More thoughts on Fortner

[stenerson]

As I've stated before, I spend lots of hours on the road. I've binged on Fortner sermons and have found them a blessing. His Christ centered teaching never steers away from Christ and Christ crucified.
His "plain speaking" red-neck (he uses the term to describe himself self effacingly) way of speaking dogmatically sometimes may come of as a bit prideful and uncharitable. But I get where's he's coming from, it's about defending the heart of the gospel, God's effectual redemptive work in Christ Jesus.
I do notice that he often speaks of all the false churches out there and includes Presbyterianism in with the Campbellites, Russellites, Papists.
I've also noticed some indirect shots thrown towards RC Sproul.
He feels that some popular Calvinist theologians can preach about the doctrines of grace, dot all their i's and cross the t's but never get to the heart of the gospel message, or engage in any real gospel preaching.

He criticizes churches that have creeds and covenants. I don't really understand that , I mean , a church has to agree and be united on some basics. I admit though, that the larger and more elaborate the confession, the higher chance of there being an error in it.

One thing I respect and find powerful in his preaching is his insistent that preaching should include the 3 R's, (Ruin, Redemption, Regeneration). He admires and emulates Spurgeon in this regard.

I also agree with his criticism of the creeds regarding the Sabbath commandment/ordinance continuing in the NT Church.

 

[AndOne]

Never heard of him. But based on you posted here I don't plan on listening to him. Sorry.

 

[gord44]

Never heard of him. But based on you posted here I don't plan on listening to him. Sorry.

He's a hard hitting preacher. I listened to him before. If you are a Calvinist I think you would like him. He's a bit 'in your face' but that's a good quality in a preacher sometimes, no?

 

[JM]

Don preaches about Christ and against antichrist and antichristian doctrine. Let's face it, we make idols all the time, the creeds and confessions are good but they seem to be a watchword for regeneration. Just because a person confesses sound doctrine that does not mean they are born again. It comforts the flesh to find oneself among a crowd and Don never wants you to find comfort in anything but Christ alone. Don disagrees with sections of the creeds and Reformed confessions and preaches against idolizing them...or anything else for that matter. If Don is guilty of anything it could be said he finds Christ in every shadow and type. But so do I.

 

[gord44]

That makes sense JM. In the past I saw quite a few things about him by Reformed folks that were quite uncomplimentary. I suppose taking a jab at the creeds would ruffle a few feathers.

 

[JM]

Gord, is that a Muslim icon ? WTH

 

[stenerson]

It seems some Presbyterians like hearing him. I just thought he's a bit hard on the Presbyterian Church. He always throws them into the mix when giving his list of "those other people" who engage in false worship.
I'm not Presbyterian, but I acknowledge that they are a not a cult, or false religion as he labels them. (Speaking of the conservative ones)

 

[JM]

I know of one local Presbyterian church that boarders on cultic behaviour.

 

[stenerson]

I know of one local Presbyterian church that boarders on cultic behaviour.

I'm sure some do , and there is the apostate liberal wing. He seems to be referring to Presbyterianism in general, maybe due to his disdain of creeds.
But that aside, the sermon against universal atonement was one of the best I've heard on the subject.
Interesting that he based it one of the very texts that Arminians commonly use to prove universal atonement. The Most Hideous Doctrine in the World

 

[twin1954]

I'm sure some do , and there is the apostate liberal wing. He seems to be referring to Presbyterianism in general, maybe due to his disdain of creeds.
But that aside, the sermon against universal atonement was one of the best I've heard on the subject.
Interesting that he based it one of the very texts that Arminians commonly use to prove universal atonement. The Most Hideous Doctrine in the World

He isn't against Presbyterians but against Presbyterian Covenant theology. Many Reformed folks do hate him but he will tell you that not all Reformed fit the description given in the sermon on the five subtle heresies of Reformed doctrine.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that Don is against things because he isn't. He is for Christ and truth and sometimes that means telling it like it is with blunt clearness. You will learn more theology and what it is to preach and hear the Gospel in a few short months listening to Don than you can in 4 years of Bibles School or seminary.

 

[GQ Chris]

He isn't against Presbyterians but against Presbyterian Covenant theology. Many Reformed folks do hate him but he will tell you that not all Reformed fit the description given in the sermon on the five subtle heresies of Reformed doctrine.

What are those five "subtle" heresies?

 

[BryanW92]

What are those five "subtle" heresies?

I found this on his screed...I mean "sermon" at DonFortner.com

1. The Heresy of Necessary Consequence

2. The Heresy of Conditional Grace

3. The Heresy of Self-Righteous Assurance

4. The Heresy of Legalism

5. The Heresy of Sacramentalism


He is kind enough to admit that:

I want you and all who hear my voice to understand that…

· We are not Protestants.

· We are not reformed.

· We are Baptists.

 

[twin1954]

I found this on his screed...I mean "sermon" at DonFortner.com

1. The Heresy of Necessary Consequence

2. The Heresy of Conditional Grace

3. The Heresy of Self-Righteous Assurance

4. The Heresy of Legalism

5. The Heresy of Sacramentalism


He is kind enough to admit that:

I want you and all who hear my voice to understand that…

· We are not Protestants.

· We are not reformed.

· We are Baptists.

He builds no straw man but uses both the WCF and the 1689 LBC quoting them directly. The question is are you mad at him because what he says isn't true or because it is but it is what you have been taught to believe and you will not question it?

 

[AndOne]

I'm not sure I understand his beef. I've seen some baptist churches practice all five of his "subtle" heresies....

 

[twin1954]

I'm not sure I understand his beef. I've seen some baptist churches practice all five of his "subtle" heresies....

True. When he says Baptists he is speaking in a historical sense and the doctrines held by Baptists historically. His beef is with Reformed doctrine not Presbyterians exclusively.

 

[AndOne]

Not sure what he sees wrong with reformed doctrine as it is biblical and pretty much the antithesis of his five heresies.

 

[BryanW92]

His beef is with Reformed doctrine not Presbyterians exclusively.

But a Presbyterian who is not Reformed is just a Methodist.

 

[JM]

He builds no straw man but uses both the WCF and the 1689 LBC quoting them directly. The question is are you mad at him because what he says isn't true or because it is but it is what you have been taught to believe and will not question it?

Point one is faulty. We use necessary consequence in every form of communication we have. What Fortner doesn't like are the incorrect conclusions often thought to be founded upon necessary consequence...but the incorrect conclusion is based on a bad premise. If I'm not mistaken the 1689 removed "good and necessary consequence" because infant baptism was being promoted as a "good and necessary consequence" in the face of clearly approved biblical examples of baptismal candidates.

Elder Fortner quotes:

“The sum total of God’s revelation concerning all things essential to His own glory, and to the salvation and faith and life of men, is either explicitly set down or implicitly contained in the Holy Scripture.” 1689
​

Then surmises:

"In other words, God’s Word must be supplemented by our reason and logic to determine our faith and practice!"
​

All doctrine and practice is reasoned from scripture, both true and false doctrine and practice.

Elder Fortner quotes the Westminster and then writes:

"It is this doctrine of necessary consequence which allows churches and preachers to devise their own creeds and confessions and causes them to hold their creeds and confessions above the Scriptures, making void the Word of God by their traditions!"
​

The problem with this statement should be obvious, Elder Fortner used "necessary consequence" to condemn the Westminster.

Point two misses the point. Elder Fortner did not quote the first portion of the 1689 which reads, "THOSE who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, have a new heart and a new spirit created in them; and by His Word and Spirit dwelling within them,"

Elder Fortner then writes, "I challenge you to find any place in the Word of God which even hints that our sanctification depends upon us,"

But that isn't what we just read. The 1689 clearly states that "THOSE who are united to Christ" will be sanctified.

Point three is confusing. The 1689 reads,

"Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality"
​

Nothing self righteous about that. All of it is by Christ alone through faith.

Point four...we've been over it. Fortner does not deny the Law practically but theologically. I've listened to plenty of sermons by Elder Fortner over the years and never heard him say it was ok to break any of the Ten Commandments. He may have said it was impossible to keep them, AMEN, but never did he say we could take the Lord's name in vain, disrespect our parents, worship idols, etc.

Point five. This is a trickier issue. Most Calvinistic Baptists of the 17th century were sacramentalists. Not in the Roman sense but the Reformed sense of the word. The Reformed confessions would probably be out of step with John Calvin's sacramentalism as well who was much closer to Luther than we find stated in the Reformed confessions.

That's my take anyway. I'll continue to promote Don Fortner's writings and sermons knowing that he is God's servant even if we disagree on these five points.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[stenerson]

Before ever hearing Fortner I came to the same conclusion as him concerning Legalism.. Especially concerning the Sabbath commandment.
For example I heard a sermon by RC Sproul a while back. In it he spoke of how he often stops at a certain diner on Sunday mornings before church to grab a bite and a coffee with a friend.
He and his friend while there one morning commented something like this: " all these poor folks that have no interest in going to Church or hearing the gospel on the Lord day, Sabbath."
I thought, let me get this straight. They believe the Sabbath day commandment is still in effect? 1st of all Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. 2ndly they are not supposed to work, or cause others to work for them (unless for reasons of charity), yet they stop to get served food and coffee causing others to break this Sabbath commandment. 3rdly, the NT is quite clear that Sabbath was a temporary carnal ordinance, looking forward to something/someone much greater. Yes, I know that many great men used by God were Sabbatarians. I agree with Fortner that they were/are in error. John Calvin got this right.

 

[JM]

I'm no sabbatarian by any stretch and believe we enter rest by faith in Christ alone. Sproul normally uses the term "Lord's Day" in a non-sabbatarian way, the same as Calvin, John Gill and the continental Reformers. The Lord's Day is the day set aside by the local church for worship, the preaching of the word and the observance of the sacraments. When used in this manner Fortner would have to agree, and have heard him say so in a different manner. He has preached a few messages on the importance of gathering with believers when the local church calls you to worship because they have authority to call us to worship.

This differs from the English Puritan view of the Lord's Day sabbath. John Gill is excellent on this subject.

Yours in The Lord,

jm