direct access into the
presence of God through the blood of Christ (1 Pet 2:9;
Heb 10:19–22). Jesus taught that the Christian lives in
two frames of reference — ―Caesar‘s‖ and ―God‘s‖ (Matt
22:20, 21). Therefore, we believe the church and the
state should be separate. We hold that these issues of
church practice (commonly called the Baptist
50Chester E. Tulga, ―What Baptists Believe About Soul
Liberty,‖ in The Baptist Challenge (Little Rock, AR: Central Baptist
Church, October 1997), 21. Tulga was the long-time Research Secretary of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship.
51Jack Hoad, The Baptist (London: Grace Publications Trust,
1986), 7, 225.
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 59
Distinctives) come from and are mandated by
Scripture.
Having said that, we must understand that
fundamentalism was an interdenominational move-
ment. Christians who believed the Bible and opposed
modernism set aside their denominational distinctives
to come together and lift a united voice for those
truths that made up the ―irreducible minimum‖ of
Christianity. They fought against liberalism in their
own denominations and also united outside the
denominational frameworks to fight against it. Richard
Harris, himself a Baptist, explains the thinking of most
fundamentalists on this issue:
There have always been honest differences of
interpretation on church organization, as well as on
other issues, among good men who love Christ.
There was a time when men could amicably differ
on issues which did not affect fundamental
Christian doctrine and still respect and firmly
defend one another. Great Christian leaders of the
past were able to respect those differences and yet
recognize that the men with whom they differed
were still Fundamentalists and brothers in Christ.
They were Christian statesmen.52
Speaking of the formation of the American Council
of Christian Churches in 1941, Harris goes on:
52Richard A. Harris, ―A Plea for Christian Statesmanship,‖
The Challenge (Bethlehem, PA: American Council of Christian
Churches, December, 1997), 1.
60 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
It made no difference that some of them were
Baptist, some were Evangelical Methodists, some
were Bible Presbyterians, and some of other
persuasions. Their fellowship was characterized by
their common belief that the Bible is the
authoritative, inerrant Word of God. All of them
believed in the Virgin Birth, the Deity of Christ, His
substitutionary atonement for sin, His bodily
resurrection and ascension into Heaven and His
coming again in power and glory. Each believed the
Bible taught that the Church should be separate
from apostasy and Christians should be obedient to
Christ.53
The early fundamentalists represented many
denominational traditions, and fundamentalism was
an interdenominational movement. There should still
be a place for fundamentalists of various persuasions
to come together and stand together for ―the faith once
delivered to the saints‖ and against ―certain men crept
in unawares.‖ The American Council of Christian
Churches still performs a legitimate service. It is still
proper for the International Testimony to An Infallible
Bible to call fundamentalists from around the world to
stand united in a World Congress of Fundamentalists.
We need to help and encourage each other.
Latitude within Fundamentalism
Having identified the major characteristics of
historic fundamentalism, it is important to also note
53Ibid., 2.
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 61
that fundamentalists viewed certain issues as not
essential to their united stand for the great
fundamentals, and to the struggle that ensued for
them.
Denominational Distinctives
For better or worse, fundamentalism was an
interdenominational movement. As higher criticism
and the resultant theological liberalism invaded every
denominational body, fundamentalists united to fight
a common enemy, and in that battle they did not make
their denominational positions on church polity and
government an issue. Thus Lutherans, Presbyterians,
Baptists, and representatives from other denomina-
tions could meet for the World‘s Conference of
Christian Fundamentals in 1919. This does not mean
that their denominational distinctives were
unimportant to them. It means simply that they did
not emphasize them in the battle with unbelief.
Bible Versions
Fundamentalists simply did not make the use of a
particular Bible version an issue.54 Although he was in
England and not identified with the nascent
movement, it is noteworthy that Spurgeon read the
English Revised Version after its appearance in 1881.
54Rolland D. McCune, ―Doctrinal Non-Issues in Historic
Fundamentalism‖ Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (Fall 1996):
171–177, discusses this issue in detail.
62 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Several of his sermons survive in print in which he
preached from that version of the Bible.
A reading of The Fundamentals reveals that several
of the authors made reference to the 1881 English
Revised Verson or the 1901 American Standard Version
of the Bible. Anyone who has read collections of R.A.
Torrey‘s sermons recalls that he made frequent use of
and references to one of the two new versions. I stood
in his home in Montrose, Pennsylvania, and held one
of his Bibles. It happened to be a copy with the King
James Version and 1881 ERV in parallel columns.
Though the King James Version was the Bible of
common usage, Bible colleges routinely recommended
use of the American Standard Version and the New
American Standard for reference and study. In this
author‘s Life of Christ class in college, for example, the
professor assigned reading in a harmony of the
Gospels that used only the ASV.
Fundamentalists universally affirmed the verbal,
plenary inspiration of the Bible in the original
manuscripts. The ―Articles Put Forth by the Baptist
Bible Union‖ in 1923 serves as an example of a
fundamentalist statement of that time. It says:
We believe that the Holy Bible was (a) written by
men supernaturally inspired; (b) that it has truth
without any admixture of error for its matter; and (c)
therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the age, the
only complete and final revelation of the will of God to
man; the true center of Christian union and the
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 63
supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds
and opinions should be tried. (Explanatory)
By ―THE HOLY BIBLE‖ we mean that collection of
sixty-six books, from Genesis to Revelation, which, as
originally written, does not contain and convey the word
of God, but IS the very Word of God.
By ―INSPIRATION‖ we mean that the books of the
Bible were written by holy men of old, as they were
moved by the Holy Spirit, in such a definite way that
their writings were supernaturally inspired and free
from error, as no other writings have ever been or ever
will be inspired.55
At the same time, fundamentalists stood united
against unreliable Bible versions. The Revised
Standard Version Old Testament was published in
1952. The reaction by fundamentalists (and many
evangelicals) against the interpretation and faulty
translation of Isaiah 7:14 was immediate. When Good
News for Modern Man came out in 1966 and 1968,
fundamentalists again united to raise their voices
against its denials of the virgin birth and the blood of
Christ.
Calvinism and Arminianism
―Fundamentalism has never had a united voice on
Calvinism-Arminianism issues although by and large it
55http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/bbu.htm. Accessed
September 7, 2010.
64 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
has been moderately Calvinistic, probably three or
four-point Calvinism.‖56
A cursory survey of The Fundamentals is again
instructive. L. W. Munhall was a Methodist. R. A.
Torrey was Congregationalist in his orientation. These
men were on opposite ends of the sovereignty/freewill
spectrum and discussion. And yet they were united for
the fundamentals of the faith. In later years Carl
McIntire and Alan MacRae were Princeton graduates
and Presbyterian. They were strongly Calvinistic in
their orientation. And yet good men could put their
differences aside to stand for ―the faith once delivered
to the saints.‖
Modern-day fundamentalists can learn from this.
No finite human being can finally settle the tension
between an infinite God‘s sovereignty and man‘s finite
will. Scripture leaves the issue in tension. Honest men
on both sides of the discussion admit their inability to
resolve the issue, and it seems that most of what
results from discussions of the matter is a fight!
Fundamentalists on both sides of the debate need to
learn again the wisdom of granting each other latitude.
Stridence on either side seems to produce intolerance
and contention.
Conclusion
The fundamentalist movement began to develop in
the 1870s as a defense of biblical doctrine and
56McCune, ―Doctrinal Non-Issues,‖ 177.
Maranatha is Fundamentalist 65
theology against the theological liberalism that
developed from 1650 and took shape in the nineteenth
century. The term came into usage in 1920.
Fundamentalism as a movement is the historical
expression at a particular point in history of the Bible
truth that God has revealed Himself to the human race
in His Word. This movement also takes at face value
that the divinely revealed truth is to be earnestly
contended for as Jude 3 mandates. At its best
fundamentalism is a ―back to the Bible‖ movement to
proclaim and contend for the truth.
Fundamentalism is therefore a theological and
militant movement. It was interdenominational by
definition. Fundamentalists also allowed each other
latitude in the use of Bible versions and in their
understanding of Calvinism and Arminianism.
Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Maranatha
Baptist Seminary embrace fundamentalism in this
historical setting. We believe, teach, defend, and boldly
stand for ―the whole counsel of God‖ (Acts 20:27) with
―a conscience void of offence toward men and toward
God‖ (Acts 24:16).
MBTJ 1/1: 67-101
Maranatha is Dispensational
Bruce K. Meyer1
Throughout history, humanity has pursued
knowledge about God, His world, and His plans for the
world. Graciously, God has provided a revelation of His
story, a revelation of His work and plans for His
creation. Like any book, however, people can read the
Bible in such a way to distort the message and the
God of the Bible. Sadly, there have been many who
have fashioned distorted teachings using the Bible to
justify their bizarre beliefs and practices. Accurate
interpretation of the Scriptures is the key to
understanding Who God is and what He is doing.
Therefore, who should set the rules for interpreting
God‘s Word? Certainly God has not left His creation to
a hopeless state of uncertainty, never able to
understand His self-revelation. It should be obvious to
anyone seeking to understand a document that the
author is the determiner of the intended meaning,
since that person knows what he himself was thinking
when he wrote the document. Stein writes,
1Dr. Meyer is Professor of Biblical Studies, Maranatha Baptist
Bible College, and Adjunct Professor of Biblical Counseling,
Maranatha Baptist Seminary.
68 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
[W]hat the author willed to convey by the
linguistic symbols used (whether the symbols were
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or Latin is immaterial)
possesses a meaning that can never change. What
a biblical author willed by his text is anchored in
history. . . . What a text meant when it was written,
it will always mean. It can no more change than
any other event of the past can change, because its
meaning is forever anchored in past history.2
The responsibility, therefore, of the biblical
interpreter is to understand the sacred text as the
author intended it to be understood. This is the nature
of the debate between dispensationalists and non-
dispensationalists—which system of interpretation
best allows the text to speak with authorial intent,
especially in prophecy?
Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary is
committed to dispensational hermeneutics because
dispensationalism provides a hermeneutic that allows
the text to speak for itself. Therefore, because of the
essential characteristics that dispensationalism
espouses, this hermeneutical system provides a
superior interpretive template over covenantalism. The
author will demonstrate this superiority by examining
the importance of a dispensational interpretation, the
definition and biblical use of the term ―dispensation,‖
the essential characteristics of dispensationalism, and
the relationship of the testaments in dispensa-
tionalism.
2Robert Stein, ―Who Makes Up the Rules,‖ Rightly Divided,
ed. Roy Zuck (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), 38 [emphasis added].
Maranatha is Dispensational 69
Importance of the Discussion
Often the author encounters individuals who
believe dispensationalism is primarily concerned with
eschatological issues.3 While many of the implications
of dispensationalism have shaped premillennial
eschatology, the hermeneutical system shapes many
other doctrines as well. Larry Oats, for example, has
explained how the covenantal approach allows for
evangelicals to justify their lack of ecclesiastical
separation.4 Their reasoning is that since the nation of
Israel existed with mixed conditions, then the church
today will exist with a mixture of true and false.5
Although for different reasons, even Ryrie
acknowledges this tension stating, ―[n]ot only has the
dispensational teaching concerning the church been
the subject of controversy, but also the ramifications of
that teaching in ecclesiastical life have been attacked.‖6
Additionally, denominations associated with
covenantal positions have for some time practiced
infant baptism, since, in their view, New Testament
[NT] baptism has replaced Old Testament [OT]
3Further, the author has encountered those who believe
erroneously that all who hold to premillennial positions are
dispensational.
4Larry Oats, ―Dispensationalism: A Basis for Ecclesiastical
Separation‖ (Conference on Baptist Fundamentalism, Watertown,
March 2003).
5Edward Carnell, The Case for Orthodox Theology
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959), 136.
6Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 1995),
123.
70 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
circumcision as the sign of the covenant for believers
in this age.7 Bromiley states that baptism is ―a
covenant sign (like circumcision, but without blood-
shedding), and therefore a sign of the work of God on
our behalf which precedes and makes possible our
own responsive movement.‖8 Therefore, baptism places
the child into a covenant relationship with God as he
awaits regeneration.9
Many nouthetic counseling authors incorporate
covenantal concepts in their writings. Frequently, such
authors comment that believers are ―covenantal‖
creatures and that they have a ―covenantal
relationship‖ with God. Such a focus would be
somewhat acceptable if those authors were referencing
only the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 in which
believers participate, but they are in fact referring to
the covenant of grace.10
In addition to these beliefs, the Presbyterian
Church (USA) has recently sided with Arab nations
against the nation of Israel regarding middle-eastern
7Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1982), 633.
8Geoffrey Bromiley, ―Infant Baptism,‖ Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 117.
9Berkhof, 287–8.
10Ibid., 633. Berkhof defines this covenant as: ―that gracious
agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect
sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ,
and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith
and obedience‖ (277). This covenant furthermore forms the basis for the particular or limited atonement position so prevalent in
covenant theology (278).
Maranatha is Dispensational 71
policy, since, in their theology, the church has
replaced Israel and God has annulled His promises to
Israel.11 Ergun Caner, a converted Muslim, explains
that he is often the object of anger from Christians
because of his personal support of Israel.12 Such a
position is based upon a replacement theology, that is,
the church has replaced Israel and all the promises of
the Old Testament, since conditional, have been
invalidated.13
These examples illustrate a crucial point:
dispensationalism is concerned about the accurate
interpretation of Scripture resulting in both a solid
theology and a sound practice. Wrong interpretation
leads to a wrong theology and a wrong practice.
Dispensationalists disagree with these theological
perspectives because they are founded upon a wrong
hermeneutic.
The Definition and Biblical Use of “Dispensation”
The Greek word for ―dispensation‖ occurs
nine times in the NT and refers to the activity or
11Elwood McQuaid, ―Presbyterians Come Out of the Closet,‖
Israel My Glory (Nov/Dec 2004), 12. For further explanations of
these positions, see Gary Burge, Whose Land? Whose Promise?
(Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press, 2003).
12Ergun Caner, ―The MBBs‘ [Muslim-background believers] ‗Dirty Little Secret,‘‖ Israel My Glory (Nov/Dec 2004), 8–10.
13Ibid., 10.
72 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
function of a steward.14 The term implies that an
authority has required a particular responsibility of a
steward, an accounting of that responsibility, and a re-
evaluation of the relationship based upon faithfulness
to the responsibility (Luke 16:1–2). Burggraff explains:
The world is seen as a household administered
by God in connection with several stages of
revelation that make up the different economies in
the outworking of his total program. These
economies are the dispensations in dispensa-
tionalism. Thus from God‘s viewpoint a
dispensation is an economy; from man‘s it is a
responsibility to the particular revelation given at
the time. In relation to progressive revelation, a
dispensation is a stage within it.15
Various men have defined dispensationalism as:
―a period of time during which man is tested
in respect of obedience to some specific
revelation of the will of God.‖16
14Walter Bauer, ― ‖ A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and
augmented by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, 2nd ed., ed. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1979), 559. This word is also used in
Luke 16:2–4; 1 Cor 9:17; Eph 1:10; 3:2, 9; Col 1:25; and 1 Tim
1:14.
15David Burggraff, ―Determining Our Place in the World: A
Growing Difficulty for Modern Dispensationalism,‖ National Leadership Conference, Feb. 2003, Lansdale, PA., 2–3.
16C. I. Scofield, ed., The Scofield Reference Bible (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1945), 5.
Maranatha is Dispensational 73
―a stage in the progressive revelation of God
constituting a distinctive stewardship or rule
of life.‖17
―. . . a distinguishable economy in the
outworking of God‘s purpose.‖18
―. . . [a dispensation] simply refers to an
administrative arrangement in the plan of
God. . . . Dispensationalism as a theological
system attempts to discuss the nature and
relationship of the different administrative
arrangements within God‘s plan, ‗to rightly
divide the Word of God.‘ It seeks to explain
how the Bible fits together.‖19
Do the biblical authors, however, use the term
―dispensation‖ in the sense that is different from the
dispensational usage as some covenantalists argue,
namely as God giving a specific stewardship to man?
Paul not only recognizes this usage but he also uses
the word in this sense in three contexts. First, Paul
speaks of ―the dispensation of the fullness of times‖ in
Ephesians 1:10. In the context, Paul stresses the
doxological culmination of God‘s plans in the
millennial kingdom. This passage is significant for the
millennial debate, since Paul identifies the ―fullness of
17Lewis Sperry Chafer, Major Bible Themes, rev. John
Walvoord (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 126.
18Ryrie, 28.
19Darrell L. Bock, ―Charting Dispensationalism,‖ Christianity Today (12 September 1994), 27.
74 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
times‖ as taking place within history, rather than
during the eternal state. Furthermore, the apostle
explains that God will gather all things together in
Christ at that time. Therefore, the text explains both
the timing (―the fullness of times‖) and the purpose
(―gather together in one all things in Christ‖) of the
millennial rule of Christ. Hoehner confirms this
interpretation in explaining:
Hence, the ―times‖ are completed when Messiah
rules. This [Luke 21:24] is analogous to Eph 1:10,
for the mystery of this will is made known
according to his good pleasure which he purposed
in Christ for the administration of fullness of the
―times,‖ which is that future promised in the OT, . .
. discussed in the Gospels, . . . not fulfilled at
Christ‘s ascension, . . . and hoped for by the
church. . . .
Therefore, the fullness of time refers to the
future unification of all things under the headship
of Christ. It does not primarily refer to the present
church age but the future messianic age. That will
be the time of restoration and harmony under one
head.20
Second, Paul speaks of the present ―dispensation‖
in Ephesians 3:2, 9. Here, Paul contrasts the present
dispensation of the church with the previous
dispensation of the law. Therefore, Paul is
demonstrating the change that has occurred in this
dispensation (Jew and Gentile in one body) contrasted
20Harold Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002), 219, 225.
Maranatha is Dispensational 75
with that of the law (a Gentile became a Jew first).21
Furthermore, Paul also highlights the progressive
nature of revelation as he now has the responsibility to
share this formerly hidden truth (―mystery‖) with
believers. The apostle recognizes both the need for
biblical distinctions in God‘s economy and the
progressive nature of revelation.
These three passages frame two important
considerations concerning dispensationalism. First,
dispensationalists are not reading the idea of
―dispensations‖ into the text, since Paul mentions
three distinct stewardship arrangements. Second,
although Paul mentions only three dispensations, he
does establish a key concept in the Scriptures that
allows for more. The distinctions in God‘s dealing with
man throughout the OT would argue for the necessity
of more dispensations, but are not absolutely
necessary for one to be a dispensationalist.22
Additionally, conservatives use other terms that do not
appear in Scripture, yet those theological concepts are
valid.23 One should note, however, that the definition
of the term ―dispensation‖ and its use in the NT do not
define what dispensationalism is as a system. These
definitions merely establish the functional concepts
within the system.24
21Ibid., 424.
22Ryrie, 47.
23The theological terms ―Trinity‖ and ―rapture‖ for example.
24John Feinberg, ―Systems of Discontinuity,‖ Continuity and Discontinuity, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL: Crossway,
1988), 69.
76 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
The Essentials of Dispensationalism
There are additional reasons why dispensa-
tionalism is indispensable. These form the sine qua
non of dispensationalism—the essential features.25
First, dispensationalism provides a framework
(structure) for understanding God‘s plan as it unfolds
within Scripture (a philosophy of history) that centers
in God‘s glory.26 Without careful thought, some may be
inclined to believe that the Bible is merely a collection
of stories and teachings that take up space until one
can get to the really big story of Jesus. On the
contrary, the Bible is one grand story of God‘s plan for
His created world.
Dispensationalism provides an interpretive grid
that organizes the stories and teachings into a unified
whole, a philosophy of history that endeavors to
understand temporal history as culminating in a
purposeful conclusion (the millennial reign of Christ as
highlighted in Eph 1:10). The seven dispensations
explain how God‘s work is progressing towards a final
goal in the kingdom as illustrated in the following
table. Since God gave His revelation progressively in
history, He reveals His purpose for history through
that revelation in conjunction with the biblical
covenants throughout the OT. This overall framework
25The author is presenting the sine qua non in an atypical
order, from the more general to the specific.
26For a thorough treatment on philosophy of history, see
Ramesh Richard‘s three-part series, ―Premillennialism as a Philosophy of History,‖ Bibliotheca Sacra (Jan–July 1981): 13.
Maranatha is Dispensational 77
highlights God‘s doxological purpose in history, rather
than merely a soteriological purpose. This broader
purpose recognizes not only God‘s work with
redemption, but also with non-believers, nations,
kings, Satan, and nature.
Ete
rnit
y P
ast
Dispensationalism
TEMPORAL HISTORY
Ete
rnity
Futu
re
Innocence Conscience Human
Government Promise Law Church Kingdom
Individuals Families Israel Gentile
Nations
All
Nations
Covenant theology also recognizes the need for
these distinctions through biblical history. Charles
Hodge, a covenant postmillennialist, lists four
dispensations (his term): Adam to Abraham, Abraham
to Moses, Moses to Christ, and the Gospel.27 Berkhof,
a covenant amillennialist, describes two dispensations:
the old and the new. Oddly, Berkhof recognizes the
need to ―subdivide the [old covenant] into several
periods or stages in the revelation of the covenant of
grace‖ reminiscent of the dispensational
understanding.28 One should note that the use of the
27Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Oak Harbor, WA:
Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997 reprint of 1872 edition), 2:373–77.
28Berkhof, 292.
78 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
term ―dispensation‖ does not necessitate that person is
a dispensationalist.
The covenantal grid, however, does not allow for
sufficient dispensations to satisfactorily explain God‘s
plans in various epochs, since there are obvious
differences between what God was doing with Noah
then Abraham then Israel and now with the church. A
covenantal philosophy of biblical history focuses upon
three covenants: the covenant of redemption, the
covenant of works, and the covenant of grace.29
VanGemeren explains: ―Reformed Theology
wholeheartedly embraces the covenantal structure of
our relationship with God. God is in covenant with
mankind as he is with all of creation.‖30 These three
covenants relate to the historical structure of
Scripture, but fail to provide a purposeful goal within
temporal history besides redemption. As VanGemeren
confirms,
[T]he covenantal structure also helps us to
uncover our relatedness to Israel in the past, to
understand man‘s place in God‘s creation, to enjoy
the Father‘s presence and guidance in the history of
redemption, the oneness of salvation in the
mediator Jesus Christ with both Israel under the
29Renald Showers, There Really Is a Difference (Bellmawr, NJ:
The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990) provides a thorough
analysis of the validity of these covenants, 7–18.
30Willem VanGemeren, ―Systems of Continuity,‖ Continuity and Discontinuity, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL:
Crossway Books, 1988), 60. One should question how the non-
elect fit into this covenant relationship.
Maranatha is Dispensational 79
Old Covenant and the church in the New Covenant,
the ministry of the Spirit of God in transforming our
lives. The covenantal structure encourages
openness to God and his world and encourages the
Christian community to look toward the closure of
this age and the renewal of heaven and earth.31
As evident from this statement, the amillennial
system, the most popular covenantal position,
positions God‘s victory outside of temporal history in
the eternal state. Allis, an amillennialist, writes:
Such a picture of an ideal age raises only one
serious difficulty. It is whether the Bible and
especially the New Testament predicts or allows for
such a period of blessedness before the eternal
state is ushered in, or whether the picture given to
us by Isaiah is a description of that eternal state
itself under earthly forms and images.32
Furthermore, according to the covenantal position,
rather than Jesus manifesting a righteous reign in the
millennium, He ―reigns‖ in the hearts of believers now.
Satan is already bound in the sense that he cannot
deter the gospel. The unifying historical principle for
covenant theology is soteriological—the covenant of
grace (as illustrated in the following chart). As
Johnson clarifies, ―[i]t is not that the Reformed
tradition ignores the glory of God but simply does not
identify the theme as an interpretive key in canonical
31Ibid.
32Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1945), 237.
80 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
interpretation.‖33 Therefore, covenantalism views the
promises pertaining to Israel in spiritual terms rather
than physical, since redemption becomes their primary
focus. If redemption lies at the heart of God‘s work,
there is no room, nor need, for promises relating to the
physical realm.
Eternity
Past
Covenantalism
TEMPORAL HISTORY
Ete
rnity
Futu
re
Covenant of
Redemption
Covenant
of Works Covenant of Grace
The National Church (or
Israel) merges into the Universal
Church
The second essential of dispensationalism is the
consistent application of a literal hermeneutic. Ryrie
stated in 1965 in his ground breaking book,
―[c]onsistently literal or plain interpretation is
indicative of a dispensational approach to the
interpretation of the Scriptures.‖34 Bernard Ramm, the
―classic‖ among hermeneutics authors, describes a
literal interpretation at length:
We use the word ―literal‖ in its dictionary sense:
―. . . the natural or usual construction and
33Elliott Johnson, ―Prophetic Fulfillment: The Already and Not
Yet,‖ Issues in Dispensationalism, Wesley Willis and John Master,
eds. (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 198.
34Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody,
1965), 46.
Maranatha is Dispensational 81
implication of a writing or expression; following the
ordinary and apparent sense of words; not
allegorical or metaphorical‖ (Webster’s New
International Dictionary). We also use it in its
historical sense, specifically, the priority that
Luther and Calvin gave to literal, grammatical, or
philological exegesis of Scripture in contrast to the
Four Fold Theory of the Roman Catholic scholars
(historical meaning, moral meaning, allegorical
meaning, eschatological meaning) developed during
the Middle Ages and historically derived from
Augustine‘s Three Fold Theory. It was particularly
the allegorical use of the Old Testament that the
Reformers objected to, and the manner in which
Roman Catholic dogma was re-enforced by
allegorical interpretation. Hence the ―literal‖ directly
opposes the ―allegorical.‖35
It is quite significant that the Reformers were quick
to identify the error of allegorical interpretation in the
Roman system, but retained the practice in their own
hermeneutic for prophetic genres.
With regard to symbols and figurative language,
Ramm writes:
All secondary meanings of documents depend
upon the literal stratum of language. Parables, types,
allegories, symbols, figures of speech, myths and
fables presume that there is a level of meaning in
language prior to the kind of language this kind of
literature is. The parable of the sower is understood
35Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 3rd ed.
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 119.
82 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
only within the context of literal ―farm‖ language.
The symbolism of a lion is based upon what is
asserted about lions in literal speech. . . . In that all
non-literal statements are ―take-offs‖ from the more
original, more primitive literal language, then the
literal exegesis is the point of departure in all
interpretation, Biblical or extra-Biblical.36
Therefore, a literal interpretation allows for figures
of speech and metaphors, but insists upon contextual
markers that would indicate the use of metaphorical
language.37 Daniel, for example, describes the fourth
beast as having ten horns (Dan 7:23). The text explains
that the ten horns are ten kings (Dan 7:24) and that
the beast is the fourth kingdom on the earth (v. 23).
God uses symbols, but He identifies those symbols for
readers through textual indicators. Ryrie clarifies the
issue in saying:
Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all
interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in
no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all,
the very existence of any meaning for a figure of
speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning
of the terms involved.38
He adds further that ―to be sure, apocalyptic
literature does employ symbols in prophecy, but they
36Ibid., 124.
37Elliott Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1990), 194–5, lists several contextual clues: explicit
contextual statements, conflicting imagery, and juxtaposition of images.
38Ryrie, 80–1.
Maranatha is Dispensational 83
stand for something actual.‖39 The covenantal view
that one symbolic word can represent an unrelated
symbolic concept leads to a more subjective
interpretation that lacks contextual justification.
Ramm cautions, ―[t]o rest one‘s theology on the
secondary strata of meanings is to invite interpretation
by imagination.‖40 It is this author‘s belief that the
amillennial position is one remaining ―carry-over‖ from
the Catholic Church that the Protestant Reformation
has yet to jettison, although covenantalists have made
modifications that would distinguish their system from
Catholicism.
Ice clarifies the difference between a literal
interpretation and the interpretation of metaphorical
language when he explains:
The church will not be substituted for Israel if
the grammatical-historical system of interpretation
is consistently used because there are no indicators
in the text that such is the case. Therefore, one
must bring an idea from outside the text by saying
that the passage really means something that it
does not actually say. This kind of replacement
approach is a mild form of spiritualized, or
allegorical, interpretation. So when speaking of
those who do replace Israel with the church as not
taking the Bible literally and spiritualizing the text,
39Ibid., 87 [emphasis added].
40Ramm, 125.
84 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
it is true, since such a belief is contrary to a
macroliteral [textual] interpretation.41
Ice is highlighting the two senses in which
dispensationalists use the word ―literal.‖ The first use
of the word literal is what Johnson calls
―microliteralism.‖42 This use of the word focuses upon
whether one understands a word or phrase to be literal
as opposed to a figure of speech. This would be the
sense one would apply to the phrase ―I‘m so hungry I
could eat a horse.‖ Common usage, or ―historical
interpretation,‖ demands that the reader understand
that expression as a figure of speech (unless there
exists an actual glutinous person who is especially
partial to equestrian delicacies). The literal meaning to
that saying is that one is extremely hungry (a
macroliteral interpretation) rather than some other
spiritual meaning foreign to the expression. An
allegorical interpretation might look something like
this: the word ―hungry‖ speaks not of a physical
hunger, but a spiritual hunger as evident in David‘s
hunger for God. Horses in Scripture are metaphorical
for that which is unclean, since Israel often purchased
horses from Egypt (a picture of the world). Therefore,
the expression indicates that a person possesses a
spiritual hunger for that which is worldly and unclean.
The blatant misuse of metaphor in this example is
obvious, since people use the expression in everyday
41Thomas Ice, ―Dispensational Hermeneutics,‖ Issues in
Dispensationalism, Wesley Willis and John Master, eds. (Chicago:
Moody, 1994), 32.
42Ibid., 33.
Maranatha is Dispensational 85
use to communicate extreme physical hunger. The
context argues against a spiritualized meaning.
Ice‘s macroliteralism refers to the ―system that
views the text as providing the basis of the true
interpretation‖ of a text.43 One can diagram these
distinctions as follows:
Therefore, a text always has a literal meaning, but
the text may use figures of speech or symbols to
communicate that meaning. Even when Paul
deliberately uses symbolism (or allegory) in Galatians
4:21–31, he provides textual indicators that explain
his intended meaning: law = slavery to the flesh
(bondwoman, flesh, Mount Sinai, Hagar [Ishmael],
Jerusalem [vv. 22–25]) and Spirit = freedom from sin
(freewoman, promise, Jerusalem above, Isaac [Sarah]
43Ibid., 32 [emphasis added]. Ice uses definitions provided by
Elliott Johnson, 9.
Macroliteralism:
Text
Microliteralism:
Word or phrase
within a text
86 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
[vv. 26–30]). These symbols have a literal meaning that
Paul explains throughout his text. Feinberg rightly
identifies the fallacy within the covenantal system in
noting that the system‘s ―objection fails to recognize
the difference between kinds of language (figures of
speech, plain language, e.g.) and methods of
interpreting language.‖44
In Revelation, for instance, the text has a literal
meaning (macroliteralism), whereas the text may also
contain figures of speech (microliteralism) to convey
the meaning. Likewise, when God promises ―land‖ to
Israel throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jews
correctly understood God to mean land as ―physical
property‖ or ―territory‖ rather than ―spiritual blessings‖
because of God‘s promises beginning in Genesis 12.
For the nondispensationalist to insist that the term
―land‖ in the NT is now metaphorical for ―blessings‖ to
all believers, he must have some contextual basis for
making that claim. In other words, God must have
imbedded in the text a marker, a clue that He is now
speaking metaphorically, since He had previously used
―land‖ for centuries to mean literal land. The burden of
proof falls on the covenantalist to demonstrate the
annulment of the promises rather than the
dispensationalist to show they have not been annulled.
Covenantalists employ a literal approach
selectively, resorting to an allegorical approach in
prophecy (―land‖ equals ―blessing‖ or ―Christ‘s throne‖
equals ―the believer‘s heart‖). Ramm states that
44Feinberg, 74.
Maranatha is Dispensational 87
allegorical interpretation is ―the interpretation of a
document whereby something foreign, peculiar, or
hidden is introduced into the meaning of the text
giving it a proposed deeper or real meaning.‖45
Covenantalists, however, argue that their hermeneutic
views such statements as metaphors. Oswald Allis
remarks:
[W]hat may be called the popular and naïve
idea of a millennium is derived largely from such a
passage as Isa[iah 11]. It is to be a golden age,
when the ―the wolf shall dwell with the lamb,‖ when
none shall ―hurt or destroy,‖ when the earth shall
be ―full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters
cover the sea.‖46
Such a picture of an ideal age raises only one
serious difficulty. It is whether the Bible and
especially the New Testament predicts or allows for
such a period of blessedness before the eternal
state is ushered in, or whether the picture given to
us by Isaiah is a description of that eternal state
itself under earthly forms and images.47
The covenantal explanations of key millennial
passages are not without problems. Isaiah 65:17–25,
for example, contains images that neither fit the
church age nor the eternal state. Isaiah describes a
scenario in which death is rare (v. 20), a description
that rules out the possibility that this passage
describes the church age. The second half of the verse,
45Ramm, 223.
46Allis, 236.
47Ibid., 237 [emphasis added].
88 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
however, is especially problematic for the amillennial
position. Here, Isaiah states that a person who dies at
age one hundred is viewed as a youth and the one who
fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.
This statement eliminates the eternal state as the
interpretation, since there will not be any death then.
God is saying more than ―there is no death then.‖ He is
allowing for the possibility of death to occur, but also
indicating that death, especially at an early age of one
hundred will be exceptional. This statement certainly
cannot refer to the church age, since living to one
hundred is not the norm now either.
Even clearer than the former passage, Zechariah
14 contains elements that cannot refer to the eternal
state (unless one spiritualizes). In verses 16–19, God
warns those who would choose not to participate in
the Feast of Tabernacles would experience drought
and plagues. The amillennial interpretation argues
that this reference teaches no such rebellion will exist
in the eternal state.48 This interpretation overlooks the
level of specificity with which God warns the potential
rebels. Zechariah records three verses of explanation
detailing the punishment for those who fail to
participate. There is more included in this text than
merely a metaphorical description of the absence of
rebellion.
48Thomas McComiskey, ―Zechariah,‖ in An Exegetical &
Expository Commentary on the Minor Prophets, ed. Thomas
McComiskey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 3: 1242.
Maranatha is Dispensational 89
In an effort to explain the features of Revelation
from an amillennial position, Anthony Hoekema
provides a good example of a ―metaphorical‖
interpretation:
Obviously the number ―thousand‖ which is
used here must not be interpreted in a literal sense.
Since the number ten signifies completeness, and
since a thousand is ten to the third power, we may
think of the expression ―a thousand years‖ as
standing for a complete period, a very long period of
indeterminate length. . . . we may conclude that
this thousand-year period extends from Christ‘s
first coming to just before his Second Coming.49
In explaining the binding of Satan in the abyss
during this period, Hoekema explains:
The word Abyss should rather be thought of as
a figurative description of the way in which Satan‘s
activities will be curbed during the thousand-year
period. . . . During the gospel era which has now
been ushered in, Satan will not be able to continue
deceiving the nations the way he did in the past, for
he has been bound. . . . We conclude, then, that the
binding of Satan during the gospel age means that,
49Anthony Hoekema, ―Amillennialism,‖ in The Meaning of the
Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
1977), 161. One should wonder in what way this is obvious.
Furthermore, this author believes that if the church is currently
in the millennium, as the amillennialists believe, then the church
has great cause for disappointment. Only if one interprets the lion
and lamb imagery to be, say, Lutherans and Presbyterians living in unity, can an individual say these conditions are currently
present.
90 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
first, he cannot prevent the spread of the gospel,
and second, he cannot gather all the enemies of
Christ together to attack the church.50
If it is true that Satan is bound at this moment
and, as Hoekema claims, that he is no longer able to
gather all the enemies of Christ together, then for what
purpose does God loose Satan at the end of this
amillennial church age? Amillennialists stumble over
the loosing of Satan at the end of the millennium, but
fail to provide a good answer for why God would loose
him at the end of their ―church age.‖ The
―metaphorical‖ or allegorical interpretation of the
nondispensationalist fails to answer many of the
specifics of many passages. A literal interpretation
allows the text to speak in a normal way without
creating the dilemmas of the amillennial position.
Third, dispensationalism allows for biblical
distinctions between Israel and the church, arising
from a consistently literal hermeneutic. The church
has not supplanted nor merged into Israel, but rather
Israel remains a nation (ywOG) not just a people (m[;) in
which God will work in the future (Rom 9–11), drawing
them to salvation in Christ.51 Dispensationalism
understands the church is an organism composed of
people from all nations, both Jew and Gentile alike,
but limited to those believers from the beginning of the
50Ibid., 161–62.
51Robert Saucy, ―Israel and the Church: A Case for Discontinuity,‖ in Continuity and Discontinuity, ed. John S.
Feinberg (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988), 245.
Maranatha is Dispensational 91
church (Acts 2) to the Rapture.52 The genesis of the
church at Pentecost is supported by the institution of
Spirit baptism which had not occurred yet in Acts 1:5.
Although Acts 2 does not mention Spirit baptism
occurring at Pentecost, Acts 11:15–16 does. This new
institution is the mystery of which Paul wrote in
Ephesians 2:11–3:7. In fact, Fruchtenbaum
demonstrates that the word ―Israel‖ in the NT refers
overwhelmingly to an ethnic group, not to the
church.53 Covenantalists argue that since there is one
program in God‘s work (redemption), there is but one
people of God. This position habitually cites Galatians
6:16 as linking Israel and the church. Grammatically,
the kai in this passage and the context of the book
eliminate the possibility that Paul is equating the
church with Israel.54
Non-dispensationalists see the church as existing
throughout the OT into the New. Berkhof describes the
covenantalist‘s view of the church in different
dispensations—the patriarchal period, the Mosaic
period, and the NT period. He adds: ―At the time of the
52Although God uses the term ―assembly‖ with reference to
either Israel or the church, one should not confuse a common trait (a group that assembles) as a common identification that
links the two. To share a common characteristic does not demand
that the two are one-in-the-same. God also uses the words
―assembly‖ and ―congregation‖ for the wicked (Ps 22:16; 26:5; and
Jer 9:2; 15:17).
53Arnold Fruchtenbaum, ―Israel and the Church,‖ Issues in Dispensationalism, Wesley Willis and John Master, eds. (Chicago:
Moody, 1994), 118–20.
54Ibid., 123.
92 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
flood the Church was saved in the family of Noah, and
continued particularly in the line of Shem. . . .‖ During
the Mosaic period, ―the whole nation constituted the
Church; and the Church was limited to the one nation
of Israel. . . .‖55 During the NT dispensation, Berkhof
claims,
The New Testament Church is essentially one
with the Church of the old dispensation. As far as
their essential nature is concerned, they both
consist of true believers, and of true believers only.
And in their external organization both represent a
mixture of good and evil. . . . In connection with
this the national boundaries of the Church were
swept away. What had up to this time been a
national church now assumed a universal
character.56
What is fascinating about the covenantal view of
the church is that covenantalists are so willing to
combine the NT terms for the church with the OT
terms used for Israel when there are essential
differences between the structure of Israel and that of
the church. At the same time, however, these same
interpreters refuse to make the connection between
millennial motifs in Revelation 20 and the OT concepts
that foreshadow the millennium.57
The implications of this hermeneutic are serious. If
Israel has merged into the church, there is no
55Berkhof, 570–72.
56Ibid., 571.
57Ibid., 699.
Maranatha is Dispensational 93
temporal or eternal future for Israel as a nation,
contrary to Romans 11. Second, many of the
prophecies in Scripture are meaningless for the nation,
but have rather strange implications for the church.
Exactly when does the church experience the strange
and extreme events of Revelation in the history of the
church? Better still, when does the church experience
the wonderful millennial characteristics covenantalists
claim for today? Third, as observed earlier, if the
church has replaced Israel, then one can make the
case that separation is nonessential. Fourth, if these
interpretations are correct, then the interpretation of
the Scripture becomes an exercise in subjectivity.
Continuity and Discontinuity
in the Testaments
At the crux of the arguments between the literal
and the allegorical interpretations is the question of
how to use the OT in light of the NT. Furthermore, this
is one of the most difficult topics in the study of
hermeneutics. Covenantalists see more continuity
between the testaments (Israel becomes the church
and baptism continues circumcision as the covenantal
mark), whereas dispensationalists see more
discontinuity (the church is a new program). Feinberg
clarifies the justification for a discontinuity position
when he states: ―Talk of continuity between the
Testaments seems misguided with so much apparent
94 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
discontinuity within each Testament.‖58 Feinberg‘s
statement highlights the distinctions within the
various biblical epochs, distinctions that
dispensationalism endeavors to respect. The issue that
causes the debate between covenantalists and
dispensationalists, however, is the question of how the
Testaments relate. Paul Feinberg frames the debate
this way:
It is difficult to think of any problem that is
more important or fundamental than the
relationship between the Testaments. There are two
Testaments; no one questions that. How do they
form one Bible? In evangelical, fundamental circles
traditionally two answers have dominated the
scene: Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.
Regardless of what one thinks of these approaches,
they should be seen as serious attempts to answer
this question. Not uncommonly the relationship
between the Testaments resolves itself into how one
ought to interpret the OT. It deals with the history
and institutions, as well as predictions about the
future, of the nation of Israel. How do these matters
relate to the church which is a multi-national body?
Is the church spiritual Israel, and thus heir to her
promises? Or are the church and Israel distinct,
each with a separate future? Or does the truth lie
somewhere between these apparent extremes?59
58Feinberg, 63.
59Paul Feinberg, ―Hermeneutics of Discontinuity,‖ Continuity and Discontinuity, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL:
Crossway, 1988), 111.
Maranatha is Dispensational 95
While Feinberg thinks the truth lies somewhere
between what he considers to be two extremes, his
statement serves well in identifying the complexity of
the problems surrounding this issue.
Because of the size and importance of this topic,
this paper is not able to address the details of the
debate, but the author seeks to outline the main
issues. This paper has already discussed the merits of
the grammatical-historical approach to biblical
literature, regardless of the Testament one is
approaching.60 But the question of interpretation takes
on a slightly different form in this debate.
Covenantalists argue that ―the New interprets the
Old.‖61 This NT priority drives the amillennial position,
viz., that God has annulled the kingdom promises of
the OT, since He does not repeat them in the NT (an
evident argument from silence). Berkhof‘s comment
illustrates this covenantal tendency when he writes,
―Prophecies should be read in the light of their
60This issue is where the contemporary debate hinges
between traditional and progressive dispensationalists, a topic
outside of the scope of this paper. The traditional view states that
a prophecy, for example, has only one meaning and that the NT
does not alter that meaning. The progressive view, what progressives call a complementary hermeneutic, holds that a later
reading may ―deepen‖ or ―enhance‖ the meaning of an OT
prophecy, but does not change the meaning. See Elliott Johnson and Darrell Bock, Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism, ed. Herbert Bateman (Grand Rapids: Kregel,
1999) for a comprehensive comparison of dispensational views.
61Bruce Waltke, ―Kingdom Promises as Spiritual,‖ in Continuity and Discontinuity, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester,
IL: Crossway, 1988), 264.
96 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
fulfilment, for this will often reveal depths that would
otherwise have escaped the attention. The interpreter
should bear in mind, however, that many of them do
not refer to specific historical events, but enunciate
some general principle that may be realized in a
variety of ways.‖62
Covenantalists argue that dispensationalists hold
an OT priority. The author disagrees with this
assessment, however, since the dispensationalist
begins with the OT and endeavors to understand the
progress of revelation into the NT (cf. the trajectory
between Daniel and Revelation for example).
Dispensationalists maintain that an OT passage
stands on its own. The text possesses a meaning that
the author intended before God provided the NT.
Therefore, no one has the right to alter that meaning
based upon later revelation, unless the NT specifically
states the annulment of a particular OT teaching (ex.
Torah). Later revelation may expand information that
helps the reader understand the events of previous
revelation (such as the tribulation or kingdom), but the
meaning of the text should remain the same because of
authorial intent. Therefore, the ―‗fulfillment‘ cannot
contradict the original meaning of a prophecy in its
historical context.‖63 Otherwise, the OT text was
62Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1950), 153.
63Charles Dyer, ―Biblical Meaning of ‗Fulfillment,‘‖ Issues in Dispensationalism, Wesley Willis and John Master, eds. (Chicago:
Moody, 1994), 70.
Maranatha is Dispensational 97
meaningless to readers until such time when God gave
the NT ―commentary.‖
A second issue pertains to OT prophecies and what
constitutes fulfillment. NT authors use OT texts in
different ways; not always are they indicating a
prophetic fulfillment. In some cases an author may
use the OT prophecy as a parallel to the NT events.
Matthew‘s use, for example, of Hosea 11:1 is not a
―fulfillment‖ in the sense of the English word, since
Hosea‘s reference is to the Exodus redemption of Israel
from Egypt, a historical account rather than prophecy.
Matthew‘s purpose in citing Hosea is to show the ways
in which Messiah has accomplished (―fulfilled‖) what
Israel was unable to do successfully.64 Archer and
Chirichigno argue that Hosea is using the Exodus
deliverance as a prophetic type that finds meaning in
Christ‘s ―exodus‖ from Egypt.65
This passage illustrates one of several different
ways authors use the word . Bauer lists six
senses for this word as follows: (1) make full, fill (as in
an object or space) with content, (2) of time, fill (up),
complete a period of time, reach its end, (3) bring
someth. to completion, finish someth. already begun,
(4) fulfill, by deeds, a prophecy, an obligation, a
promise, a law, a request, a purpose, a desire, a hope,
a duty, a fate, a destiny, etc., (5) complete, finish, bring
64Ibid., 54–5. Dyer supplies a useful table that lists the
comparisons between Israel and Messiah.
65Gleason Archer and Gregory Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1983), 147.
98 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
to an end, and (6) complete a number.66 Even a cursory
glimpse of these senses reveals that the Greek word
has a broader semantic range in the New Testament
than does the English word ―fulfill.‖ Dyer states that
less than one-third of the occurrences of in the
New Testament fit the sense of prophetic fulfillment
(#4 above) and, therefore, an interpreter should not
assume that every time the word appears, a prophecy
has been fulfilled.67
Such is the problem that lies behind the debate
concerning Joel 2/Acts 2 and Amos 9/Acts 15.
Covenantalists argue for a fulfillment to support their
replacement theology. Dispensationalists argue either
for analogy or two referents. A correct analysis of a
fulfilled prophecy will include both an accurate
understanding of the original prophecy and a one-for-
one correspondence with the NT passage, the latter of
which is missing in both these examples.68 How then
should the interpreter understand passages in which
the word ―fulfilled‖ appears? Zuck lists the following
ways writers use the OT:
1. To point up the accomplishment or realization
of an Old Testament prediction
2. To confirm that a New Testament incident is
in agreement with an Old Testament principle
3. To explain a point given in the Old Testament
66Bauer, ― .‖
67Dyer, 53.
68Ibid., 70.
Maranatha is Dispensational 99
4. To support a point being made in the New
Testament
5. To illustrate a New Testament truth
6. To apply the Old Testament to a New
Testament incident or truth
7. To summarize an Old Testament concept
8. To use Old Testament terminology
9. To draw a parallel with an Old Testament
incident
10. To relate an Old Testament situation to
Christ69
A third issue for this problem is the question of the
human author‘s understanding of what he wrote. This
issue cuts to the heart of interpretation versus
fulfillment, that is, the sense or meaning versus
referent. Paul Feinberg explains these concepts:
The sense of a sentence is roughly equivalent to
its meaning, and the reference of that sentence to
the object or state of affairs referred to. . . . I think
that predictions in the OT had a sense, and that
sense was determinate. It was known to the author
and to those who heard or read what he had to say.
If sense was lacking or not intelligible, then it is
difficult to see how the utterance could have been a
revelation of any kind in its original context.70
69Roy Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton: Victor,
1991), 260–70. Zuck provides examples for each of these.
70Paul Feinberg, 117–18 [emphasis added].
100 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Feinberg‘s explanation highlights two important
observations. First, the text itself reveals meaning
without the further explanation of later passages, or
else the revelation was not a revelation at all. Second,
there is a difference between the immediate meaning
and the subjective or objective referent. Moses and
Israel understood the protoevangelium, for example,
was predicting a coming deliverer who would come
from the woman, while the identification of the seed
(and other details) remained a mystery. The NT
presentation of the seed, however, remains consistent
with the OT prediction.
It is here that views over one‘s hermeneutic will
become sharply divided. Dispensationalists would
argue for a single intent of the author. Therefore, an
OT prophecy has a singular sense and the text carries
that meaning. Covenantalists argue for the sensus
plenior (double intent) or ―fuller sense.‖ This
methodology answers why the covenantalist can read
the church into prophecies concerning Israel, since a
―fuller sense‖ can reinterpret the Old Testament on
that basis. Nondispensationalists justify their sensus
plenior position on the basis of two passages: 1 Peter
1:10–12 and Daniel 12:6–9. They argue that these two
passages show the prophets did not always
understand the revelation they received. In both cases,
however, the prophets were not seeking further
information about that which they spoke, but rather
were curious about the timing of the events.71
71Ibid., 115.
Maranatha is Dispensational 101
Conclusion
The interpretation of Scripture is critical to an
accurate understanding and application of theology.
Without a hermeneutic that seeks the message God
intended, the Word can fit almost anyone‘s personal
agenda. Because dispensationalism endeavors to
respect the distinctions between the Testaments,
maintains essentials of a normal interpretation, uses
the concept of a biblical dispensation in a biblically
consistent way, and recognizes the theological
problems associated with non-literal hermeneutics,
dispensationalism provides a superior interpretive
template over covenantalism.
MBTJ 1/1: 103-123
Maranatha is Ministry
Brian Trainer1
The mission statement of Maranatha Baptist Bible
College and Seminary declares that we exist to develop
leaders for ministry in the local church and the world
―To the Praise of His Glory.‖ This maxim summarizes
well our intended goal. First, we are student-oriented.
Our primary intention is the development of people,
not the growth of properties, the manufacturing of
position statements, or the gain of a financial profit.
Second, we seek to influence. Whether in the home,
the church, the community, the workplace, or the
marketplace, leaders influence. Third, service is a key
way to influence. Servant leadership is demonstrated
throughout the text of Scripture and is modeled in the
person of Jesus Christ. Fourth, the sphere of that
influence is localized in the body of Christ, yet it
permeates the entire world. We desire that all our
students have personal ownership of the axiom that
―life is ministry, and ministry is global.‖ Fifth, the
ultimate aim for this purpose, for all people, and for all
of life is doxological. We exist to exalt God. Why does
Maranatha exist? To develop leaders—influential,
service-oriented church-centered leaders—for ministry
1Brian Trainer is the Chairman of the Department of Bible
and Church Ministries at Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Adjunct Faculty of Homiletics and Missions at Maranatha Baptist
Seminary.
104 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
in the local church and the world ―To the Praise of His
Glory.‖
This mission statement effectively declares our
purpose, but a delineation of the operative verb
―develop‖ is necessary. Many good institutions state a
similar, lofty objective. What distinguishes one from
another is the way in which each seeks to develop
students to achieve that purpose. The focal point of
this article is to communicate the foundational
principles that shape the methods Maranatha utilizes
in fulfilling its mission. How do we define spirituality?
How do we seek to develop spiritual leaders? What
means do we utilize to accomplish our purpose? This
article is a summary of the biblical principles which we
seek to embrace and enact as we develop spiritual
leaders for global ministry.2 Four truths summarize
the spiritual ethos Maranatha desires in order to
effectively develop spiritual leaders:
1. The Gospel is central to the mission of
Maranatha.
2. Internal growth is the primary focal point for
spiritual development.
3. The distinct environment of a Christian
college enhances spiritual development.
2The nature of this article is not intrinsically academic. The
purpose is not to exegetically develop or defend a position. This
article is a summary of principles of discipleship that were
internally placed in writing during the 2009–2010 school year. These principles impact the entirety of the discipleship emphasis
at Maranatha.
Maranatha is Ministry 105
4. External ministry involvement is necessary for
spiritual development.
The Gospel is Central to the Mission of Maranatha
The first principle Maranatha embraces to fulfill
our mission is to keep central the message of the
Gospel. The Gospel initiates our institutional mission.
God‘s ultimate goal for mankind is that they worship
Him in spirit and in truth. He is seeking worshippers.
Worship begins when a sinner, by grace through faith,
acknowledges his sinful condition and trusts the only
Savior, when the light of the glorious Gospel of Jesus
Christ brings him to the knowledge of the glory of God.
His heart is regenerated, and he is delivered from the
power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of
the Son of God. It is then that all of the magnificent
biblical images of salvation and all of the benefits of
salvation become realities in his life. The Spirit of God
begins to permanently indwell him and becomes the
guarantee that all of the positional realities of salvation
will be completely fulfilled when final salvation,
glorification, is secured.
This message of the Gospel is central to the
fulfillment of Maranatha‘s mission. Leaders, intellects,
businessmen, politicians, lawyers, homemakers,
humanitarians and anyone else who lives outside of a
personal relationship with Jesus Christ squander their
lives. The message of the Gospel restores one to
fellowship with God, renews friendship with his
Creator, and reconciles him to his Father. Biblical
106 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
spirituality and leadership do not exist apart from the
Gospel. Maranatha should not exist unless it also
makes much of the Gospel.
Second, the Gospel initiates and empowers an
individual‘s spiritual growth. Until glorification takes
place, the believer is instructed to ―work out‖ his
salvation. He seeks to be changed into His image. He is
actively being transformed by the renewing of his
mind. He wants to know Jesus Christ, the power of
His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings.
He practices daily death to self and the putting on of
Christ. He celebrates his union with Christ. As he
allows God‘s Spirit to direct his life, he reflects that
control through humility, submission, singing, giving
thanks, mortifying sin, and numerous other steps of
faith.
Progressive sanctification does not come out of
daily duties driven by self-discipline. We are not saved
by grace to then walk in the strength of the flesh. We
are not moralists or legalists who seek to live holy lives
by aspiring to standards of self-righteousness. Our
growth in Christlikeness is founded in Gospel truths.
Biblical spirituality and leadership are both birthed
out of the Gospel and empowered by it. The sanctified
life is one of faith which is produced by the work of the
Holy Spirit in our lives.
The message of the Gospel at Maranatha is not
limited to sharing its wonderful truth with the
unsaved. The ―old, old story‖ is frequently expounded
so that each believer can discover anew its precious
power as it fleshes itself out in his daily sanctification.
Maranatha is Ministry 107
The Gospel is that which draws one to Jesus Christ
and keeps him before the cross.
Internal Growth is the Primary Focal Point
for Spiritual Development
The second practice that Maranatha enacts to
fulfill its mission is to biblically define spirituality.
Man is comprised of two primary parts: the
material and the immaterial. Regardless of one‘s
theological position beyond that delineation, the outer
man and the inner man are easily distinguished. For a
believer, God claims ownership of both. The outer man
is to reflect His glory as the believer affirms choices of
purity and wise stewardship; yet the fate of the outer
man is sealed from the moment of birth—it is
perishing. On the other hand, the inner man is very
much alive, and it is being renewed day by day in
holiness and righteousness. It reflects the image of
Christ. While the outer man faints, fades, and
validates mortality, the inner man grows, develops,
and evidences spirituality.
Maranatha seeks to influence students primarily in
the development of the inner man. Outer man
conformation without inner man transformation does
not further our mission of developing spiritual leaders.
Our desire is to see students changed from the inside
out. Spiritual growth is the developmental process of
the formation of a whole person in the Lord Jesus
Christ under the authority of Scripture, by the power
of the Holy Spirit for ministry in the local church and
108 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
the world in order to bring glory to God. Intrinsic
within this definition are multiple concepts:
1. Spiritual growth is a process: Spiritual growth is
not an end. It is a process. The task of Maranatha
is not to produce a finished product. The goal is
to create and maintain an environment in which
spiritual maturation can effectively take place.
Thus, we are careful not to identify a ―one-size-
fits-all‖ mentality of spirituality. We acknowledge
the individuality of each student‘s spiritual
background, spiritual struggle, and spiritual
growth process. Above a desire to see our
students reach a particular external standard of
perceived maturation, our aspiration is to see the
student moving in the right direction toward truth
and grace.
2. Spirituality integrates the whole man: Spirituality
is not limited to merely spiritual activities. The
great command is to ―love the Lord your God with
all your heart and with all your soul and with all
your mind and with all your strength.‖ Jesus
Christ, our ultimate model, increased ―in wisdom
and stature, and in favor with God and man.‖ In
light of this, we seek to integrate all aspects of life
in order to promote spiritual growth. The
classroom, the concert hall, the dorm room, and
the athletic field are all forums in which varying
aspects of spiritual growth can take place. Any
model of spirituality that stresses one aspect of
formation over another is rejected by the
Maranatha is Ministry 109
institution. Historical examples of these
incomplete approaches include those that are
noted below. True biblical spirituality
incorporates elements of each of these
approaches.
The Activist Approach The Contemplative
Approach
Action
Morality
Externals
Pursuing God as holy
Quietism
Withdrawal
Hiddenness
Pursuing God as love
The Intellectual Approach The Mystical Approach
Analysis
Intelligence
Doctrinal accuracy
Pursuing God as truth
Intuition
Passivity
Meditation
Pursuing God as one
3. Spirituality is marked by a transformation of the
internal man: Biblical imagery of the spiritual life
identifies it as the formation of the inner man into
the image of Jesus Christ. A Spirit-filled life is
marked by the fruit of the Spirit, a life of joy and
thanksgiving, and an attitude of humility and
submission. Though these key indicators of a
truly spiritual man are not easy to assess, the
110 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
goal is to emphasize and model these before the
student body.
4. Spirituality is Word-centered: The spiritual life is
marked by obedience to the Word of God. The
path to spirituality is a correct interpretation of
biblical truth. No additional words or traditions
are necessary to completely equip someone to ―be
perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.‖
Thus, the presentation of biblical truth is the
most important activity on campus. The
Scriptures are the final authority. The most
conclusive act of a spiritual man is obedience to
the Word of God.
5. Spirituality is Spirit-dependent: A spiritual life is
the creation of God through the work of the Holy
Spirit. No man can change another man. Man can
be pressed by man to conform to an external
image or standard, but only God can transform
the heart and life. We acknowledge that no
amount of emphasis on spiritual growth will be
effective unless it is empowered by the Spirit of
God. Also, we will not be satisfied with any
amount of external conformation if it is not
accompanied by internal transformation.
6. Spirituality has a goal of external ministry: The
grace of God that brings us to salvation, identifies
us as His workmanship, and creates us in Christ
Jesus also empowers us for good works. The
spiritual life is not an isolated or independent life.
It demonstrates a vertical love for God that
manifests itself in an equally powerful horizontal
Maranatha is Ministry 111
love for man which includes fellow believers,
neighbors, and the larger sphere of humanity who
abide outside of the love of God. This love
motivates us to redemptive action through the
venue of the body of Christ, the church. Acts of
external ministry will be distinctive for individuals
as they develop and utilize their unique
giftedness.
7. Spirituality has its ultimate end in the glory of God:
We live and move and have our being for the glory
and praise of our Creator and Redeemer. The
spiritual life is the renewal of our marred image
into the original image ―created in righteousness
and true holiness.‖ The progressive nature of our
transformation on earth awaits the perfected
completion when we arrive in heaven so that we
can worship God for all of eternity.
These seven principles are parameters for
Maranatha as we seek to see students developed by
the Holy Spirit for spiritual leadership.
The Distinct Environment of a Christian College
Enhances Spiritual Development
The Scriptures clearly identify the growth process
of a believer as a spiritual battle. Spiritual growth does
not take place naturally. It has both natural and
supernatural enemies. At times, even within the
context of a Christian college campus, these enemies
are more significantly poignant and powerful. A college
campus is populated by young people who are often
112 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
characterized by infant faith and incipient spiritual
maturation. The world, the flesh, and satanic forces
are threats which seek to devour them from within and
without. These enemies are obstructions to the growth
process and must be recognized, so that appropriate
action can be taken to eradicate some elements from
the environment, neutralize others within the
environment, and at least prepare students for their
onslaught whatever their source.
At Maranatha, we seek to identify these enemies
and, when possible, protect students from the fullness
of their onslaught. Part of this protection is
accomplished through an established, structured
discipline system. The structured discipline system is
a means of establishing environmental controls. These
controls do not produce spirituality, nor are they all
inherently biblical in themselves. They merely function
as a means to create an atmosphere in which spiritual
growth can thrive and potentially deadly enemies can
be thwarted. We do not want any member of the
Maranatha family to become dependent upon an
external system for spiritual safety. The battle that will
be fought by every member of the Maranatha family
must be won via Holy Spirit-dependent, grace-
motivated, Gospel-centered discipline. We recognize
that the ―grace of God that bringeth salvation . . .
teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts.‖ A
structured system for spiritual accountability is not
antithetical to a Gospel-centered life. Both can exist
and be beneficial within a Christian community.
Maranatha is Ministry 113
The purpose of our structured discipline system is
fourfold.
Functional Management. As an educational
institution which has a specified purpose, we must
institute specific rules for the sake of accomplishing
organizational objectives. These rules are not always
based upon biblical principles or moral necessities,
but are designed to assist all members of the
institution in functional aspects of educational and
campus life. Types of these rules include expectations
in basic cleanliness and timeframes for activities.
Moral Accountability. As a body of believers we
are instructed in Scripture to maintain watch care for
one another‘s spiritual growth. There are numerous
―one another‖ passages that provide guidelines for this
type of accountability. These include positive
commandments to provoke one another to good works
and seemingly negative commandments to identify the
unruly and rebuke him. Both of these are for the sake
of the growth of the individuals within the Christian
community. For this reason, we ask all members of the
Maranatha family to abide by rules that seek to
enforce biblical commands and implement biblical
principles. This category of rule is clearly inter-related
to biblical instruction and is communicated as more
than just institutional preference. Some of these
guidelines are birthed directly from the text of
Scripture. For example, we prohibit all forms of
swearing, cursing, and degradation of the name of
God. There are sufficient texts in the Old and New
Testaments that explicitly exclude such language from
114 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
a believer‘s life. Other rules that aid in moral
accountability are implicitly noted in Scripture and are
appropriate applications of principles in our
contemporary milieu. For example, Paul did not
address the challenge of the Internet in collegiate
settings; yet, there are sufficient biblical principles for
us to arrive at a rule that prohibits students from
viewing inappropriate material. Explicit New
Testament commands are true for all time regardless
of cultural context. As an institution, we consistently
seek to delineate and communicate the distinctions
between explicit biblical commands and the
application of biblical principles. We desire to model
before students the need for unquestioned obedience
in areas in which the Scriptures are clear, and careful,
wise discernment in areas in which the Scriptures
allow for personal application.
Distinctive Environment. Since Maranatha seeks
to prepare Christians for global ministry, we
intentionally create an environment in which external
influences are limited so that they not distract from
potential spiritual growth. We know that the allure of
the world is contrary to spiritual development. We
know that there are issues that may be inherently
morally neutral, but in our context they act as weights
or disruptions for young people who are training for
spiritual leadership. Like any organization whose
purpose is to prepare specialists, we are selective in
what we allow to impact our environment. Thus, we
desire to limit the distractions within our campus life.
In place of those diversions, however, we seek to create
Maranatha is Ministry 115
spiritually healthy alternatives that promote holistic
growth without undue temptation. Examples of this
include the limited access students have in watching
television, guidelines in dating relationships, and
structured dorm activities. The goal is not isolation
from the world, nor do we suggest that limitations
create spirituality. But within our unique environment,
we deliberately protect students from what could be
spiritually unhealthy distractions.
Institutional Identity. Maranatha serves a broad
constituency of churches. As a servant to these
churches we seek to maintain a campus environment
that is consistent with our diverse constituency. When
doing so, we sometimes have to make choices that are
based upon our own institutional identity. Utilizing the
principles of Romans 14–15, we at times will create an
institutional rule to limit our biblical freedoms for the
sake of loving another brother in Christ. The goal of
such a rule is not to create a boundary for holiness,
but to communicate a bond of unity and love. These
rules do not intrinsically produce character or develop
leadership. They are not thrust upon students as
standards necessary for the rest of their lives. They are
unique to this institution as it seeks to model
principles of love and sacrifice for the sake of fellow
believers. These rules are not moral imperatives; they
are patterns for how Christians live peaceably
together. They may change as the constituency and
the world changes. An example of this type of rule is
our institutional standard for music. Maranatha
believes the Scriptures are wholly sufficient in
116 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
communicating what is acceptable music to God. We
also recognize that many who make a similar claim
come to differing conclusions regarding what is
―acceptable music to God.‖ We teach without
hesitation what we believe, but our institutional
practice does not demand that we sing, play, or listen
to everything that we believe is acceptable. Since fellow
believers within our constituency may strongly take
issue with a particular song or artist, we may choose
to sacrifice our liberty in playing or even listening to
that particular song. We do so not to be enslaved by
the conscience of another, but to exhibit a spirit of love
and unity. These are the types of decisions that all
broad-based institutions make. If improperly
understood or communicated, this type of guideline
can be confused with a rule for moral accountability.
When correctly understood, however, these
communicate love, honor, humility, and peace.
Maranatha believes that a structured discipline
system can enhance the spiritual growth of all
members of the community. We acknowledge,
however, that any structured system can potentially
lead to individuals who seek merely to conform to
external standards without any internal change. We
are concerned that some in fleshly arrogance deem
external conformation to rules as biblical spirituality.
This spirit of legalism is deadly to authentic
transformational sanctification, but we do not believe
that eradication of a structured discipline system is
the necessary response to this danger. We believe the
appropriate response is threefold. First, keep the
Maranatha is Ministry 117
Gospel central to all that we do. Second, focus on
transparent internal spiritual growth. Third,
consistently communicate to students the reasons for
the structure. Young, growing believers of all ages can
thrive in a structured environment. A structured
system of accountability, accompanied by open
communication that clarifies the reasons for the rules,
a spirit of grace that enforces the rules, and
willingness for institutional self-assessment, is a
wonderful benefit for all involved.
External Ministry Involvement is Necessary
for Spiritual Development
Ephesians 2:8–10 are familiar verses that describe
the work of grace which brings one to salvation. Often
the emphasis of the passage is on the salvific act, but
the concluding phrase states that we are ―created in
Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before
ordained that we should walk in them.‖ The grace of
God that initiates the Gospel and spurs us to internal
spiritual growth also empowers us to outward acts of
service to our Savior. At Maranatha, we believe that
acts of service, good works, and involvement in global
ministry are the necessary outworking of salvation and
spiritual growth. We believe the order developed in
Ephesians is crucial to a healthy spiritual life.
Salvation is followed by sanctification which in turn
prompts service. Acts of service without either
salvation or internal development are not acceptable to
the Lord. Demanding acts of spiritual service in
118 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
students‘ lives without a corresponding emphasis on
spiritual growth leads to student frustration, legalism,
and a dutiful view of Christian ministry. On the other
hand, internal spiritual growth without external acts of
service is malformed. It lacks integrity and wholeness
and results in spiritual stagnation and arrogance. The
model presented by Jesus Christ is one of seeing the
needs of others, being moved with compassion,
speaking to them, and then touching their lives (Luke
7:13–14). Our Savior came to seek sinners and serve
His disciples. He came to change lives. The Great
Commission of Matthew 28 provides the framework for
what Christian service should look like.
First, Christ presupposes the scope of Christian
ministry by implying that disciples should be
traversing the world for the sake of His name. The
opening participle is a reminder that believers should
be going into the entire world. In other words, as
believers are going, we are to be making disciples. A
vital aspect of Maranatha‘s mission in developing
Christlike servant-leaders is to expose students to the
needs of the world. Maranatha has a strong history of
seeing its alumni serve overseas. Our desire to see God
glorified among the nations prompts us to pray that
more students would be thrust into the harvest and to
plan for more participation in global evangelism. To
meet that need, in 2007 Maranatha instituted the
Office of Global Encounters, whose sole purpose is to
assist students and faculty in participating in global
evangelism. The mission statement and core values of
Maranatha is Ministry 119
Global Encounters correspond to the institutional
purpose.
Mission Statement:
Global Encounters exists to strategically
mobilize the faculty and students of Maranatha
into needy regions around the world for the
purpose of local church development.
Core Values:
1. Local Church Focus: The focus of Global
Encounters is joining God in actively,
passionately, creatively, and strategically
building and strengthening churches
throughout the world.
2. College Team Dynamic: Global Encounters
seeks avenues to expose students to multiple
geographical regions via short term
educational and mission teams, recognizing
that college students represent the future of
world evangelization.
3. Life is Ministry: The work of world
evangelization is the task of every vocational
and academic field. Global Encounters seeks
to utilize every student and faculty member‘s
individual expertise in reaching the lost of
the world.
4. Interdependence: The work of Christ in
building and strengthening churches
demands mutual partnerships among fellow
believers in various countries who are
committed to faithful obedience to the Word
120 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
of God. Global Encounters desires to assist
national pastors and schools when possible.
5. Excellence in Preparation: Global Encoun-
ters will emphasize the importance of quality
in business, character, and conduct in all of
its tasks.
6. Leadership Development and Vision:
Through the mission experience, Global
Encounters provides an opportunity for
students to personally develop as leaders
and to capture a vision for the world beyond.
Since 2008, Global Encounters has sponsored
twenty mission trips with over 350 students, staff,
faculty, and administrators participating. The goal of
these trips is to further the discipleship ministry of
Maranatha by exposing students to the needs of the
world and seeing them engaged in acts of service as
they minister to others. Providing global perspective is
vital to the fulfillment of Maranatha‘s mission of
developing the next generation of Christian leaders.
Second, the principal imperative of the Great
Commission is to make disciples. As believers span the
globe, they are to be disciple makers. At Maranatha,
we seek to be actively employed in the process of both
making disciples and producing disciple makers. This
is Paul‘s model in 2 Timothy 2:2. Disciple making is
the impact of one believer on the life of another
believer. The heart of Christian service is the
fulfillment of the ―one another‖ passages within
Scripture. Discipleship is not primarily a formal
Maranatha is Ministry 121
program; it is a spirit of mutual love, caring,
confrontation, and edification. It is two believers
committed to each other‘s spiritual well-being. This is
the type of spirit and activity that we seek to cultivate
at Maranatha. The environment of transparent
interaction between students, staff, faculty, and
administrators is enriching. In the classrooms,
hallways, dormitories, offices, and homes, all are
invited to openly provoke one another to good works.
In conjunction with the spirit of disciple making on
the campus of Maranatha, there are also structured
opportunities for enhancing leadership skills as a
disciple maker. Paul indicates to Timothy that he is to
be ―committing‖ truth to others so that they can lead.
The concept of commitment communicates intentional
development of young men and women. Students at
Maranatha are offered multiple discipleship
opportunities by participating in dormitory leadership,
ministry societies, and multiple other co-curricular
activities. Within these avenues of outreach, students
can serve in over one hundred different leadership
roles. Each role has a structured program of
mentorship and discipleship. Students are encouraged
to think beyond their personal comfort zones. They are
challenged to serve others and then instructed in how
best to do that. Personal giftedness is assessed and
developed. Selfless living and leadership is
encouraged. Making disciples is the operative verb in
the Great Commission. Students who are growing
spiritually will be both discipled and discipling. These
concepts are at the core of Maranatha‘s ethos.
122 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Third, the Great Commission implicitly communi-
cates the primary location in which lifelong spiritual
service and ministry takes place. The first step in
discipleship of a new believer is baptism. Baptizing
identifies the convert with the death, burial, and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. It also identifies the
believer with the visible body of Christ, the local
church. As evidenced in Acts and the epistles, the local
church is where the teaching ministry takes place. At
Maranatha, the local church is recognized as the
principal work of God in the world today. Maranatha is
committed to the primacy and autonomy of the local
church. All students attend a local congregation of
believers each Sunday and Wednesday. Many are
involved in weekly ministry. Each is encouraged to
realize that the local church is to be a priority in
his/her life. It is there that truth is taught, families
grow, gifts are used, accountability sharpens, and
Christ is exalted. Students make the local church a
positive habit of life. No artificial replacements to God‘s
body are provided or permitted for students. We
celebrate the privilege of manifesting the manifold
wisdom of God through the church.
External ministry is the supernatural result of a
Spirit-filled life. Activity is not the ultimate mark of
spirituality, but spiritually growing individuals will
serve. The biblical model for that service is a life of
discipleship in the context of local churches spread
throughout the world. Maranatha seeks to emphasize
each of those characteristics of Great Commission
Maranatha is Ministry 123
living: a spirit of discipleship, the primacy of the local
church, and a vision for the world.
Conclusion
The mission statement of Maranatha Baptist Bible
College and Seminary declares that we exist to develop
leaders for ministry in the local church and the world
―To the Praise of His Glory.‖ This is a mission that
cannot be accomplished by the will of man. The
foundation for the mission is the power of the Gospel
message as it is applied daily. The focal point is the
internal spiritual development of each student. The
environment is controlled to provide an atmosphere for
maximum spiritual development and corporate
commitment. The outworking of that spiritual
development is a life of service in the local church and
throughout the world. We pray that God will continue
to empower us to fulfill this mission for ―the praise of
His glory.‖
MBTJ 1/1: 125-139
Maranatha Commitment
Statements
Maranatha‘s Doctrinal Statement originated in the
very first year of Maranatha‘s existence. During the
summer of 2009, the college Bible faculty and the
seminary faculty created an expansion of the doctrinal
statement and set forth the following declaration of its
commitment to biblical truth and its application of
that truth to the lives of its students, staff, and
faculty. The purpose of this statement was to make
clear to the Board of Trustees, as they commenced the
search for the fifth president of Maranatha Baptist
Bible College, the commitment of the Bible faculty to
biblical truth and the positions that Maranatha has
historically held.
1. Education: The Bible Department is committed to
a God-centered education. We acknowledge that ―of
Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things:
to whom be glory forever.‖ We seek to follow the
curriculum of the psalmist who sought to proclaim
the praises, power, and providential work of God to
the generations to come. Our ultimate goal is that
students would ―set their hope in God, and not
forget the works of God, but keep his
commandments.‖ We trust that this goal will
permeate all of our courses and thus produce a
126 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
humble dependence and passionate desire for the
person of God in both professors and students.
2. Exegesis: The Bible Department is committed to
biblical exegesis. Systems of theology are always
subservient to and to be sourced out of the
authority of the text of Scripture. The ultimate
responsibility of the Bible Department is to teach
individuals to be workmen in the text who strive
for an accurate understanding of the
Author‘s/authors‘ intent. Studies in the original
languages and employment of hermeneutical tools
are encouraged. We seek to equip the students
with exegetical skills which the Holy Spirit, the
supreme Helper, can then use to illuminate His
Word to the minds and hearts of the students as
they prayerfully submit to the authority of the text.
We are concerned for those individuals who
embrace systems of theology without first
obtaining the exegetical skills necessary to
evaluate those systems.
3. Personal Evangelism and Missions: The Bible
Department is committed to personal evangelism
and global missions. Regardless of vocational
calling, all believers are to recognize that life is
ministry and ministry is global. Fulfillment of the
Great Commission is the expected behavior of all
believers at all ages in all geographical settings.
Our desire is to instill within students the joy of
sharing the transforming message of the gospel.
Maranatha Commitment Statements 127
This will be accomplished through teaching
Scripture in the classroom, modeling evangelism in
our personal lives, providing structured
opportunities for students to be mentored in
witnessing, and encouraging our students to be
involved in evangelistic outreaches in the local
church. We affirm that the gospel must be shared
through the verbal communication of the death
and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not merely by the
living of a morally upright life. We also rejoice that
the chief end of sharing the gospel is the
glorification of God as His name is exalted among
the nations.
4. Leadership: The Bible Department is committed to
education that produces individuals who evidence
courageous, compassionate, and convictional
leadership. We are convinced that the Word of God
is relevant for every age and adequately equips
students to lead in this contemporary milieu.
Christian leadership must be distinctively different
from worldly leadership that is characterized by
personality, power, and politics. Our task is to
prepare servant leaders who have strong,
biblically-based convictions; who demonstrate
grace and Christlike compassion as they live and
communicate those convictions; and who stand
with resolute courage when the truths of Scripture
are mocked and attacked by the post-Christian
world.
128 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
5. Baptist Heritage and Polity: The Bible
Department is committed to Baptist polity and to
our heritage as Baptists. The Bible is the sole
authority for our faith and practice. From the New
Testament in particular, we derive the following
distinctives: churches are constituted solely of
regenerated and immersed believers. Local
churches are autonomous and self-governing. In
association with this distinctive, we teach that
each local church should have pastors to lead and
deacons to serve the congregation, and that the
ultimate earthly authority is the congregation
itself. Every believer is a priest before God, and all
humans enjoy soul liberty. Immersion and the
Lord‘s Supper are the only New Testament
ordinances and do not convey justifying grace (i.e.,
they are not sacraments). Finally, we as Baptists
hold to separation of church and state as well as
both personal and ecclesiastical separation.
We believe that various religious groups
throughout church history have held to key Baptist
distinctives and are therefore an important part of
our Baptist heritage. We reject the liberal notion
that Baptists invented the doctrines that
distinguish them, believing rather that Baptists
express New Testament teachings that have always
been present in some form in church history.
Modern Baptists acknowledge their early heritage
and from the early seventeenth century have a
continuous documented history. We reject the idea
Maranatha Commitment Statements 129
that Baptists are the only true Christians or that
Baptist churches are the only true churches;
therefore we reject the Landmark Church History
theory that underlies these notions. The heritage of
Baptists, as defenders of soul liberty and
separation of church and state, should be known
and valued by all Baptists.
6. Dispensationalism: The Bible Department is
committed to a dispensational hermeneutic. In
every Bible course we teach and demonstrate
a normal, historical, grammatical interpretation of
the text of Scripture that is the foundation of
dispensationalism. This hermeneutic does not
preclude or exclude correct understanding of types,
illustrations, apocalypses, and other genres within
the basic framework of literal interpretation. It
does acknowledge the progressive revelation of
God‘s divine plan through time. Though various
stewardships of revelation are acknowledged, the
unifying salvific factor for all people for all time is
the necessity of responding by faith to the special
revelation given. The consequence of this
consistent hermeneutic is a distinction between
ethnic Israel and the New Testament church.
Covenants established between God and ethnic
Israel will be fulfilled in the literal sense in which
they were given and received. The unique
relationship between Christ and His Bride, the
church, is acknowledged and preserved.
130 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Throughout all of eternity, the ultimate purpose of
His universal plan is that of glorifying Himself.
We reject covenant theology, its hermeneutic, and
the eschatology of amillennialism and post-
millennialism. Furthermore, we reject the
progressive concept that Christ is already reigning
on the Davidic throne.
7. The Church: The Bible Department is committed to
the primacy and autonomy of the local church.
God‘s principal work in the world today is the
building of the church. In the first four chapters of
Ephesians, God reveals to believers that His
primary interest in this dispensation is the church.
Ephesians describes the work of the triune God as
He blesses, chooses, predestines, adopts, redeems,
forgives, empowers, and enlightens a people for His
name to the praise of His glorious grace. The result
of these actions is the creation of a body and the
construction of a building called the church.
Believers are not to live independently of each
other, but are to be joined together as one new body
functioning as a single household of God. The
accomplishment of the task of bringing together
this redeemed group of strangers into a unified
body has a single intent: that all earthly and
heavenly powers would know the ―manifold wisdom
of God.‖
Maranatha Commitment Statements 131
The local body of Christ, ―the pillar and ground of
the truth,‖ is under the authority of the Redeemer
and Chief Shepherd. As such she functions in an
autonomous fashion. Her members alone are
responsible for the safeguarding of their doctrine,
the working of their governance, and the choices of
their ecclesiastical practice. The role of the Bible
Department is to serve local assemblies, not by
establishing dictums to follow or practices to
uphold, but by equipping individuals for leadership
in the local church through biblical instruction.
8. Fundamentalism: The Bible Department is
committed to Fundamentalism. The fundamentals
of the faith have historically been defined as those
beliefs that are necessary to the biblical doctrine of
salvation combined with a high doctrine of
Scripture, so that we have an inerrant record of
those doctrines. Fundamentalism as an idea is
absolute allegiance to those doctrines united to a
willingness to defend those doctrines and to
separate from those who deny or contradict them.
Fundamentalism as a modern American movement
emerged in the late nineteenth century when
theological liberalism began to infiltrate and
overwhelm the mainline denominations, and a
generation rose up to defend the faith against
those onslaughts. The movement has gradually
taken shape over the last century as a separatist
wing of conservative Christianity, consisting
132 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
primarily, but not exclusively, of premillennarians
and Baptists.
Maranatha‘s origin lies squarely within the
fundamental Baptist movement. As such, we have
self-consciously identified ourselves as a separatist
institution serving primarily independent and
separatist Baptist churches. We reject the
evangelical mindset towards culture and the
tendencies to develop strategies for ecumenical
evangelism and to cooperate with non-evangelical
theologies. We see our mission as militant defense
of the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints. We
regard separation from disobedient brethren a
sometimes necessary step in order to maintain
fidelity to Scripture. In general, we believe that
cooperation is possible in proportion to agreement,
and separation is necessary in proportion to
disagreement. We also reject the attitudes and
actions of fundamentalists who elevate tangential
and eccentric teachings to the level of the
fundamentals of the faith and separate over them.
With our fundamentalist forefathers, we believe
that unity should be enjoyed when possible,
separation practiced when necessary.
9. Expositional Preaching: The Bible Department is
committed to expository preaching. Because we
acknowledge both the authority and the sufficiency
of Scripture and because we accept the literal,
grammatical, historical, and contextual
Maranatha Commitment Statements 133
hermeneutic, we believe that the natural outcome
of an exegetical approach to the study of the
Scripture is expository preaching. Each book,
chapter, and verse exists within a communicative
framework designed to convey truth that is
germane to that particular pericope, a dynamic
that no other form of preaching fully captures.
Even when students present a topical sermon (e.g.,
doctrinal sermon), we believe they should present a
text or texts in an expositional style, systematically
unpacking the meaning of a particular text with
reference to that topic in its context.
Furthermore, based upon Paul‘s instructions to
Timothy, we strive for a balance between teaching
and exhortation (distinguishing the sermon from
either a mere lecture or a purely persuasive
speech). We also distinguish between exegesis and
homiletics (the study of God‘s Word and the
communication of God‘s Word). The expositional
sermon engages all the elements of human
response—intellect, emotion, and will. We endeavor
to demonstrate through our preaching the
deliberate movement from the text (exegesis), to
theology (the canonical context), to application (the
contemporary significance of the text), faithfully
demonstrating both the authoritative meaning of
the text and the authoritative relevance of the text
to today‘s Christian. We, therefore, acknowledge
that the effectiveness of preaching does not come
from the personality of the preacher or the delivery
134 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
of the sermon, but from the intentional exposure of
the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit
who uses it in the lives of the hearers.
We appreciate that God uses preachers who are
not expositors, but we strive to teach and model
the expository method. We reject anthro-centric
(health and wealth, positive thinking) and socio-
centric (social gospel) sermons. We choose rather a
theo-centric focus. Biblical preaching, therefore,
imparts specific truths of a particular pericope so
that an individual may know and trust the Savior
more.
10. Versions: The Bible Department is committed to a
position on the text of the Scriptures that honors
textual truths, historical discovery and local
church leadership. We believe in the verbal,
plenary inspiration of the Bible, the sixty-six books
of the Old and New Testament canon, which, being
inspired and inerrant in the original manuscripts,
is the final authority on all matters of faith and
practice. We believe that the Bible teaches the
complete preservation of the verbal revelation of
God, yet no passage of Scripture specifies the
manner in which God preserved His Word. Thus,
we hold that God has providentially preserved His
Word in the many manuscripts, fragments, and
copies of the Scriptures. We hold that the reliability
of any text, text type, translation, version, or copy
of the Scriptures is to be judged by the autographs
Maranatha Commitment Statements 135
only. Thus any translation or version of Scripture
in any language is the Word of God if it accurately
reproduces what is in the original languages. We
believe that the translation of the Word of God
from the original languages into the language of
common people is a necessary activity and
essential for the spread of the Gospel.
We are thankful that the KJV of the Bible is an
accurate translation of the original languages. This
version is the preference of multiple churches
within our constituency. We use the King James
Version in the Maranatha pulpit and classroom.
We reject versions that reflect liberal or cultic bias.
We reject preservation positions that elevate any
version to the level of the autographs.
11. Soteriology: The Bible Department is committed to
teaching a biblically balanced soteriology. We
believe in the divine source of salvation, that all of
salvation flows from God‘s free and unmerited
grace. We also affirm the responsibility of all people
to repent of their sins and believe the gospel. We
recognize that good men have differed throughout
church history regarding the difficult questions of
election and predestination. While believing that it
is essential that every student of the Word work
through the numerous passages that touch on
these difficult issues, we grant both our faculty
and students the liberty to investigate the
sovereignty of God and the freedom of man in
136 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
various ways. We reject theology that denies the
responsibility of all people to repent and believe, or
the responsibility of all believers to evangelize
everyone they can. We do not support positions
that attribute the source of evil to God or that limit
the extent of Christ‘s atonement to the elect. We
also reject man-centered theologies that depreciate
human depravity, emphasizing free will to the
extent that they depend upon methodologies and
strategies as the crucial components in evangelism
and revival. We uphold the biblical doctrine of
eternal security. The Bible Department believes
that carelessly disparaging men as Calvinists or
Arminians is unhelpful and intellectually chilling.
At Maranatha the great doctrines relating to God‘s
gracious work are treated with reverence and
respect and believers are evaluated according to
their obedience and faithfulness to the Word
regardless of the labels men ascribe to them. Both
scholarship and truth require accuracy and grace
when evaluating men and ministries. We believe
professors and students ought to be able to
interact thoughtfully and respectfully on this issue,
bringing all of their theological formulations to the
bar of careful biblical exegesis.
12. Sanctification: The Bible Department is com-
mitted to the progressive nature of sanctification.
At salvation, believers are made positionally holy in
Christ and await the perfected holiness of heaven.
Until that time, an individual must wage war with
Maranatha Commitment Statements 137
the flesh by a Spirit-empowered putting off of the
old manner of life and putting on of the new life as
he or she is being renewed in the Spirit of holiness.
This progressive battle is won as the man of God
utilizes the Word of God in the power of the Spirit
of God to become like the Son of God. Because it is
an individual battle, we recognize that each
believer grows at a different pace and that this
growth is manifested in various ways. We also
recognize that this growth toward Christlikeness is
initially an internal transformation of the heart
that results in external indications of biblical
change. We acknowledge that individual growth
involves an active mortification of the flesh that is
enabled by God‘s divine power rather than a
passive quietism. The nature of this work is an
active dependence upon God‘s Spirit as we walk in
daily fellowship with Him. Because there are a
variety of positions on sanctification, we, therefore,
foster a spirit of grace toward those believers who
are inclined towards alternative views.
13. Christian Liberty: The Bible Department is
committed to the biblical practice of Christian
liberty. We acknowledge that Scripture binds
believers together around non-negotiables such as
the gospel, fundamental doctrines, and clear
biblical mandates, but allows for a variety of
applications of biblical principles to areas not
specifically enumerated in Scripture. We encourage
all believers through their study of Scripture to
138 Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
establish personal convictions that glorify God in
all areas of life and promote unity with fellow
believers.
Paul clearly defines in Romans 14 and 1
Corinthians 8–10 that believers are neither to be
―despising‖ nor ―judging‖ others because of
different practices in ―doubtful things,‖ but rather
are to receive one another as fellow-servants. We
reject all attempts to elevate extra-biblical
standards to the level of scriptural authority; such
attempts often divide the Body of Christ and/or
endeavor to establish one‘s holiness apart from the
work of Christ. Such practices lead to spiritual
elitism, pride, and inauthentic holiness that stress
the external over the internal. Believers must,
therefore, be convinced in their own faith of the
rightness or wrongness of a practice through their
personal study of the Scriptures and stand before
God in assurance of their faith while biblically
loving those of differing persuasions. We also
recognize the need for submission to institutional
standards but acknowledge these do not produce
holiness in and of themselves, but can be helpful
prior to the formation of personal convictions.
14. Contemporary Issues: The Bible Department is
committed to transparent interaction with students
on contemporary issues. Discernment is a
character quality and acquired skill that is
necessary for spiritual success. The ability to
Maranatha Commitment Statements 139
practice keen insight and judgment in
contemporary issues cannot be developed in an
environment that limits discussion and hinders
transparency. At the same time, open discussion
without progression toward biblical answers does
not meet the standard of a valid education. It is
our desire to provide students a forum for
communication so that education in critical
thinking and biblical discretion can take place. In
particular, we recognize that our students are
being impacted by many conservative evangelicals
via their writings, speaking, and internet
communication. We acknowledge that many of
these men and women have made positive
contributions to the Body of Christ. We also note
that aspects of their teaching and practices fall
outside of the boundaries that we believe are
biblical. We seek to instruct and model for
students to ―prove all things, hold fast that which
is good.‖