[First posted
on Garbage Truck in March of 2003]
God
Save America Indicts Fundamentalism—the
Baptist
magazine indicts God Save America
–it’s still about repentance from
sin.
Answering The Baptist Magazine and Dr. Mike Monte
Before
you read this I want you to know that I do not enjoy doing this sort of
thing. My burden is pastoring, birthing churches, and preserving Baptist
history and distinctives. I am in the midst of starting a fourth church
out of ABT, along with doing research and writing, which must be done in
spare time as I pastor. So writing the following article is a time
consuming thing, which I would prefer not to do. However, I truly feel
constrained to address these issues that have lately appeared in
independent Baptist circles.
Recently
(November/December 2002) an open letter was printed in “the
Baptist”, a magazine published by Longview Baptist Temple and edited
by Dr. Bob Gray and his son Dr. Bob Gray, Jr. The letter was written by
Dr. Mike Monte, greatly used pastor of the Calvary Baptist Church in
Robbinsdale, Minnesota, in which he took issue with an advertisement for
the “God Save America” Conference, held at Northwest Bible Baptist
Church, Elgin, Illinois. The “GSA” is a ministry of Randy Taylor
Revival Ministries, located in West Union, West Virginia.
May
I say, so that you can understand my prejudices, I knew Dr. Monte when
we both served on the board of Randy Taylor Revival Ministries. Neither
of us serves on Dr. Taylor’s board presently. I consider Dr. Monte a
good man, and a good brother. I asked him in the beginning of the
ministry of 21tnt.com to be a contributing editor and to send some
timely articles, which he did not, for whatever reason.
However, this was not a problem, or even a source of irritation,
knowing the load of the pastorate and understanding the constraints of
time prohibiting such an endeavor.
Dr.
Randy Taylor, is one of God’s choicest servants. He is hard working,
honest, sincere, and serious about doing something to save the country.
I served on his board until 1998. Up until that time, I hosted several
“GSA” regional conferences. They were always powerful and life
changing conferences. However, I no longer host the conferences and
basically have left the movement, mostly out of necessity to pursue
other things, which God has laid on my heart. But, may I say, I am for
the conferences. God has and continues to use them. A Bible college
(Providence Baptist College in McHenry, Illinois) has arisen from the
influence of GSA and many ministries have been salvaged by its strength.
Now
then, after reading Dr. Monte’s letter criticizing the “GSA”
advertisement, I have to confess that I believe he is out of line. Much
like the Tom Neal articles in the Baptist Contender, this
criticism of good men is unnecessary and will do no common good for the
independent Baptist churches.
While
it is true that the advertisement at GSA was critical of fundamentalism
it was still generic and did not indict individuals. Let us list the GSA
assertions, or as advertised, “Destructive
philosophies running rampant in our fundamental circles”:
Here
they are in reverse order:
Promoting
A Morally Corrupt Pastor To Another Pulpit
Preaching
You Can Win A Never-dying Soul In Two Minutes
Preaching
Motives Don ’t Count
Preaching
Against Faith Promise Missions
Preaching
Against The Doctrine Of Repentance
First, Dr. Monte assumes this advertisement
is an attack on Bob Gray, Texas. Well, Dr. Gray is not named. If Dr.
Gray basically believes the above philosophies, then he would be partly
the subject of the advertisement. I do not think Dr. Gray would support
any of the above philosophies with the exception of “You can win a
never-dying soul in two minutes”. Certainly Dr. Gray would not
promote a morally corrupt pastor, or that motives don’t count or, God
forbid, be against the doctrine of repentance. Yet, Dr. Monte insists:
“The recent “God Save America
”promotional flyer was an attack. An attack against you, Dr. Gray, and
all we hold dear …I shall feel cheated if I am not allowed to
defend you, Dr. Gray, in the manner I have chosen. The words are
mine, not yours. You do not need to defend yourself…”
Dr. Monte takes issue with the advertisement
that these problems, instead of being major problems are NOT
running rampant. Both opinions are just that: opinions. Whether they run
rampant may depend on what part of the country you are from.
Dr. Monte also reported that the GSA used
“shock-jock tactics” to draw a crowd:
“There comes a time in which using
controversial topics and shock-jock tactics to promote a meeting crosses
a line. The G.S.A. has crossed that line in their recent promotional
flier. If printing unfounded statements and casting doubt upon
“fundamental circles ” in an attempt to attract a crowd is
‘integrity’, then perhaps we could use a little less of the G.S.A.
styled ‘integrity’ in our ‘fundamental circles’.”
“I hold in my hands the flier for
the “God Save America National Revival.” I understand the
constraints of effective advertising. I also understand integrity. Why
is the G.S.A. compelled to fabricate “destructive philosophies ”
they claim are “rampant ” in “fundamental circles ”in order to
draw a crowd? Why are they compelled to prey upon fears, failures, and
frustrations to boost attendance?”
I can assure you that Randy Taylor and most
of those affiliated with GSA are not trying to draw a crowd. They are
definitely trying to stand for something. If what they are standing for
is worth supporting, judge for yourself.
I am not going to comment on Dr. Monte’s assertions concerning
corrupt pastors, faith promise, and motives. I will touch on the
“two-minute plan of salvation” just briefly. I will spend the most
time on the main bone of contention in Dr. Monte’s
letter—repentance. Dr. Monte wrote:
“C ’mon Dr. Randy Taylor and Dr.
Keith Gomez, not that old Swan Song again! I ’d have thought you’d
have beat a hole in the top of that drum by now! Your constant
statements about repentance are as hollow as the drum you are beating.
Let me state categorically, for the record, once and for all: NO
FUNDAMENTALIST HAS, IS, OR WILL EVER PREACH AGAINST REPENTANCE AS IT IS
UNDERSTOOD BIBLICALLY. To do so would place such a man outside
the pale of fundamentalism.”
Dr.
Monte assumes all independent Baptists want to be in the pale of
fundamentalism, but the truth is our history is not rooted in the
fundamentalist movement—more on that later. He also makes a strange
point about it being impossible for a fundamentalist to preach against
“repentance as it is understood biblically”. I guess he believes
that as soon as any fundamentalist goes off on a heretical tangent he
immediately is disqualified to be called a fundamentalist. That may be
partially true but it would take a while for that to be exposed. Common
sense and experience would prove however, there is plenty of heresy
preached in independent fundamental Baptist pulpits across the country.
(Have you preachers ever listened to an old, really old, audio tape of
yourself?) He goes on to criticize Dr. Dennis Corle:
“The chief apologist for the
repentance crowd, Dr.Dennis Corle, wrote a series of articles concerning
this issue and published them in his own paper, Revival Fires. I found the articles to be confusing,
contradictory, and unbiblical.”
O.K.,
that is your opinion, Dr. Monte, however, Dr. Lee Roberson (of whom I
know you respect) believed Bro. Corle’s writings on repentance to be
outstanding. Quite frankly, and not because I disrespect you, I will
choose to side with Dr. Roberson’s opinion over yours.
Dr.
Monte goes on to criticize Dr. Jim Vineyard:
“Again my friends, we will find it
helpful to turn to the Scriptures for some real answers. Yes,
that’s right, the Bible. Shut off your Jim Vineyard tape for a
minute and see what God has to say. You read right, now stop being so
shocked and let’s look at the Bible.”
Alright then, with this background in mind, the question should be
asked, “What is the stance of Dr. Monte and
The Baptist
magazine
on repentance? Dr.
Monte wrote in his letter:
“I issued a series of articles
which were published in The Baptist. In those articles repentance was clearly defined and defended.”
Indeed,
Dr. Monte defined what he called “repentance for salvation” on page
20 of the Nov/Dec 2000 issue of The
Baptist:
“Thus, the word repentance, when
used in a context of salvation, has a very simple definition: to change
one’s mind from unbelief in Christ to faith in Christ. It is that
simple. Period. End of discussion.”
However,
in the space of two years after that was written, the discussion has not
ended. If anything, it is more confused than ever. Dr. Monte continued
in his letter:
“All of our written and spoken
comments regarding repentance have been in defense of a biblical
doctrine that has suffered at the hands of the biblically illiterate. If
you want to spout off about integrity, it is my suggestion that you find
a solid, doctrinal education first.”
Obviously,
Dr. Monte believes those that are still bringing up the controversy
about repentance do not know “doctrine”.
Ah, there it is! The reason the controversy won’t go away is DOCTRINE.
The Baptist has
steadfastly maintained, “Repentance is Not a Doctrine”. This has
been in defense of Dr. Gray repeating that ill-advised phrase:
“Repentance is Not a Doctrine”.
Dr. Taylor and Dr. Vineyard along with the
venerable Dr. Joe Boyd, will not let that go away because of the danger
of tampering with SALVATION. Indeed, I have heard Dr. Boyd say,
“They’re messin’ with salvation, boys.”
This is still much too serious a matter to dismiss. The
insistence that repentance is NOT a doctrine and that it does not
involve “repentance from sin” has serious implications and needs
to be discussed. To dismiss it as “not a doctrine” and
stubbornly insist that it does not involve a “turning from sin” is
reminiscent of John Macarthur refusing to clarify his cloudy position on
the blood of Christ when he was clearly “off the mark”.
Dr. Monte and
The Baptist are
out of line and “off the mark”.
In this generation, some have separated
“salvation repentance” from sin and divorced repentance from a
changed life, claiming that repentance is turning from a lost condition.
Our Baptist forefathers knew no such definition. They always understood
“salvation repentance” (they would call it “evangelical
repentance” or “repentance unto life”) to be a part of the
sovereign work of grace in the heart of man—not a work of man, but a
work of grace—and that repentance bore fruit in the
evidence—“token evidences”—of changes in the life. If there were
no changes, quite frankly, no one would believe their testimony of being
born again. This was, and is, at the heart of “experimental
religion.”
We ought to consider these statements from
scripture:
Ac 5:31 Him hath God
exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give
repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Ac 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like
gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ;
what was I, that I could withstand God?
Ac 11:18 When they heard these things, they held
their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the
Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
From
the above verses we can surely see that repentance is a gift from God. Everyone
agrees that the word “repentance” in its simplest form means “the
change of the mind”, but
is it as Dr. Monte believes when he wrote two years ago in the Nov/Dec
2000 of The Baptist:
“Thus, the word repentance, when
used in a context of salvation, has a very simple definition: to change
one’s mind from unbelief in Christ to faith in Christ. It is that
simple. Period. End of discussion.”
Honestly we are getting so paranoid, that we
can’t even say, “Repent of your sins and trust Christ” without
someone thinking or saying we are advocating a “works” salvation. I
contend that repentance—evangelical—salvation—repentance has to
involve repenting of sin. If it is not sin we repent of, why repent?
Luke 13:1
There were present at that season some that told him of the
Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
Luke 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these
Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered
such things?
Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all
likewise perish.
Luke 13:4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and
slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in
Jerusalem?
Luke 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all
likewise perish.
Jesus
is making plain here that repentance is required for salvation, and that
we are to repent of sin. If, as we have seen in the scriptures Acts 5
and 11, God grants repentance as a gift, then we should flatly state
that “salvation repentance” is God changing your mind about
your sin.
The
natural progression from there is: God causing you to agree with Him
that your sin is wrong. Finding yourself powerless to stop your sinning
(the schoolmaster bringing you to Christ—see Galatians 3:24) The
sinner then turns to Christ and places His trust in Him.
The
result of all this is a changed life and a beginning of victory over
sin. Our forefathers called this "evident tokens" of
salvation.
Does
this mean that if you do not change, you are not saved? Well, the Bible
says there is a change in 2Cor. 5:17 Therefore if any man be in
Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all
things are become new. A saved person will change in some way. It
may be small, but it will happen. My question is: why do we now have to
defend a SUPERNATURAL OPERATION OF GOD IN OUR SOUL? Once again, here is what Dr. Monte called “repentance for
salvation” on page 20 of the Nov/Dec 2000 issue of The Baptist:
“Thus, the word repentance, when
used in a context of salvation, has a very simple definition: to change
one’s mind from unbelief in Christ to faith in Christ. It is that
simple. Period. End of discussion.”
There is a big difference between “changing of the mind” and
“GOD changing your mind”
for
when GOD changes your mind you will have sorrow, and hatred of sin. It should result in some forsaking of sin, which would
be the “token evidences”, or as James put it: “show me thy faith
by thy works.” How could this be heresy? It is not, so don’t be
dishonest now and say, “Beller is preaching a works salvation, he has
gone off on the doctrine of repentance.”
Let me shift gears a little bit and approach
this from a different angle. Dr. Monte wrote in his letter:
“I am not proceeding with any
vindictive spirit, but will be defensive: defensive of a movement I
love; defensive of preachers I love; defensive of a fundamentalist
history I love… “
May I state again, that Baptist people do not
HAVE THEIR ROOTS IN FUNDAMENTALISM. Our history for the most part comes
from the Separate Baptist revival [1740-1840] in the south. The Separate
Baptists were neither Particular (Calvinist) nor General (Arminian), but
leaned toward the Particular scheme of salvation. This came from an
affiliation with the Philadelphia Baptist Confession of Faith (1707),
which came from the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1644). We
independent Baptists inherited (rightly) our belief in eternal security
from the Particular Baptist doctrine of the “perseverance of the
saints”. A few historical statements about repentance may be in order.
With a background of mild Particular theology, and astonishing soul
winning zeal, not only did preachers and personal workers of the 18th
and 19th centuries understand repentance, in actuality, so
did EVERY LOST MAN. In fact
to this day, most lost people know that repentance has something to do
with rejecting sin. In fact, it is sin that a man must repent of in
order to turn their helpless souls to Jesus. You may ask, “Which sins?
or How can a man know what his sins are?” The answer quite obviously
is: THE SINS GOD HAS DEALT WITH HIM ABOUT. When the gospel is preached,
God grants repentance through the convicting power of the Holy Ghost and
the result is to lean totally upon Christ. As stated above, when one
“believes on the Lord Jesus Christ” and is saved, he will have some
evidence of it in his life. I would invite Dr. Monte to hear a Baptist
preacher from the mid-19th century, Charles Spurgeon, on the
subject of repentance:
“This I think is
“repentance unto life,”—that which gives life unto a dead spirit.
I have said also, this repentance ensures eternal life; for there are
repentances of which you hear men speak which do not secure the
salvation of the soul. Some preachers will affirm that men may repent,
and may believe, and yet may fall away and perish. We will not consume
our time by stopping to expose their error this morning; we have often
considered it before, and have refuted all that they could say in
defense of their dogma.”
“Let us think of an infinitely better
repentance. The repentance of our test is not their repentance, but it
is a “repentance unto life;” a repentance which is a true sign of
eternal salvation in Christ; a repentance which preserves us through
this temporary state in Jesus, and which when we are passed into
eternity, gives us a bliss which cannot be destroyed. ‘Repentance
unto life’ is the act of salvation of the soul, the germ which
contains all the essentials of salvation, which secures them to us, and
prepares us for them.”
“Repentance” is a hatred of sin; it is a
turning from sin and a determination in the strength of God to forsake
it. “Repentance” is a hatred of sin, and a forsaking it. A man may
repent entirely through the power of the voice of mercy.” —Charles Spurgeon, from the sermon Repentance
unto Life, preached in 1855.
Then
Spurgeon, showing his Particular Baptist (so-called Reformed) leanings
says:
“Some people preach it [repentance] as a
condition of salvation. Condition of nonsense! There are no conditions
of salvation. God gives the salvation himself; and he only gives it
to those to whom he will. He says, “I will have mercy on whom I
will have mercy “If, then, God has given you the least repentance, if
it be sincere repentance, praise him for it, and expect that repentance
will grow deeper and deeper as you go further on.”
Repentance unto Life,
preached in 1855.
I
cannot say that I agree totally with the great Spurgeon here, not being
a predestinarian in the Augustinian/Calvinist sense, but, his statements
show that “Reformed” people have no trouble understanding
repentance. It is a “grace” freely given by God and has no work
attached to it.
All
of that in consideration, let me say, it is the “evident tokens”
such as the “hatred of sin” and the effort to forsake sin that seems
to trip up we independent Baptists.
So
when Mr. Spurgeon says:
“Repentance” is a hatred of sin; it is a
turning from sin and a determination in the strength of God to
forsake it. “Repentance” is a hatred of sin, and a forsaking it.”
Repentance unto Life,
preached in 1855.
we
tend to bristle at that. However, when we got saved, that is exactly how
we felt, for God was doing that work in our hearts.
The
real concern in this controversy, in my opinion, is in how we personally
preach the gospel—our soul winning witness. Dr. Monte and I are in
agreement on the need to be careful to explain sin and its consequences.
What we are doing when we win a soul is bringing a lost man to
"evangelical repentance". That is, we give the scripture out
with the goal to see some kind of self condemnation of the sinners’
own sin, so that he might see his sinfulness, condemnation, and
powerlessness to save himself, and turn to Jesus Christ for salvation.
Can
this be done using the Roman’s Road? Absolutely, if God is in it and
is dealing with the person it can be done. Can it be done in a few
minutes? Yes, but only if the Lord has dealt with that man in the past,
and if not, use a little discernment, do your duty, and deal with him
patiently and thoroughly. I believe this is the argument of "God
Save America", Dr. Randy Taylor, Dr. Vineyard and Dr. Joe Boyd. I
do not see how this could be opposed. Remember that the thief on the
cross fully admitted his guilt before asking for Jesus to
"Remember" him. Got it? O.K. End of discussion? Probably not.
j.beller
**************************
A post script: the real damage:
1. To Evangelists—as difficult as it is to
obtain meetings, this kind of infighting will further the splitting of
independent Baptists into camps and further decimate the independent
Baptist evangelists. By the way, we should be supporting at least 200 to
300 evangelists—keeping them busy all year long…can you name 20 that
are busy?
2. To Missionaries—It is getting more and
more difficult to raise support and get to the field, with the
“camps” closing the door of opportunity to those “not quite their
stripe”.