By Aaron Blumer on
Separation
Fundamentalism

A Fresh Look at Biblical Separation

Q: My impression is that the Preserving the Truth conference is a brand new event. Am I right about that?

A: Yes!

Q: Where did the idea for a “Preserving the Truth” conference come from and why that particular emphasis?

A: The idea for this conference originated with myself and a group of pastors that I have worked with over the years. We are concerned that the next generation of young ministers appreciate the principles and applications of biblical separatism without falling prey to the doctrinal error that exists in some quarters of fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Every other year Dr. Doran has an excellent missions conference for young people entitled SGI (Students for Global Impact) which we strongly support. We thought this conference could provide a complementary emphasis for our college students, singles, and ministerial students during the off years.

Q: There are already lots of conferences going on. What’s different about this one (in addition to differences you may have already mentioned)?

A: We are attempting to provide an avenue to teach biblical separation in the context of a sound, biblically accurate, theologically astute environment. We have invited some very bright and articulate separatists who have years of ministerial experience such as Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Mark Minnick, and Bruce Compton as well as younger separatists such as Matthew Postiff, Scott Aniol, Mike Riley, and Chris Anderson.

Q: I noticed that the subtopic/theme of the conference is “A symposium on biblical separation.” Why that particular topic as a starting point and what can you tell us about the “symposium” format?

A: All the speakers will be invited to participate in a discussion time regarding the specific topics addressed during the conference. Furthermore, the topic of biblical separation will be applied to specific areas including the gospel, personal holiness, non-cessationism, the translation debate, the disobedient brother, and worship.

Q: I expect to hear this criticism eventually: would it be accurate to say this is a conference by and for Calvinists? What would you say to those who cite that as a problem with the event?

A: The theological framework for the conference is baptistic, dispensational, and Calvinistic. At the same time all of our speakers are strongly opposed to any form of hyper-Calvinism.

Q: Some of this information is at the website, but for those who don’t find their way to it, what are some of the subtopics that will be addressed under the “biblical separation” heading?

A: Dr. Matthew Postiff will address the importance of young earth creationism. I anticipate that a literal interpretation of the Genesis account will be “re-interpreted” by those in religious circles once known for their conservative, separatist principles. The subject of worship will be addressed by Chris Anderson and Scott Aniol from a conservative framework. Though we don’t believe in traditionalism, we are concerned that an overt pragmatism and experience-oriented worship will do great damage to the Christian church. Regarding apologetics, most believers have bought into some form of evidentialism and have unwittingly forgotten the most fundamental presupposition of our faith—that the one true and living God has self-attestingly revealed himself through the sixty-six inscripturated books of the Bible. Mike Riley, who is finishing his doctorate on this very subject, will address the separatist implications of both positions.

True separatists are also concerned about identifying a genuine disobedient brother. This is a difficult topic with far-reaching implications. Dr. Bruce Compton has done excellent exegetical work on this subject and will present his findings. In addition, he will speak on the significant dangers inherent in non-cessationism. Additionally, Dr. Doran is very concerned that some separatists have ignored the doctrinal aberrations involved in the translation debate. He will address where the lines should be drawn and how we should react to those who have clearly stepped over the lines.

I have asked Dr. Minnick to address the issue of the gospel itself. I am convinced that the biblical concepts of belief, repentance and the person and work of Christ have been compromised today. We can’t have gospel-driven separation unless we can define the gospel carefully and completely. Finally, Dr. Bauder will address the issue of a fundamentalism worth saving in two general sessions. The obvious implication is that there is a type of “fundamentalism” not worth saving.

Q: At the conference website, I noticed some perks for young guys—discounted registration, free housing—and I see at least one “younger” guy on the speaker schedule (Chris Anderson). Has there been an intentional effort to bring younger and older together at this event? How important is that in your view?

A: We have purposely invited four younger men to speak in order to encourage our younger men in college, seminary, and ministry. I have a heart for these men and appreciate them very much. We are presenting young men who love God, love truth, and work hard in their ministerial preparation. May their tribe increase!

Q: Do you think the conference has much potential to draw folks who don’t necessarily consider themselves “fundamentalists” and stimulate their thinking about biblical separation?

A: I certainly hope so. The doctrine of biblical separation has been greatly neglected. My desire is to expose men even from different circles in order to encourage them to become biblical separatists.

Q: I see that Kevin Bauder is scheduled to do two sessions on “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving.” Do you believe fundamentalism is still disintegrating and degenerating or has it finally “hit bottom” and begun to develop in a more positive direction—or what? What’s your estimation of its condition and future?

A: I am a fundamentalist. However, I agree that the “movement” has lost definition and purpose. Nevertheless, I personally believe that fundamentalism both as a movement and an idea is worth saving. Most important, however, is that the ideas championed by historical, biblical fundamentalism continue to be proclaimed with a spirit of godly aggressiveness and also be protected with a passion for biblical separatism.

Q: There has been some controversy about Calvary Seminary’s decision to invite Mark Dever to speak at their Advancing the Church conference. What are your thoughts on that?

A: My opinion is that Mark Dever has written some excellent material regarding the local church, is known as a serious expositor of God’s Word, has a conservative approach to worship in his church, and has taken some difficult stands within the SBC. On the other hand, I was very disappointed with his interview on Christian “rap” and his bizarre comment regarding the sinfulness of including millennial views in one’s church constitution. Mark represents some of the best men in the SBC; however, there are too many problems with the SBC for me to invite one of its pastors to my pulpit.

I have read Dave Doran’s explanation of why he is speaking at Tim’s conference, and I accept it. I believe Dave is a man of discernment. My greater concern, however, is the growing acceptance of the missional church model for church planting. I believe it will lead to the social gospel. Dr. Doran and the DBTS professors are addressing this issue at the Mid-America Conference on Preaching this October. This conference is a must for pastors.

Q: One of my concerns is how to reach fundamentalist believers and leaders that are, shall we say, “to our right,” and influence them toward a better biblical balance. Do you have any thoughts on that?

A: My greatest concern for our fundamental brethren is that they become careful students of Scripture, better expositional preachers, take systematic and exegetical theology very seriously, and be more fair minded toward good theologians who are not in our circles. Biblical separatism has its foundation in exegetical, biblical, and systematic theology. Without that foundation one has no idea what violations are worthy of separation. Thus, some to our right are very sincere in their separatist stand; nevertheless, in some cases they are taking their stand on very tenuous ground.

Q: Whom do you mainly hope to reach with the conference? Can you give me a brief profile?

A: The conference is for everyone. We would be thrilled if those who have attended SGI would also attend PTC. I think our conference will contribute to an excellent balance emphasizing both truth and mission.

Q: Any final words you’d like to aim at folks considering attending to persuade them to come?

A: The men speaking at our conference have the ability to help us understand the nuances in the fundamental and evangelical world. Impulsive and uninformed responses to the current ecclesiastical landscape produce compromise on the one hand or extremism on the other hand. We hope to avoid both. Our speakers are the kind of men who will encourage us to be separatist theologians and mission-minded servants, believing that biblical truth is our ultimate guide.

Discussion

Tue, 10/05/10
When I took hermeneutics, my professor had a great explanation of what literal interpretation means. He said,

“A literal system is the Biblical system that rises from Scripture, and it produces a true Biblical theology…What, then, does ‘the rule that rises from the Bible’ mean? It is the view that all texts are meant to be viewed as natural as they are. Like all literature, what the text says is what it means. There are indeed times when the text makes it clear that the material being presented is a symbol, type, or allegory, but when the text clearly indicates that the subject is a symbol, then that is the literal interpretation of that text.” (Dr. Clay Nuttall)

In my opinion, this is a great explanation.

Ricky

Tue, 10/05/10
[Bob Hayton] Paul,

Please don’t pretend that only dispensationalists care about the context! It boils down to a disagreement about prophecy, and when to stay literal and when not to. It’s too convenient and self-serving to say “it’s just we, who appreciate the context, and you don’t”.
Bob,

Go back and re-read my post. That is not what I was saying.

I am saying that one major difference between dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists is that dispensationalists do not allow factors outside the context to determine the meaning of the text. Thus, “all Israel shall be saved” means just that.

That is what we are criticized for, for crying out loud!!!

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Tue, 10/05/10
[James K] Caleb, can you point out a single advocate of the literal hermeneutic does not acknowledge metaphors, figures of speech and other literary techniques?

Was Herod a fox?

1. He was not an animal.

2. He was cunning and crafty.

Therefore:

A literal hermeneutic realizes that the comparison is made to reflect actual and literal characteristics of Herod.

It just gets old after awhile. These reasons are like vampires, they just won’t die and they suck the life out of good hermeneutics.
Your opening question is making my point for me. If a “literal” hermeneutic encompases the non-literal devices like “metaphor,” “figures of speect,” etc, then what exactly is the criticism against those that take a non-literal interpretation on a various text. We are told that one is consistently literal, and the other is not. But the “consistently” literal interpretation encompases the non-literal too, so what is the problem? What is the criticism? If the other side isn’t literal, then they can point to your figures of speech as not being literal too. Is the criticism “rather” that someone else takes a passage non-literally that you have decided is literal? If this is the criticism, then it would be much more clear than saying, “well, I’m just consistently literal, and you are not.” In other words, I’m trying to call the bluff on the double standard and push others to really get to the heart of the issue without resorting to cliche thoughtless comments like, “I’m literal, and you’re not.” I’m trying to push others to be clear about where it is they actually disagree. Again, I’m against the overly generalized use of the term “literal”.

I noticed that you didn’t deal with the 70 times 7. Are numbers sometimes not literal? Where exactly is the “literal” offer of the kingdom?

Tue, 10/05/10
[Paul J. Scharf]
[Bob Hayton]

I think perhaps some of the rancor and bitterness in the dispensational-covenantal debate would subside if we took a more measured assessment of the actual differences between the two sides. We shouldn’t try to claim the high ground in the debate by denying the other view has a concern for Biblical truth, or that they are only and always overly literal, or excessively spiritualistic. Truth be told, we differ in the realm of prophecy, primarily. And the differences do not of necessity lead one down the road of total theological error. No matter which position is right, people can hold it and avoid the extremes (of say John Hagee or the postmodern theology).
Bob and Caleb,

Dispensationalists account for figures of speech within their literal system of interpretation by allowing the context to determine when something other than a denotatively literal understanding is called for.

Thus, the system is macro-literal, but whether a particular passage is to be interpreted micro-literally is dependent upon the context.

All Bible-believers intend to interpret literally. The difference is that non-dispensationalists allow factors other than the context to control their interpretation (i.e., 1,000 years in Revelation becomes 10x10x10, the perfect number, because one’s theology necessitates it).

FYI, John Hagee is not an extreme dispensationalist, but an errant dispensationalist.
Thank you for your comments here. I hope that my posts have not been inflamatory but rather productive in getting thoughts flowing. “Dispensationalists account for figures of speech within their literal system…” This means that the literal system has non-literal elements in it, plain and simple. So the simplistic criticism of being literal (especially “consistently literal”) while the other is not is a distinction without a difference. Both are literal and not literal.

You also mention how disp interpretation allows “the context to determine when something other than a denotatively literal understanding is called for.” How broad is the context? Is this the context on the phrase level? Is this the context on the sentence level? Is this the context on the pericope level? Is this the context on the section level of a book? Is this the context on the level of the surrounding chapters of a book? Is this on the level of the author’s purpose for the book? Is this the context level of the surrounding culture of the times? Is this the context level minus certain scientific precisions that we often foreignly foist upon the text? Is this the context level of the NT? Is this a canonical context? Is this context accounting for worldview considerations on the interpreter and the author? Is this context including the aspects of how one’s systematic understanding of Scripture affects what he sees as literal and not? (for example, the Open Theist says that he is simply taking the text literally when he says that God does not know, because God is literally asking “Where are you Adam?”) In other words, something a little more difinitive than “context” is needed.

Thus, the system is macro-literal, but whether a particular passage is to be interpreted micro-literally is dependent upon the context.I’m sorry, but I don’t follow what you are trying to say. You just talked about the context determining the macro level, and now you are saying that this is different than the context determining on the mocro level. What are you talking about? Are you basically saying that the first response is to take a text literally unless the context calls for it? I’m sorry, but I’m not following your distinction between macro and micro.

The difference is that non-dispensationalists allow factors other than the context to control their interpretation (i.e., 1,000 years in Revelation becomes 10x10x10, the perfect number, because one’s theology necessitates it).So tell me, do you take 70 times 7 literally? I did bring it up for a reason, because it has numbers in it. After my comment on “context” can you see how I would see this comment a little too simplistic? What if they are allowing a differnt context to control their interpretation than the context you are allowing? So then what is the criticism again? Please understand, that I’m not advocating a literal or a figurative view of the 1,000 years. I’m just trying to push others into describing what exactly is the real issue. I’m just trying to push past the distinctions without a difference and get to the heart of the matter.

Tue, 10/05/10
[Caleb S] Thus, the system is macro-literal, but whether a particular passage is to be interpreted micro-literally is dependent upon the context.I’m sorry, but I don’t follow what you are trying to say. You just talked about the context determining the macro level, and now you are saying that this is different than the context determining on the mocro level. What are you talking about? Are you basically saying that the first response is to take a text literally unless the context calls for it? I’m sorry, but I’m not following your distinction between macro and micro.
Obviously, it would take a long time to go back and forth point by point, and this is a complex issue. So, if you don’t mind, I am just going to get to the heart of the matter, where I believe this point takes us.

Dispensationalists interpret the Bible literally. They have a literal system (at least this is the goal and direction of dispensationalism). This is macro-literalism.

Within that system, dispensationalists recognize that not every word, phrase or concept is to be taken in a denotatively literal sense. Thus, on the micro level, not every word is taken in a denotatively literal sense — even though when it is not the interpreter is still practicing literal interpretation — because he has yielded his interpretation to the text, which in that case demands an understanding of some type of figure of speech.

All Bible believers probably would claim to have a macro-literal system of interpretation, in the sense just described. Coming out of a strong conservative Lutheran background, I think I have a good handle on what I believe to be “non-literal interpretaton,” if I can use that term. In other words, dispensationalists believe they are justified in pointing out the weakness of an interpretation which is controlled by something other than the immediate context.

A non-emotion producing example: Rev. 6 talks about four horses and their riders; Ex. 15:1 also talks about a horse and rider. But unless you can show me from the context of Rev. 6 — not from your theology or “worldview considerations” — why Ex. 15 should be used to interpret Rev. 6, I am going to say that it is illegitimate to do so. I am going to interpret Rev. 6 in its own context — starting with the denotative meanings of words, trying to deal with obvious idioms and figures of speech and then looking for interpretive clues within the text to show me what other metaphorical figures are used, as well as what they might mean.

This is what I am talking about in principle.

BTW - these are complex issues that aren’t easily unraveled in 2-minute sound bites. And its application to any and every specific text — well that’s a lifetime job ;)

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Tue, 10/05/10
I think we are using “literal” a bit loosely here. Here are some quotes to help clarify.
This recognition of a metaphorical style is not to be thought of as a return to allegorization, nor is it a “spiritualizing” of the passage. When a writer employs metaphor he is to be understood metaphorically and his metaphorical meaning is his literal meaning: that is to say, it is the truth he wishes to convey. The term “literal” stands strictly as the opposite of “figurative,” but in modern speech it often means “real,” and it is used this way by those who want to be sure that they know what the writer really and originally meant. In this sense a metaphorical saying is “literally” true. … Thus a metaphorical statement is “literally” true but cannot be “literalistically” true. The “literal” meaning, then, is what the particular writer intended, and although he used metaphor, no one familiar with the language in which he expressed himself could reasonably misunderstand him (Kevan, “The Principle of Interpretation,” in Revelation and the Bible, ed Henry, p. 294).

Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. This means interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking. It is sometimes called grammatical-historical interpretation since the meaning of each word is determined by grammatical and historical considerations. The principle might also be called normal interpretation since the literal meaning of the words is the normal approach to their understanding in all languages. … 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 (Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 80).

The literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols, are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to the received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpretation—that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded (Lange, Revelation, cited in Ryrie, p. 81).
The key word that a dispensationalist focuses on is “consistent” … as in “consistent use of literal hermeneutic.”

Tue, 10/05/10
Larry,

If I you are referring to me, I actually was trying to speak quite precisely, and I do not think I am contradicting anything in your citations… ;)

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Tue, 10/05/10
No, Paul … Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to Caleb using it differently than it is normally used (or literally used, if you will). He is trying to pin some ideas on “literal” that are incorrect. He is using Kevan’s “literalistic” instead of “literal,” which as it pointed out, is actually normal.

I don’t even like to use the word “literal” because of the misunderstanding that some have. I prefer “normal.” We read the Bible normally. We usually don’t get too confused over symbolism or metaphor that way.

Tue, 10/05/10
[Paul J. Scharf] Dispensationalists interpret the Bible literally. They have a literal system (at least this is the goal and direction of dispensationalism). This is macro-literalism.

Within that system, dispensationalists recognize that not every word, phrase or concept is to be taken in a denotatively literal sense. Thus, on the micro level, not every word is taken in a denotatively literal sense — even though when it is not the interpreter is still practicing literal interpretation — because he has yielded his interpretation to the text, which in that case demands an understanding of some type of figure of speech.

All Bible believers probably would claim to have a macro-literal system of interpretation, in the sense just described. Coming out of a strong conservative Lutheran background, I think I have a good handle on what I believe to be “non-literal interpretaton,” if I can use that term. In other words, dispensationalists believe they are justified in pointing out the weakness of an interpretation which is controlled by something other than the immediate context.

A non-emotion producing example: Rev. 6 talks about four horses and their riders; Ex. 15:1 also talks about a horse and rider. But unless you can show me from the context of Rev. 6 — not from your theology or “worldview considerations” — why Ex. 15 should be used to interpret Rev. 6, I am going to say that it is illegitimate to do so. I am going to interpret Rev. 6 in its own context — starting with the denotative meanings of words, trying to deal with obvious idioms and figures of speech and then looking for interpretive clues within the text to show me what other metaphorical figures are used, as well as what they might mean.

This is what I am talking about in principle.

BTW - these are complex issues that aren’t easily unraveled in 2-minute sound bites. And its application to any and every specific text — well that’s a lifetime job ;)
Paul,

Thank you for responding back with clarification. I do not wish to push the matter any more at this present time, as I feel like doing so would be uncharitable. I hope that everyone has a great weekend. Thank you for your time (Paul and others). This whole discussion about literal vs not-literal was only a passing thought when I began interaction with this thread. The main point was that a love for God was to be the main thing, as He is the Incomparable One. Paul, if “theology is the queen of the sciences, and dispensationalism is queen of all theologies,” as you believe; then I would strongly suggest that theology proper is king of all theologies. That was the main point. So long as God is truly ultimate, then I don’t mind so much disagreeing on dispensational theology.

Shalom