Let's Get Clear On This
A variety of electronic periodicals reach my inbox regularly. One that arrives nearly every day is published by a retired seminary professor. Most days I derive a great deal of pleasure and often profit from glancing through his cogitations.
Today’s number, however, evoked a bit of concern. The dear fellow was reprinting some criticisms that he had received. Here is what they said.
The oft-repeated mantra coming out of Dr. Piper and Dr. Storms is that it is impossible for human beings to enjoy too much pleasure. We are made for pleasure, but it’s the pleasure of enjoying God. These guys are full-bore new evangelicals and Piper is a hard line Calvinist…. Why are you promoting this sort of thing?
While I can appreciate many things coming out of Dr. Piper’s ministry, are you endorsing such a leading New Evangelical with no disclaimer?…I am sure you do not endorse the New Evangelicalism that is Dr. Piper’s ministry, but when we simply laud a New Evangelical by attending his conference and praising it, that is the result at the practical level.
These responses are typical of the way that some Fundamentalists view conservative evangelicals in general. These men apparently divide all American Christians into only two categories: Fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals. If a Christian leader is not recognized as a Fundamentalist, then he is considered to be a new evangelical, with all the opprobrium that follows.
This binary system of classification is far too simplistic. American Christianity never has been neatly divided between new evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Other groups have always existed, and one of them is the group that we now designate as conservative evangelicals.
Conservative evangelicalism encompasses a diverse spectrum of Christian leaders. Representatives include John Piper, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, Bruce Ware, Bryan Chapell, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, John D. Hannah, Ed Welch, Ligon Duncan, Tom Nettles, C. J. Mahaney, Norman Geisler, and R. C. Sproul. Conservative evangelical organizations include Together for the Gospel (T4G), the Gospel Coalition, the Master’s Seminary, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (at least in its better moments), and Ligonier Ministries. These individuals and organizations exhibit a remarkable range of differences, but they can be classed together because of their vigorous commitment to and defense of the gospel.
Both mainstream ecumenicals and Left-leaning evangelicals would like to classify these individuals as Fundamentalists. Conservative evangelicals, however, do not perceive themselves as Fundamentalists. Most Fundamentalists also recognize some differences. While there are similarities between them, enough differences remain that Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals ought to be distinguished from each other.
What are those differences? Anti-dispensationalism seems to be more widely characteristic of conservative evangelicalism than it is of Fundamentalism, though it is less vitriolic than the anti-Calvinism of some Fundamentalists. Toleration of Third-Wave charismatic theology is widely accepted among conservative evangelicals but universally rejected among Fundamentalists. Conservative evangelicals are willing to accommodate the more contemporary versions of popular culture, while Fundamentalists restrict themselves to older manifestations. Most importantly, Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals still do not agree about what to do with Christian leaders who make common cause with apostates.
Conservative evangelicals are different from Fundamentalists, but they are not new evangelicals. New evangelicals were committed to a policy of re-infiltrating ecclesiastical organizations that had been captured by apostates. They wanted to live in peaceful coexistence with apostasy. They were willing to recognize certain apostates as fellow-Christians and to cooperate with them in the Lord’s work. These are attitudes that conservative evangelicals explicitly reject. To apply this label to a conservative evangelical is completely unwarranted.
Frankly, conservative evangelicals do seem to take doctrine more seriously today than many Fundamentalists do. Not that the Fundamentalists are unwilling to discuss doctrine! Many of them are at this moment arguing for a “biblical” doctrine of the perfect preservation of the King James Version or of the Textus Receptus. Others have speculated that the work of redemption was not completed until Christ carried His material blood into the heavenly tabernacle, there to abide as a perpetual memorial before the presence of the Father. Still others have engaged in shrill campaigns of anti-Calvinism while defending theories of human nature that almost beg to be described as Pelagian. Such Fundamentalists are too numerous to be dismissed as aberrations—indeed, their tribe seems to be increasing.
Conservative evangelicals have oriented themselves by fixed points of doctrine. They have scoured apostasy from the world’s largest seminary. They have debunked Open Theism. They have articulated and defended a Complementarian position against evangelical feminism. They have rebutted the opponents of inerrancy. They have exposed and refuted the New Perspective on Paul. They have challenged the Emergent Church and laid bare its bankruptcy.
In other words, because many Fundamentalists appear to have lost their doctrinal sobriety, the initiative for defending the gospel has shifted from Fundamentalism to conservative evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. Rather than centering themselves upon theological novelties and idiosyncrasies, they have given themselves to a defense of the Faith.
Nevertheless, some Fundamentalists have managed to convince themselves that conservative evangelicals are the enemy. They insist that John Piper is a neo-evangelical. They actually hope to limit his influence—and the influence of other conservative evangelicals—in their churches and among their younger generation.
The apostle Paul insisted that he was “set for the defense of the gospel.” Fifty years ago, that phrase appeared on nearly every Fundamentalist ordination certificate. Today, however, Fundamentalists simply allow others to defend the gospel for them. The sad truth is that the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp.
To be sure, significant differences continue to exist between Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Those differences, however, are less serious than the ones that exist between the various camps within Fundamentalism. For example, many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?
Of course, many Fundamentalists reject these errors as well. Nevertheless, the errors that are tolerated within Fundamentalism are every bit as great as the errors that were committed by the new evangelicalism. They are certainly greater than the differences that exist between mainstream, historic Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.
Upcoming young leaders are uncertain about the future of Fundamentalism and about their future with it. And no wonder. One Fundamentalist college recently advertized that it does not teach Greek to theology majors. Why? Because the school has an “absolute conviction that the King James Bible is God’s perfect, preserved Word for the English Speaking World.” Contrast that school’s approach with D. A. Carson’s essays in his upcoming book, Collected Writings on Scripture. If young leaders are forced to choose between these two approaches, I have no doubt which choice they will make.
More and more Fundamentalists are coming to the same conclusion. They are not entering into full cooperation with conservative evangelicals, but they are working together in certain targeted areas. Quiet conversations have been occurring between some Fundamentalist leaders and some conservative evangelical leaders for several years. One seminary recently hosted John D. Hannah for a lecture series, and another hosted Ed Welch. A Fundamentalist mission agency brought in John Piper to challenge its missionaries. A leader who is a Fundamentalist pastor and seminary president has written for a conservative evangelical periodical. A very straight-laced Bible college sent its students to T4G. One elder statesman of Fundamentalism chose to preach in the chapel of a conservative evangelical seminary. Other Fundamentalist schools are slated to host Michael Vlach from Master’s Seminary and Mark Dever from Capital Hill Baptist Church. These steps are being taken, not by disaffected young Fundamentalists, but by the older generation of leadership within the mainstream of the Fundamentalist movement.
These leaders are neither abandoning Fundamentalism nor embracing conservative evangelicalism. They are simply recognizing that the Fundamentalist label is no guarantee of doctrinal fidelity. They are aware that historic, mainstream Fundamentalism has more in common with conservative evangelicals than it does with many who wear the Fundamentalist label.
Even such mild and narrow recognition, however, provokes panic from the Fundamentalist opponents of conservative evangelicals. Like the two critics at the beginning of this essay, these opponents express concern that any level of involvement with conservative evangelicals will constitute a blanket endorsement of their errors. These Fundamentalist critics, however, are seldom willing to express these same concerns over the excesses of the hyper-fundamentalist Right.
We Fundamentalists may not wish to identify with everything that conservative evangelicals say and do. To name these men as neo-evangelicals, nonetheless, is entirely unwarranted. To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today. We do not have to agree in every detail to recognize the value of what they do.
If we did not have conservative evangelicals to guard the borders, the real enemy would have invaded our camp long ago. Fundamentalism has exhibited a remarkable freedom from Open Theism, evangelical feminism, New Perspective theology, and other present-day threats to the gospel. The reason is not that Fundamentalists have kept the enemy at bay. The reason is that other thinkers—mainly conservative evangelicals—have carried the battle to the enemy. Conservative evangelicals are the heavy artillery, under the shelter of whose barrage Fundamentalists have been able to find some measure of theological safety.
So let’s get clear on this.
Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.
If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.
If we believe that we must respond to conservative evangelicalism, then let us begin by addressing the areas in which they have exposed our weakness. Let us refocus our attention upon the exaltation of God. Let us exalt, apply, and defend the gospel in all its fullness. If we were more like what we ought to be, perhaps we would feel less threatened by those whose exploits attract the attention of our followers.
Whatever our differences, I thank God for John Piper. I thank God for Mark Dever. I thank God for John MacArthur. I thank God for D. A. Carson. I thank God for a coalition of Christian leaders who have directed our focus to the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. May their defense of the biblical faith prosper.
Penitentiall Hymns. II.
Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667)
Great God, and just! how canst thou see,
Dear God, our miserie,
And not in mercy set us free?
Poor miserable man! how wert thou born,
Weak as the dewy jewels of the Morn,
Rapt up in tender dust,
Guarded with sins and lust,
Who like Court flatterers waite
To serve themselves in thy unhappy fate.
Wealth is a snare, and poverty brings in
Inlets for theft, paving the way for sin:
Each perfum’d vanity doth gently breath
Sin in thy Soul, and whispers it to Death.
Our faults like ulcerated sores do go
O’re the sound flesh, and do corrupt that too.
Lord, we are sick, spotted with sin,
Thick as a crusty Lepers skin,
Like Naaman, bid us wash, yet let it be
In streams of blood that flow from thee:
Then will we sing,
Touch’d by the heavenly Doves bright wing,
Hallelujahs, Psalms and Praise
To God the Lord of night and dayes;
Ever good, and ever just,
Ever high, who ever must
Thus be sung; is still the same;
Eternal praises crown his Name. Amen.
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
I wish I had time to post a lengthy comment on Bauder’s recent article. However, our church is hosting our annual Bus Ministry and Soul Winning Conference. We had a great service last night with over 300 in attendance and 34 churches represented. Folks are getting fired up about soulwinning. Why mention this in this comment thread? Because, contrary to Kevin Bauder’s opinion, it is the fundamentalists who are maintaining both sound doctrine and solid evangelism! And many of us are doing it with not the slightest thought of John Calvin. Imagine that…
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
[Matthew Christensen] I knew a person that attended Piper’s church for a while and I question how much conviction Piper has to Baptist essentials such as Believer’s Baptism. There was discussion for a while to allow membership to those that never had a Believer’s Baptism.The issue was over the fact that a Baptist who wanted to join a Presbyterian church would have his (credo) baptism accepted, but a Presbyterian who wanted to join a Baptist church would not have his (paedo) baptism accepted, and would have to be (re) baptized. There was a discussion on whether to accept the paedo into membership at Bethlehem, but I don’t know what the church finally decided.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[Pastor Marc Monte]…it is the fundamentalists who are maintaining both sound doctrine and solid evangelism! And many of us are doing it with not the slightest thought of John Calvin. Imagine that…Yeah, fundamentalists have always done an excellent job of getting folks to profess faith, but not all professors are possessors. I used to be a champion soul-winner too, but now I repudiate numbers driven evangelism.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
I consider Kevin a friend. We have crossed paths on more than one conference platform and I have gladly shared my pulpit with him. I always benefit from his ministry of the Word and careful cultural insight. Therefore, it is with some reluctance that I will deviate from the effusive praise that seems to be the dominant theme in most of the previous posts on this page.
“Let’s Get Clear On This” contains much with which I agree, but it also suffers from several problems. First, it is hard to see how the creation of a third category significantly improves our ability to classify accurately brothers on the right or the left. Dave Doran has adequately raised this concern, so I will not waste more ink on it here. Next, the one thing that is most “clear” is the imbalance of the tone in “Clear.” I looked in vain to find value ascribed to fundamentalism, yet the praise for conservative evangelicals was pervasive and enthusiastic. In reality, all of the named CEs bring to the table a dangerous theological perspective—the rejection of the biblical principle of separation from the erring brother. This position guarantees the eventual apostasy of their institutions and organizations.
My greatest concern has to do with the explicit approval given to “shared and targeted” initiatives between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. The implication seems to be that shared lecterns/pulpits are necessary in order to display appreciation for and benefit from the contributions these men have made to gospel ministry. Surely this is a false dilemma. I routinely place resources into my people’s hands, including books written by many of the men on Kevin’s list. I express deep appreciation for the contributions these men have made in targeted areas. But I do this in contexts that enable me to balance the appropriate praise with equally appropriate calls to full-orbed biblical discernment. But the moment I choose to share the pulpit with someone—a personal and public alignment, I mitigate (if not sacrifice) my ability to engage their views with critical analysis.
A common theme in SI discussions and other forums is the hypocrisy of separation from conservative evangelicals because heresy gets a pass within fundamentalism. It does not get a pass from all fundamentalists. I have been crying out for decades that inconsistency will damage our credibility. Some of us take this seriously. My ministry has never been discredited by the KJVO crowd because I have been preaching from the NIV for over 20 years. If I ask a speaker to accommodate my congregation by using the text they have in their laps, the problem seems to take care of itself . In 27 years I have never given a revivalist/evangelist a forum to share Keswick error or mysticism. Nor have I ever knowingly shared the pulpit with a preacher who publicly denounces Calvinistic soteriology. We have closed the door on a myriad of other inconsistencies by vigorously upholding the regulative principle of worship. The road to consistency is easy to find if you look for it, but let the traveler be warned: the toll can be costly. My point is that the hypocrisy of some cannot justify the compromise of others; there are other paths to follow.
There is no greater display of affinity than a shared pulpit. As some now display a measure of public unity with conservative evangelicals, unintended consequences are sure to follow. The intent of our leaders might not be “abandoning Fundamentalism” or “embracing conservative evangelicalism,” but a new generation will assume the latter and use it as an excuse to do the former. It is an undeniable certainty that many young men in our circle will view “Clear” as their certificate of emancipation. They are looking for the exit right now and imagine that Kevin is their doorman. The solution to our problems must not be found in broadening our circle (or erasing it), but in tightening it where warranted.
Unintended consequences are, after all, consequential nonetheless.
ST
“Let’s Get Clear On This” contains much with which I agree, but it also suffers from several problems. First, it is hard to see how the creation of a third category significantly improves our ability to classify accurately brothers on the right or the left. Dave Doran has adequately raised this concern, so I will not waste more ink on it here. Next, the one thing that is most “clear” is the imbalance of the tone in “Clear.” I looked in vain to find value ascribed to fundamentalism, yet the praise for conservative evangelicals was pervasive and enthusiastic. In reality, all of the named CEs bring to the table a dangerous theological perspective—the rejection of the biblical principle of separation from the erring brother. This position guarantees the eventual apostasy of their institutions and organizations.
My greatest concern has to do with the explicit approval given to “shared and targeted” initiatives between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. The implication seems to be that shared lecterns/pulpits are necessary in order to display appreciation for and benefit from the contributions these men have made to gospel ministry. Surely this is a false dilemma. I routinely place resources into my people’s hands, including books written by many of the men on Kevin’s list. I express deep appreciation for the contributions these men have made in targeted areas. But I do this in contexts that enable me to balance the appropriate praise with equally appropriate calls to full-orbed biblical discernment. But the moment I choose to share the pulpit with someone—a personal and public alignment, I mitigate (if not sacrifice) my ability to engage their views with critical analysis.
A common theme in SI discussions and other forums is the hypocrisy of separation from conservative evangelicals because heresy gets a pass within fundamentalism. It does not get a pass from all fundamentalists. I have been crying out for decades that inconsistency will damage our credibility. Some of us take this seriously. My ministry has never been discredited by the KJVO crowd because I have been preaching from the NIV for over 20 years. If I ask a speaker to accommodate my congregation by using the text they have in their laps, the problem seems to take care of itself . In 27 years I have never given a revivalist/evangelist a forum to share Keswick error or mysticism. Nor have I ever knowingly shared the pulpit with a preacher who publicly denounces Calvinistic soteriology. We have closed the door on a myriad of other inconsistencies by vigorously upholding the regulative principle of worship. The road to consistency is easy to find if you look for it, but let the traveler be warned: the toll can be costly. My point is that the hypocrisy of some cannot justify the compromise of others; there are other paths to follow.
There is no greater display of affinity than a shared pulpit. As some now display a measure of public unity with conservative evangelicals, unintended consequences are sure to follow. The intent of our leaders might not be “abandoning Fundamentalism” or “embracing conservative evangelicalism,” but a new generation will assume the latter and use it as an excuse to do the former. It is an undeniable certainty that many young men in our circle will view “Clear” as their certificate of emancipation. They are looking for the exit right now and imagine that Kevin is their doorman. The solution to our problems must not be found in broadening our circle (or erasing it), but in tightening it where warranted.
Unintended consequences are, after all, consequential nonetheless.
ST
Steven Thomas
Regarding Presbyterians, what of those who have real issues with their doctrines regarding baptism and their views on the separation of church and the world (i.e. church and the state and the fallen culture)? Is that a secondary separation issue?
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
Because, contrary to Kevin Bauder’s opinion, it is the fundamentalists who are maintaining both sound doctrine and solid evangelism! And many of us are doing it with not the slightest thought of John Calvin. Imagine that…They are, however, apparently not confident that the emphasis on evangelism and sound doctrine they have might be enough to draw the crowd in itself…
PrizesSee more details here: http://www.faithbaptistavon.com/calendar/Brochure.html
- New suit to the pastor with the highest attendance point totals
- 10 points for return delegates, 15 points for first-time delegates
- Spin the wheel and win a new Bible, $100 bill, $50 bill and more…
Competitions
- CDL licensed drivers can compete in the bus driving competition
- All men 16 and over can compete in a men’s 3-on-3 basketball tournament following the Monday evening service. Bring your own team or be assigned to one.
I don’t mean to be snarky or dismissive by posting that, BTW. It does illustrate, however, that there is a significant divide in the conception of what constitutes “sound doctrine” (such as http://www.gracebaptistcollege.com/greek.html the example Kevin mentioned in his article). Marc Monte’s church conference illustrates that further. There are going to be significant differences in the methodology and approaches between Monte or http://www.hacalumni.com/docs/DrJeffreyFugate.doc] Jeff Fugate (one of Monte’s conference speakers).
I cannot speak for Kevin here, but I will gladly speak for myself and my church when I say I have no desire to be numbered along people who look to Jeffrey Fugate as a champion of sound doctrine and sound evangelism. I see the problems with Piper- and there are several. However, I see that the problems of men like Fugate and his ilk are just as plenteous, if not more so, and on significant doctrinal issues. I, for one, would welcome an article to follow up this one of Bauder’s articulating what the appropriate response should be towards people like Fugate and Monte who attempt to share the Fundamentalist label with us, but who hold little if any of the idea and ideals of Fundamentalism in common.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Greg Linscott] It does illustrate, however, that there is a significant divide in the conception of what constitutes “sound doctrine” (such as http://www.gracebaptistcollege.com/greek.html the example Kevin mentioned in his article). Marc Monte’s church conference illustrates that further. There are going to be significant differences in the methodology and approaches between Monte or http://www.hacalumni.com/docs/DrJeffreyFugate.doc] Jeff Fugate (one of Monte’s conference speakers).Hi Greg
I cannot speak for Kevin here, but I will gladly speak for myself and my church when I say I have no desire to be numbered along people who look to Jeffrey Fugate as a champion of sound doctrine and sound evangelism.
Likewise, I have no desire to be numbered in company with such foolishness.
But isn’t that what KB is attempting to do with these paragraphs?
[Kevin Bauder] To be sure, significant differences continue to exist between Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Those differences, however, are less serious than the ones that exist between the various camps within Fundamentalism. For example, many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?Yes, he has a little weasel room with the line: “Of course, many Fundamentalists reject these errors as well.”
Of course, many Fundamentalists reject these errors as well. Nevertheless, the errors that are tolerated within Fundamentalism are every bit as great as the errors that were committed by the new evangelicalism. They are certainly greater than the differences that exist between mainstream, historic Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.
Yes we do reject these errors, but the way this is presented is that we don’t reject them enough. We ‘tolerate’ them. Right… sure we do.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Let Fugate and Monte keep the label, Greg.
The largest, independent Baptist fundamentalist church in Idaho ( http://tvbc.org/index.htm ) can continue to keep the “independent Baptist fundamentalist” label.
I can acknowledge Pastor Rick DeMichele in Idaho (or Pastor Marc Monte or Fugate) as brothers that love the Lord as I do and fellow soldiers in the trenches, but we just won’t ever share pulpits because of ministry differences. But I will also acknowledge Paul Thompson, SBC Idaho pastor who was released from Haiti, as a brother who loves the Lord and as a fellow soldier in the trenches, too.
I intently desire for the Mormon community to genuinely see and know my love for my brother. This is the greatest Christian apologetic for a Christian movement of any sort and a future fundamentalism that I want to be a part of.
thinking of heart issues,
et
The largest, independent Baptist fundamentalist church in Idaho ( http://tvbc.org/index.htm ) can continue to keep the “independent Baptist fundamentalist” label.
I can acknowledge Pastor Rick DeMichele in Idaho (or Pastor Marc Monte or Fugate) as brothers that love the Lord as I do and fellow soldiers in the trenches, but we just won’t ever share pulpits because of ministry differences. But I will also acknowledge Paul Thompson, SBC Idaho pastor who was released from Haiti, as a brother who loves the Lord and as a fellow soldier in the trenches, too.
I intently desire for the Mormon community to genuinely see and know my love for my brother. This is the greatest Christian apologetic for a Christian movement of any sort and a future fundamentalism that I want to be a part of.
thinking of heart issues,
et
The criticism of Bauder’s article to the effect that it’s unsufficiently appreciative of Fundamentalism is baseless.
It is a necessary result of the limitations of writing, particularly in polemical contexts, that “balance” is never going to characterize a single, few-hundred word essay. Most essays are not intended to be balanced because they do not (unless their author is stupid or a very bad writer) intend to express everything he or she thinks. If they are good, they will make one point very clearly.
So, if you move the criticism to its proper context, viz. Bauder’s writings as a whole and his ministry as a whole, and then say, “Bauder is insufficiently appreciative of Fundamentalism” the criticism is seem for what it is: a baseless and absurd descrption of a man who has devoted his life to pastoring Fundamentalist churches and now running a Fundamentalist seminary as well as defending historic Fundamentalism in his writing, speaking, and teaching.
People on SI have a general sense of my cast of mind towards much of Fundamentalilsm, and they know I disagree with Dr. Bauder on some issues, as I’m sure everyone does, but I think it’s imperative to be fair critics. Most authors know their work will be badly criticized, with the most common bad criticism directed at something the original essay was never meant to accomplish. So, I’m sure Bauder is unsurprised, but I find it impossible to sit back and watch this particular criticism, coming from good and well-intenioned people, no doubt, stand; it’s baseless, and we ought to know better.
People should better learn to understand the context and genre and attendant limitations of the writings they assess; we would all be better off for it. So, to that end, perhaps we can put to rest the idea that the president of a Fundamentalist seminary is not sufficiently appreciative of Fundamentalism because he does not sing its praises or add long caveats (which ruin good writing, as any essayists knows) in every popular essay he writes.
It is a necessary result of the limitations of writing, particularly in polemical contexts, that “balance” is never going to characterize a single, few-hundred word essay. Most essays are not intended to be balanced because they do not (unless their author is stupid or a very bad writer) intend to express everything he or she thinks. If they are good, they will make one point very clearly.
So, if you move the criticism to its proper context, viz. Bauder’s writings as a whole and his ministry as a whole, and then say, “Bauder is insufficiently appreciative of Fundamentalism” the criticism is seem for what it is: a baseless and absurd descrption of a man who has devoted his life to pastoring Fundamentalist churches and now running a Fundamentalist seminary as well as defending historic Fundamentalism in his writing, speaking, and teaching.
People on SI have a general sense of my cast of mind towards much of Fundamentalilsm, and they know I disagree with Dr. Bauder on some issues, as I’m sure everyone does, but I think it’s imperative to be fair critics. Most authors know their work will be badly criticized, with the most common bad criticism directed at something the original essay was never meant to accomplish. So, I’m sure Bauder is unsurprised, but I find it impossible to sit back and watch this particular criticism, coming from good and well-intenioned people, no doubt, stand; it’s baseless, and we ought to know better.
People should better learn to understand the context and genre and attendant limitations of the writings they assess; we would all be better off for it. So, to that end, perhaps we can put to rest the idea that the president of a Fundamentalist seminary is not sufficiently appreciative of Fundamentalism because he does not sing its praises or add long caveats (which ruin good writing, as any essayists knows) in every popular essay he writes.
[Pastor Marc Monte] I wish I had time to post a lengthy comment on Bauder’s recent article. However, our church is hosting our annual Bus Ministry and Soul Winning Conference. We had a great service last night with over 300 in attendance and 34 churches represented. Folks are getting fired up about soulwinning. Why mention this in this comment thread? Because, contrary to Kevin Bauder’s opinion, it is the fundamentalists who are maintaining both sound doctrine and solid evangelism! And many of us are doing it with not the slightest thought of John Calvin. Imagine that…Because you’re either pro-witnessing and pro-discipleship, or you’re liberal. Gee, I was thinking that John MacArthur doesn’t witness either, especially not on Larry King Live. Or because John Piper pleads with people to be saved at the closing session of Resolved 08 because it fattens his paycheck.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Don Johnson] But isn’t that what KB is attempting to do with these paragraphs?Don,
…
Yes, he has a little weasel room with the line: “Of course, many Fundamentalists reject these errors as well.”
Yes we do reject these errors, but the way this is presented is that we don’t reject them enough. We ‘tolerate’ them. Right… sure we do.
Are you saying that Kevin is still trying to include himself in those who tolerate the extreme positions he mentions? I’m confused.
As far as “us” tolerating them (the last line of your last post), I will also observe that Chuck Phelps is included alongside Jeff Fugate at Monte’s conference as a speaker.
Just sayin’.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
thanks Joseph
Fair critique is a Christian virtue and a real discipline, which I am continually learning. I need this kind of character built in my life.
Fair critique is a Christian virtue and a real discipline, which I am continually learning. I need this kind of character built in my life.
Let Fugate and Monte keep the label, Greg.Well, I have no control over who keeps it and who doesn’t. That being said, I still believe that “Fundamentalist” still has usefulness, and I still use it to describe where our church is in relation to others in our town and area, even as I also distinguish what we are not.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Todd Wood] The largest, independent Baptist fundamentalist church in Idaho ( http://tvbc.org/index.htm ) can continue to keep the “independent Baptist fundamentalist” label.I love the picture of the Bible on this page, though: http://tvbc.org/about.htm
Bet it is not really a 1611!
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Well, Greg, I don’t think that the term, “Fundamentalist” will die off. Evangelicals will continue to use this term; and likewise, this word continues to be meaningful for the 60 LDS bishops in my town. It is a very hot term in the English language in 2010. Unfortunately, in my neck of the woods, this word can be associated with deadly pride, ugly independence, and law-breaking character and not necessarily Christian truth, humility, submission, and love.
I will continue to use the term because that is what my enemies call me, but I like the term “Foundations”, too, mentioned by Matt up in #50.
I will continue to use the term because that is what my enemies call me, but I like the term “Foundations”, too, mentioned by Matt up in #50.
The only ones that might not call me a “fundamentalist” are some other “independent, Baptist fundamentalists”.
It is ironic.
There are a lot of battles that I face in 2010. I need discerment in picking which ones to fight, which real enemy that God wants me to be fighting.
It is ironic.
There are a lot of battles that I face in 2010. I need discerment in picking which ones to fight, which real enemy that God wants me to be fighting.
Joseph, that was an excellent and well thought out post. Thanks for sharing it.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Aaron, you commented on my last posting, “So I do think there’s a bit of hyperbole going on there.” Really? Maybe you should read Dr. Bauder’s essay again. Here is a bit of his closing,
“If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.”
As others have posted in this thread, where is Dr. Bauder’s expressed concern for the theological baggage that these men bring? It’s nowhere to be seen. While I agree that some of what these men have written has been profitable, there is far too much baggage to mute our criticism of them. Some keep pointing the finger at those within Fundamentalism with their bad baggage, and say, see no one is criticizing them, really? I’ve seen numerous postings bringing criticism to these, and rightfully so. And those criticisms far outweigh anything posted against the CEs, even in this thread.
Bauder has this assessment of CEs, “Conservative evangelicals are the heavy artillery, under the shelter of whose barrage Fundamentalists have been able to find some measure of theological safety.” But I’m the one given to hyperbole. I must be missing something, Aaron.
“If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.”
As others have posted in this thread, where is Dr. Bauder’s expressed concern for the theological baggage that these men bring? It’s nowhere to be seen. While I agree that some of what these men have written has been profitable, there is far too much baggage to mute our criticism of them. Some keep pointing the finger at those within Fundamentalism with their bad baggage, and say, see no one is criticizing them, really? I’ve seen numerous postings bringing criticism to these, and rightfully so. And those criticisms far outweigh anything posted against the CEs, even in this thread.
Bauder has this assessment of CEs, “Conservative evangelicals are the heavy artillery, under the shelter of whose barrage Fundamentalists have been able to find some measure of theological safety.” But I’m the one given to hyperbole. I must be missing something, Aaron.
[Greg Linscott] Are you saying that Kevin is still trying to include himself in those who tolerate the extreme positions he mentions? I’m confused.Now, Greg, I think you know what I am saying.
I am not exactly sure where Kevin is trying to include himself. That part is unclear.
[Greg Linscott] As far as “us” tolerating them (the last line of your last post), I will also observe that Chuck Phelps is included alongside Jeff Fugate at Monte’s conference as a speaker.Well, that bothers me a good deal. I have to say I hadn’t noticed that in my first glance at the link you provided. But of course Chuck will have to speak for himself.
Just sayin’.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I can have strong disagreements with both fundamentalists (Fugate, Monte, DeMichelle, etc., etc., etc.) and conservative evangelicals (Driscoll, Piper, etc., etc., etc.) in how the precious baggage of truth (the faith) is either packaged or proclaimed (or allowed in their ministries to be packaged or proclaimed).
But why do we spend so much time in independent, Baptist fundamentalism concerned over how much we should be sounding the alarm and critiquing and separating from Baptist fundamental brothers and Baptist conservative evangelical brothers when secularists, and atheists, and religious others, and liberal emergents are pumping out influential books week after week after week after week after week after week in our country in direct support of the real enemy.
Brother, you live in the West (and have lived in the intermountain west). You know what foot soldiers face. There are apologists (non-Christian orthodox) who are seeking to completely dismantle everything that we hold precious … the very fundamentals of our Christianity … the very foundations of our Christian lives … the very pillar and ground of the truth - the church. Thank God this can’t happen. It is all God’s work. And God can’t be stopped.
But I thank God for men, both fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, in the theological tools that they have provided for my little workshop in dealing with the raging controversies over the (1) Triune God, (2) creation ex nihilo, (3) two natures of Christ, (4) inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, (5) man’s depraved nature and original sin, (6) all the facets of the gospel and full salvation- election, predestination, propitiation, psa, sanctification, glorification, etc. (7) and so forth.
The community of Antioch called those believers “Christians” because all they talked about with great joy was Christos, Christos, Christos, Christos …
In 2010, America will probably be calling a certain group of “Christians” in our country “fundamentalists” or “foundationalists” or “Bible-believing essentialists” or whatever because that is all we want to talk about with great joy - the very truths on God and His gospel that set us free from chains.
I rejoice with those brothers in America that have spent a good portion of their adult life in focusing and meditating and preaching and teaching and lecturing and writing and defending with all their hearts on one of those fundamentals. When in the desert, I will lap up the water, whether it comes from a KJVO fundamentalist or a CE. My need for water is so vital.
Brian, while I sit in the trenches with you, I sincerely don’t mind the sincere, loving critique by Bauder given to our own foot soldiers and generals and the sincere, loving appreciation expressed to foot soldiers and generals outside of our trench. I have gained much protective firing from those outside our trench to shield my heart in Christ. I am thankful.
And if the American culture wants to eventually hang us all in this country - I will hang with any brother or sister who fought for a fundamental on our God and the gospel.
earnestly thinking of heart issues,
et
But why do we spend so much time in independent, Baptist fundamentalism concerned over how much we should be sounding the alarm and critiquing and separating from Baptist fundamental brothers and Baptist conservative evangelical brothers when secularists, and atheists, and religious others, and liberal emergents are pumping out influential books week after week after week after week after week after week in our country in direct support of the real enemy.
Brother, you live in the West (and have lived in the intermountain west). You know what foot soldiers face. There are apologists (non-Christian orthodox) who are seeking to completely dismantle everything that we hold precious … the very fundamentals of our Christianity … the very foundations of our Christian lives … the very pillar and ground of the truth - the church. Thank God this can’t happen. It is all God’s work. And God can’t be stopped.
But I thank God for men, both fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, in the theological tools that they have provided for my little workshop in dealing with the raging controversies over the (1) Triune God, (2) creation ex nihilo, (3) two natures of Christ, (4) inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, (5) man’s depraved nature and original sin, (6) all the facets of the gospel and full salvation- election, predestination, propitiation, psa, sanctification, glorification, etc. (7) and so forth.
The community of Antioch called those believers “Christians” because all they talked about with great joy was Christos, Christos, Christos, Christos …
In 2010, America will probably be calling a certain group of “Christians” in our country “fundamentalists” or “foundationalists” or “Bible-believing essentialists” or whatever because that is all we want to talk about with great joy - the very truths on God and His gospel that set us free from chains.
I rejoice with those brothers in America that have spent a good portion of their adult life in focusing and meditating and preaching and teaching and lecturing and writing and defending with all their hearts on one of those fundamentals. When in the desert, I will lap up the water, whether it comes from a KJVO fundamentalist or a CE. My need for water is so vital.
Brian, while I sit in the trenches with you, I sincerely don’t mind the sincere, loving critique by Bauder given to our own foot soldiers and generals and the sincere, loving appreciation expressed to foot soldiers and generals outside of our trench. I have gained much protective firing from those outside our trench to shield my heart in Christ. I am thankful.
And if the American culture wants to eventually hang us all in this country - I will hang with any brother or sister who fought for a fundamental on our God and the gospel.
earnestly thinking of heart issues,
et
I’m working on a full response…..just a short response right now.
When you increase the requirements for any koinonia to 2nd, 3rd, 4th and even man-constructed systems of belief, you are a wisker away from developing into neo-pharisaism. You actually may have already crossed the border.
Kevin is right on the mark. This is the corrective American Conservative Christianity has needed for years. I don’t think any of us are saying across the board co-ministry. We are saying occasional based on the level of agreement or disagreement.
More later!
Straight Ahead!
jt
When you increase the requirements for any koinonia to 2nd, 3rd, 4th and even man-constructed systems of belief, you are a wisker away from developing into neo-pharisaism. You actually may have already crossed the border.
Kevin is right on the mark. This is the corrective American Conservative Christianity has needed for years. I don’t think any of us are saying across the board co-ministry. We are saying occasional based on the level of agreement or disagreement.
More later!
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
[Brian E] where is Dr. Bauder’s expressed concern for the theological baggage that these men bring? It’s nowhere to be seen.I’ll help you find it (-: …
[Kevin Bauder] Anti-dispensationalism seems to be more widely characteristic of conservative evangelicalism than it is of Fundamentalism, though it is less vitriolic than the anti-Calvinism of some Fundamentalists. Toleration of Third-Wave charismatic theology is widely accepted among conservative evangelicals but universally rejected among Fundamentalists. Conservative evangelicals are willing to accommodate the more contemporary versions of popular culture, while Fundamentalists restrict themselves to older manifestations. Most importantly, Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals still do not agree about what to do with Christian leaders who make common cause with apostates.This is really kind of alot of “expressed concern” for a short essay that is actually about something else entirely. Let’s remember that the first couple of paragraphs establish what the essay is about. It’s a reaction to the bad habit of binary thinking… and sloppy criticism of CEs.
By the way, my point about hyperbole was in reference to his, not yours. I think he overstates his point in a few places.
As for the closing the paragraphs, they don’t erase the rest of the piece or what Bauder teaches about anti-dispensationalism, non-cessationism, non-separatism, etc. on a regular basis.
But I do think you (and someone else who mentioned tone imbalance) have accurately observed an imbalance. That is, I think it’s fair to suppose that Kevin is more hot and bothered about what Fundamentalists to his right are doing than he is about what CE’s slightly to his left are doing. I’m mindreading a bit there, which is always hazardous, but if I were him, it would bug me more, too. Why? Several reasons. For one, we’re supposed to be “the good guys,” who have the Bible down better than the other guys. For another, the weaknesses of a movement/cohort/network you are in are more constantly present than those of a group you are not in. In some ways it’s analogous to why it’s more upsetting when your relatives come over and misbehave than when a guy two towns over you bump into once in a while at a conference misbehaves.
In any case, that’s just the emotional factor. Surely we can let the guy be as annoyed as he’s inclined to be. I’m not saying tone is completely unimportant, but it’s far less so than the substance.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I honestly didn’t intend my post to garner so much attention, but I’m glad folks checked out our conference. We had an interesting array of speakers, didn’t we? All of them are fundamental, independent Baptists—from several “camps.” All of them want to win souls, preach Christ, and build great churches to the glory of God. These are sincere fundamentalists with a real burden to reach the lost. Brother Bobby Roberson, pastor of Gospel Light Baptist Church in Walkertown, NC, was our closing speaker. He’s faithfully served the Lord there for 54 years. What a great message, and what a great ministry! Some of the reactions to our conference are symptomatic of the anti-fundamentalist leanings on this blog. The diversity of speakers on our platform demonstrates that I’m not into politics and institutional loyalities. We just had a good old camp-meeting with some of the independent, fundamental Baptist Gospel Greats. Hundreds were blessed and challenged to be soulwinners. Holy vows were made at the old-fashioned altar call. It was a glorious time in the house of God. (By the way, you can use the word “soulwinning” without being numbers driven. Our church is doctrine driven. Check out the preaching at http://faithbaptistavon.sermonaudio.com.
Wish you had been here!
Now, just smile and pray for us simpletons in Indiana. We’re going soulwinning!
Wish you had been here!
Now, just smile and pray for us simpletons in Indiana. We’re going soulwinning!
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
It’s stupid to write long posts here at SI. You just give everyone more stuff to hang you with. This is why I usually just post a thought or two. Oh well…..Here goes:
What has always bothered me…..and I mean almost always: From the time I was about 16 or 17 and reading church history and thinking through the issues…..is how in the world Fundamentalism could have the variety it had in the first 30 years, and there be at least some kind of “relationship” and it’s “praise the Lord my brother!” Now, for the last 30 years, some are suggesting - no variety! If you don’t fit into this “steel grid” it’s “sorry my brother….you’re out!” Well…it didn’t make sense to me when I was a teenager - at 41 it’s still is not at all clear.
Rewind. Conservative Evangelicals. These are the guys going “toe to toe” with left-wing and eccuminical evangelicalism, “out and out” liberalism, dangerous “new gospel,” weird Christological Charismaticism (Odd Faith movement - not the variety of Piperism or Grudem-ism that frankly you can find examples of if you look deep enough in the Fundamentalists lake [btw] ), not to mention every bed-brother of evangelical postmodernity [i.e. emergent movement “vis-a-vis” Bixby’s emergent middle that is anything but emergent church!] ). Where are the fundamentalists? Well….we are fellowshipping with the three other guys that part their hair the same way we do. We meet for a nice sub-movement chat where we determine to write resolutions so we can brow beat the other fundamentalists that don’t think or sing or preach or whatever….just like we do (but of course we are not denominational)! We’ll even call them names! Those “pseudo-fundamentalists” bad-guys! And why do we do this? Because to open our arms to conservative evangelicalism is the first step towards loosing the gospel? Have you guys actually been reading what’s happening in the conservative evangelical world the last 15 years? If anything the conservative side of the movement is doing two things - 1) It’s starting to take back sections of the movement as a whole, discharging the liberal-evangelicals to main-line “bases” and 2) Is becoming more and more interested in personal and ecclesiastical separation. In short it’s getting more and more conservative and Biblical in the main. I’m done waiting. They’ve walked far enough and close enough I’m willing to open my arms to some of them. I have more in common with some of them and they with me, than I do with some of you! Some of you are isolationist and worldly while they are “koinonia-minded” and separate (oddly enough!). MacArthur has not replaced Biblical salvation with a works salvation. He’s just emphasizing repentance. To some of you who have down-played the volitional side (i.e. the “submission” part of saving faith), it sounds like works-salvation. This is nothing more than the gospel as spelled out in the Gospels (Repent if you want to be in the Kingdom) as well as James (Saving Faith results in a fruit of works). How in the world can you guys read works-salvation in that? Stop reading Lou and start reading you’re Bibles. To be fair, there have been a few passages that Mac has read his understanding of Lordship salvation that I don’t see in the passage. It is true that one can emphasize repentance disproportionate to faith that you end up switching sanctification with justification. If you read John in context and widely, I don’t believe John has crossed those lines consistently enough to make the charge that he has a false gospel. Remember his over-emphasis at times is within the context of fighting the cheap-grace, non-repentance views of Hodge et al.
Another point - Some of you men cry “foul!” evertime some CE or Fund is not as “dispensational” as you, or not as “cessationist” as you. Fundamentalism in the first generation had a boat-load of variety on the “Holy Spirit - Church - hermeneutics” topic(s)….and yet for the sake of the gospel “There was a cause!” Let me also remind you the apostles were sort of wrong on the whole Dispensational - Kingdom thing and yet Jesus didn’t call them neoevangelicals neither did Jesus practice separation from them…..for that matter he didn’t even separate from Judas (hmmmmm?). So these early fundamentalists wouldn’t hang together at the denominational level, but they sure loved each other at the “such n such” fundamentalist conference…..until they started fighting for control. Listen to Dr. Bob Snyder’s presentation during the Standpont conference we just had (www.standpointconference.com).
Gideon was right when he narrowed the field because God narrowed the field. You guys are narrowing the field on your own. Because of why? Theological consistency? My word. I think not. It’s hard to trust some who practice this kind of “all-or-nothing” kind of fellowship because one guy who is a Baptist, separatist, Calvinist, fundamentalist will have nothing to do with another Baptist, separatist, fundamentalist all because of a single disagreement in methodology. This kind of isolationism makes me ill. I’m confident God is also ill with this kind of thing. I digress.
Here’s what you have -
1. You don’t want to open your arms to these guys because they work with people longer than you would? Well…..Jesus would work longer with some of these than you would! That’s a fact. When Piper stays in the BGC it’s mostly so he can fight to keep the Gospel clear in a denomination he loves and has been associated for decades. For him to leave is AWOL toward the gospel. He has verses that makes him stay and fight (just like our guys had verses that made them fight for years, in some cases decades). In his view, enough of the BGC still has the gospel, Christ and justification to stay. What about Mohler and Dever and others in the SBC. The conservative resurgence speaks for itself. Look, if the Northern Baptist had tasted half of the conservative success in the 20’s & 30’s that the SBC has had in the last two decades their might not have been an IFCA, GARBC or even an FBF!
2. I’m happier with Dever than Mohler. But I’m thrilled with what’s happened at Southern. You have to remember how much has been gained. I’m willing to take a let’s see attitude with Mohler. Frankly many conservative evangelicals who are more “Type C” are limiting their contact with the Mohler-types because of the type of differences that come up like Manhattan. In fairness Mohler’s justification for signing Manhattan was not at all the same type of sentiment behind NE. Read it again. I would not have signed, but I understand why he did.
3. The conservative evangelicals actually practice something Fundamentalists say they do. They practice separation and unity based on direction and over-all ministry. They don’t simply remove fellowship because of this incident or that, but because of a consistent practice. Mohler does not have the same spirit of early NE. If that was the sake he would not have kicked the liberals out of the seminary!!! Because of his continued connection with certain “stuff”, other CE’s are adjusting their connection with him. It took us how many decades to adjust our relationships - and you want to demand a certain conformity to our mess in just a few years? You have to be kidding me.
4. These guys will work out their “inter-evangelical relationships.” I’m an “outsider” and I can see the adjustments between the Shepherd’s Conference type guys - (far right CE - CE type A) with the T4G type guys - (main CE - CE type B) and then the left CE guys - Gospel Coalition types (left CE - CE type C). I understand the overlap between the Shepherd’s Fellowship, T4G and the Gospel Coalition, but you can also see the differences. They are working out their own relationships one with another. I’m willing to give them time to figure it out and encourage the “like-minded” in the mean time. Some of you aren’t even patient enough to work through differences with your fundamentalists brethren, so you noise about these guys not yet solving this sort of rings empty…very empty! To you guys I’m tempted to say “Be Warm - Be Filled - Be Gone!” But being loving and all I’ll try to reach out to you….again.
5. Most CE are careful about their music. Even when they use up-tempo stuff, most of these guys are careful about what comes into their ministry. Don’t kid yourself on the Garlock or even Bauder view of music. You have lost the battle - period. I bet you 80% or higher in your ministries do not agree with you guys on separating from other ministries because of the music thing. I’m not saying “give up!” I actually think it’s virtuous for you to be passionate about your understanding of music, so have at it! I don’t even have a problem with your doing what you do in your local church…..obviously if the congregation allows that then praise God. This is another example though of you taking an internal belief within your own congregation and making that a test of fellowship beyond the Scriptures and beyond your congregation. My bet is you would have been uncomfortable with Worship in the OT covenant community and probably in the early church. I bet you we’ll dance in heaven…don’t worry your new feet will handle the rhythm!
I’m going to try to not say anything else after this post. This will make friend and foe happy. Love keeping everyone happy!
A few random thoughts in the midst of the moment. Enjoying the group hug. Hey these CE actually smell better than the fundamentalists do….once more they hug back! I do understand that it’s hard for some in the Mid-West to enjoy a brotherly hug. It’s not like you guys have allot of affection to begin with. You pile on top of that German/Scandinavian/Separatist base 3 feet of permafrost, plus 5 months of no sunshine. I’d be grumpy too. Man, some of you need more than a hug….you need a Holy Kiss! :)
Straight Ahead!
jt
What has always bothered me…..and I mean almost always: From the time I was about 16 or 17 and reading church history and thinking through the issues…..is how in the world Fundamentalism could have the variety it had in the first 30 years, and there be at least some kind of “relationship” and it’s “praise the Lord my brother!” Now, for the last 30 years, some are suggesting - no variety! If you don’t fit into this “steel grid” it’s “sorry my brother….you’re out!” Well…it didn’t make sense to me when I was a teenager - at 41 it’s still is not at all clear.
Rewind. Conservative Evangelicals. These are the guys going “toe to toe” with left-wing and eccuminical evangelicalism, “out and out” liberalism, dangerous “new gospel,” weird Christological Charismaticism (Odd Faith movement - not the variety of Piperism or Grudem-ism that frankly you can find examples of if you look deep enough in the Fundamentalists lake [btw] ), not to mention every bed-brother of evangelical postmodernity [i.e. emergent movement “vis-a-vis” Bixby’s emergent middle that is anything but emergent church!] ). Where are the fundamentalists? Well….we are fellowshipping with the three other guys that part their hair the same way we do. We meet for a nice sub-movement chat where we determine to write resolutions so we can brow beat the other fundamentalists that don’t think or sing or preach or whatever….just like we do (but of course we are not denominational)! We’ll even call them names! Those “pseudo-fundamentalists” bad-guys! And why do we do this? Because to open our arms to conservative evangelicalism is the first step towards loosing the gospel? Have you guys actually been reading what’s happening in the conservative evangelical world the last 15 years? If anything the conservative side of the movement is doing two things - 1) It’s starting to take back sections of the movement as a whole, discharging the liberal-evangelicals to main-line “bases” and 2) Is becoming more and more interested in personal and ecclesiastical separation. In short it’s getting more and more conservative and Biblical in the main. I’m done waiting. They’ve walked far enough and close enough I’m willing to open my arms to some of them. I have more in common with some of them and they with me, than I do with some of you! Some of you are isolationist and worldly while they are “koinonia-minded” and separate (oddly enough!). MacArthur has not replaced Biblical salvation with a works salvation. He’s just emphasizing repentance. To some of you who have down-played the volitional side (i.e. the “submission” part of saving faith), it sounds like works-salvation. This is nothing more than the gospel as spelled out in the Gospels (Repent if you want to be in the Kingdom) as well as James (Saving Faith results in a fruit of works). How in the world can you guys read works-salvation in that? Stop reading Lou and start reading you’re Bibles. To be fair, there have been a few passages that Mac has read his understanding of Lordship salvation that I don’t see in the passage. It is true that one can emphasize repentance disproportionate to faith that you end up switching sanctification with justification. If you read John in context and widely, I don’t believe John has crossed those lines consistently enough to make the charge that he has a false gospel. Remember his over-emphasis at times is within the context of fighting the cheap-grace, non-repentance views of Hodge et al.
Another point - Some of you men cry “foul!” evertime some CE or Fund is not as “dispensational” as you, or not as “cessationist” as you. Fundamentalism in the first generation had a boat-load of variety on the “Holy Spirit - Church - hermeneutics” topic(s)….and yet for the sake of the gospel “There was a cause!” Let me also remind you the apostles were sort of wrong on the whole Dispensational - Kingdom thing and yet Jesus didn’t call them neoevangelicals neither did Jesus practice separation from them…..for that matter he didn’t even separate from Judas (hmmmmm?). So these early fundamentalists wouldn’t hang together at the denominational level, but they sure loved each other at the “such n such” fundamentalist conference…..until they started fighting for control. Listen to Dr. Bob Snyder’s presentation during the Standpont conference we just had (www.standpointconference.com).
Gideon was right when he narrowed the field because God narrowed the field. You guys are narrowing the field on your own. Because of why? Theological consistency? My word. I think not. It’s hard to trust some who practice this kind of “all-or-nothing” kind of fellowship because one guy who is a Baptist, separatist, Calvinist, fundamentalist will have nothing to do with another Baptist, separatist, fundamentalist all because of a single disagreement in methodology. This kind of isolationism makes me ill. I’m confident God is also ill with this kind of thing. I digress.
Here’s what you have -
1. You don’t want to open your arms to these guys because they work with people longer than you would? Well…..Jesus would work longer with some of these than you would! That’s a fact. When Piper stays in the BGC it’s mostly so he can fight to keep the Gospel clear in a denomination he loves and has been associated for decades. For him to leave is AWOL toward the gospel. He has verses that makes him stay and fight (just like our guys had verses that made them fight for years, in some cases decades). In his view, enough of the BGC still has the gospel, Christ and justification to stay. What about Mohler and Dever and others in the SBC. The conservative resurgence speaks for itself. Look, if the Northern Baptist had tasted half of the conservative success in the 20’s & 30’s that the SBC has had in the last two decades their might not have been an IFCA, GARBC or even an FBF!
2. I’m happier with Dever than Mohler. But I’m thrilled with what’s happened at Southern. You have to remember how much has been gained. I’m willing to take a let’s see attitude with Mohler. Frankly many conservative evangelicals who are more “Type C” are limiting their contact with the Mohler-types because of the type of differences that come up like Manhattan. In fairness Mohler’s justification for signing Manhattan was not at all the same type of sentiment behind NE. Read it again. I would not have signed, but I understand why he did.
3. The conservative evangelicals actually practice something Fundamentalists say they do. They practice separation and unity based on direction and over-all ministry. They don’t simply remove fellowship because of this incident or that, but because of a consistent practice. Mohler does not have the same spirit of early NE. If that was the sake he would not have kicked the liberals out of the seminary!!! Because of his continued connection with certain “stuff”, other CE’s are adjusting their connection with him. It took us how many decades to adjust our relationships - and you want to demand a certain conformity to our mess in just a few years? You have to be kidding me.
4. These guys will work out their “inter-evangelical relationships.” I’m an “outsider” and I can see the adjustments between the Shepherd’s Conference type guys - (far right CE - CE type A) with the T4G type guys - (main CE - CE type B) and then the left CE guys - Gospel Coalition types (left CE - CE type C). I understand the overlap between the Shepherd’s Fellowship, T4G and the Gospel Coalition, but you can also see the differences. They are working out their own relationships one with another. I’m willing to give them time to figure it out and encourage the “like-minded” in the mean time. Some of you aren’t even patient enough to work through differences with your fundamentalists brethren, so you noise about these guys not yet solving this sort of rings empty…very empty! To you guys I’m tempted to say “Be Warm - Be Filled - Be Gone!” But being loving and all I’ll try to reach out to you….again.
5. Most CE are careful about their music. Even when they use up-tempo stuff, most of these guys are careful about what comes into their ministry. Don’t kid yourself on the Garlock or even Bauder view of music. You have lost the battle - period. I bet you 80% or higher in your ministries do not agree with you guys on separating from other ministries because of the music thing. I’m not saying “give up!” I actually think it’s virtuous for you to be passionate about your understanding of music, so have at it! I don’t even have a problem with your doing what you do in your local church…..obviously if the congregation allows that then praise God. This is another example though of you taking an internal belief within your own congregation and making that a test of fellowship beyond the Scriptures and beyond your congregation. My bet is you would have been uncomfortable with Worship in the OT covenant community and probably in the early church. I bet you we’ll dance in heaven…don’t worry your new feet will handle the rhythm!
I’m going to try to not say anything else after this post. This will make friend and foe happy. Love keeping everyone happy!
A few random thoughts in the midst of the moment. Enjoying the group hug. Hey these CE actually smell better than the fundamentalists do….once more they hug back! I do understand that it’s hard for some in the Mid-West to enjoy a brotherly hug. It’s not like you guys have allot of affection to begin with. You pile on top of that German/Scandinavian/Separatist base 3 feet of permafrost, plus 5 months of no sunshine. I’d be grumpy too. Man, some of you need more than a hug….you need a Holy Kiss! :)
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
It’s interesting (as always) to see the different sides of the issues. This is a generally positive contribution and helps think through the issues. For that, I am thankful.
We are not going to solve all the problems of the fundamentalist (or evangelical) world in this arena. However, I think there are some practical issues that do come into play.
There seems to be no limit of interpretation of what is said, with people putting words in each other’s mouths. What can we “clearly” say?
1. There is undoubtedly much more fragmentation of both evangelicals and fundamentalists. Both movements are much less uniform than in times past.
2. The “status quo” in both movements have become much more polarized: Evangelicals to the left, and fundamentalists to the right. There are things in these polarizations that are blatantly unsound.
3. Clearly, there is much more of a middle of disaffected people in both movements, and rightly so.
There are both positives and negatives to the present situation. On the positive side, maybe once and for all we can get out of the “people following” business. While we need strong leadership, it is also true that we need to become people of our own convictions and not fall into personality cults. However, on the negative side, it is helpful to attach to some sort of movement in order to have some support institutions and identification. It is often personally difficult to change directions.
Can one find a position that is at once doctrinally pure, honest and faithful in practice, and yet strong enough to build momentum? I have a lot of concerns about this.
What factors are working against this? One is the seemingly intractable polarization that we see going on. Another is the well-chronicled tendency of drift among institutions, particularly colleges and seminaries. They don’t stay where they were put. As a result, there is continuing re-invention going on.
Where are things headed? The best answer is this: How are we tending our part of the picture? Where are the things we are given stewardship of headed?
We are not going to solve all the problems of the fundamentalist (or evangelical) world in this arena. However, I think there are some practical issues that do come into play.
There seems to be no limit of interpretation of what is said, with people putting words in each other’s mouths. What can we “clearly” say?
1. There is undoubtedly much more fragmentation of both evangelicals and fundamentalists. Both movements are much less uniform than in times past.
2. The “status quo” in both movements have become much more polarized: Evangelicals to the left, and fundamentalists to the right. There are things in these polarizations that are blatantly unsound.
3. Clearly, there is much more of a middle of disaffected people in both movements, and rightly so.
There are both positives and negatives to the present situation. On the positive side, maybe once and for all we can get out of the “people following” business. While we need strong leadership, it is also true that we need to become people of our own convictions and not fall into personality cults. However, on the negative side, it is helpful to attach to some sort of movement in order to have some support institutions and identification. It is often personally difficult to change directions.
Can one find a position that is at once doctrinally pure, honest and faithful in practice, and yet strong enough to build momentum? I have a lot of concerns about this.
What factors are working against this? One is the seemingly intractable polarization that we see going on. Another is the well-chronicled tendency of drift among institutions, particularly colleges and seminaries. They don’t stay where they were put. As a result, there is continuing re-invention going on.
Where are things headed? The best answer is this: How are we tending our part of the picture? Where are the things we are given stewardship of headed?
Joel Tetreau wrote:
“Don’t kid yourself on the Garlock or even Bauder view of music. You have lost the battle - period.”
As a matter of observation, I would have to say this is very true. I know that some Fundamentalists are still fighting the battle over PowerPoint, but I think that not only is that battle long-since-lost, so is the battle over music, as Joel explains.
My point here is not to say whether that is good or bad — just that it is true.
The churches which are still attracting people with traditional music are the ones which are able to do it with excellence. Interestingly, it seems to me that excellence is also the key to churches which are attracting people with contemporary music.
As a former liturgical Lutheran who loves the pipe organ, you don’t have to convince me of the value of traditional worship. I think there are several reasons that the “traditional” music arguments in Fundamentalism did not pack a real punch, though.
For one, most fundamental Baptists do not sing traditional hymns anyway — they consider 19th-century camp meeting songs to be “traditional hymns.”
Secondly, they approached the topic from the perspective of standards rather than any deep theological, confessional or philosophical base.
These are broad generalities, of course, and forgive me if I am going off topic. Joel’s comment just perked my attention and I thought I would add my two cents. I think these comments do relate to the overall discussion we are having.
“Don’t kid yourself on the Garlock or even Bauder view of music. You have lost the battle - period.”
As a matter of observation, I would have to say this is very true. I know that some Fundamentalists are still fighting the battle over PowerPoint, but I think that not only is that battle long-since-lost, so is the battle over music, as Joel explains.
My point here is not to say whether that is good or bad — just that it is true.
The churches which are still attracting people with traditional music are the ones which are able to do it with excellence. Interestingly, it seems to me that excellence is also the key to churches which are attracting people with contemporary music.
As a former liturgical Lutheran who loves the pipe organ, you don’t have to convince me of the value of traditional worship. I think there are several reasons that the “traditional” music arguments in Fundamentalism did not pack a real punch, though.
For one, most fundamental Baptists do not sing traditional hymns anyway — they consider 19th-century camp meeting songs to be “traditional hymns.”
Secondly, they approached the topic from the perspective of standards rather than any deep theological, confessional or philosophical base.
These are broad generalities, of course, and forgive me if I am going off topic. Joel’s comment just perked my attention and I thought I would add my two cents. I think these comments do relate to the overall discussion we are having.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
or one, most fundamental Baptists do not sing traditional hymns anyway — they consider 19th-century camp meeting songs to be “traditional hymns.”What if we all did? I mean if both these two problems were eliminated permanently starting this Sunday, what would change? I think we’d still see whatever element is “attracted by” some kind of music going somewhere else. Attraction just doesn’t generally flow along the depth axis these days (has it really ever?)
Secondly… rather than any deep theological, confessional or philosophical base.
But yes, we’re off topic. Paul, want to start a thread on that somewhere and link to it from here?
In the interest of moving back toward topic…
[Joel] 1. You don’t want to open your arms to these guys because they work with people longer than you would? Well…..Jesus would work longer with some of these than you would! That’s a fact. When Piper stays in the BGC it’s mostly so he can…There’s a nifty radio show I pick up from St.Paul where the hosts hit buttons triggering recordings for certain things callers say (or news reports say). One of them is “Uh… we don’t know that.” You’re reminding me of that lot, Joel. I mean, I can’t prove you’re wrong, but it’s pretty hard to prove Jesus would “work longer” with some of these guys than anybody else would. And I’m not sure Piper has said he stays in the BGC “mostly so” anything.
Don’t mean to nitpick, but you’re making alot of assumptions in your post. But I get that these are your opinions and you are certainly entitled to them.
(But I much appreciate the sympathy for our climatic situation up here in snow country!!)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron,
My assumptions are informed. Hey, the readers can take them or not. I say what I see. Shalom my man!
jt
My assumptions are informed. Hey, the readers can take them or not. I say what I see. Shalom my man!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
Some of the reactions to our conference are symptomatic of the anti-fundamentalist leanings on this blog. The diversity of speakers on our platform demonstrates that I’m not into politics and institutional loyalities. We just had a good old camp-meeting with some of the independent, fundamental Baptist Gospel Greats.Marc,
The diversity of speakers demonstrates that you are into a specific segment of independent Baptists- namely, revivalist, King James Version defending, and anti-Calvinist. That’s fine, and that is your right to lead as you believe and are convicted.
However, that does not make you the one true Fundamentalist, nor does it make those who differ from you anti-Fundamentalist in sentiment. You had a decidedly Baptist platform. That’s not a problem for me in this discussion, but you can’t say that is synomynous with a decidedly Fundamentalist one- at least historically. Fundamentalism has historically been a big enough tent to accommodate a much more diverse classification. I am decidedly a Baptist, and intend to remain so. However, I value relationships I have made with men in other denominations. I regularly used to share coffee in Maine with an 90 year old Orthodox Presbyterian pastor who studied under John Murray at Westminster, and rejoice in a common Savior- though we both understood that we couldn’t do much more than that because of the things that divided us. I have been privileged to sit under the preaching ministry of John McKnight- a Fundamentalist and a Methodist. I had a missionary here last night sent from Deer River Bible Church in northern Minnesota- imagine that! A Baptist having a Bible church guy in! Why, last year, we even had a Free Presbyterian preach here (Dr. Michael Barrett).
Level you anti-Fundamentalist charges all you want. I understand that Fundamentalism not only entails separation, but implies a degree of unity with those who labor for a pure Gospel in their own contexts. My primary identity as a pastor and church leader is Baptist- in fact, I would get more specific and talk about a separatist, moderate to strong Calvinist, traditional dispensationalist Baptist. But I also understand that my beliefs and convictions do not and should not deter me from fellowship with Christian brothers who do not share all of those specifics- though they might and do limit that fellowship.
(BTW- I say this only to make the point that your Fundamentalism is much more sectarian than you care to admit. I am not interested in debating whether or not either of us is right in the specifics I listed. Anyone intending to chase that rabbit will do so without me tagging along.)
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Greg,
I know that church from my MN days. Good church. You have to check out the Northern Gospel Fellowship - also called the Northern Gospel Mission. Mildred Chapel in Backus was in the mix in the past. Another great church in that group is the Bible Church in Ray, MN. I think that one was named “Northwoods Bible Church.” Ray is 15 miles outside of the Falls. There are dozens of great Bible Churches all over MN. Thrilled your making contact with a few.
Shalom!
jt
I know that church from my MN days. Good church. You have to check out the Northern Gospel Fellowship - also called the Northern Gospel Mission. Mildred Chapel in Backus was in the mix in the past. Another great church in that group is the Bible Church in Ray, MN. I think that one was named “Northwoods Bible Church.” Ray is 15 miles outside of the Falls. There are dozens of great Bible Churches all over MN. Thrilled your making contact with a few.
Shalom!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
[Greg Linscott]. I, for one, would welcome an article to follow up this one of Bauder’s articulating what the appropriate response should be towards people like Fugate and Monte who attempt to share the Fundamentalist label with us, but who hold little if any of the idea and ideals of Fundamentalism in common.
[Greg Linscott]Greg, with all due respect, it seems that you are the one leveling anti-fundamentalist charges. Aren’t you implying that Marc Monte is not a fundamentalist, especially by claiming that people like Marc Monte “attempt to share the fundamentalist label with us”?Some of the reactions to our conference are symptomatic of the anti-fundamentalist leanings on this blog. The diversity of speakers on our platform demonstrates that I’m not into politics and institutional loyalities. We just had a good old camp-meeting with some of the independent, fundamental Baptist Gospel Greats.Marc,
The diversity of speakers demonstrates that you are into a specific segment of independent Baptists- namely, revivalist, King James Version defending, and anti-Calvinist. That’s fine, and that is your right to lead as you believe and are convicted.
However, that does not make you the one true Fundamentalist, nor does it make those who differ from you anti-Fundamentalist in sentiment. You had a decidedly Baptist platform. That’s not a problem for me in this discussion, but you can’t say that is synomynous with a decidedly Fundamentalist one- at least historically. Fundamentalism has historically been a big enough tent to accommodate a much more diverse classification. I am decidedly a Baptist, and intend to remain so. However, I value relationships I have made with men in other denominations. I regularly used to share coffee in Maine with an 90 year old Orthodox Presbyterian pastor who studied under John Murray at Westminster, and rejoice in a common Savior- though we both understood that we couldn’t do much more than that because of the things that divided us. I have been privileged to sit under the preaching ministry of John McKnight- a Fundamentalist and a Methodist. I had a missionary here last night sent from Deer River Bible Church in northern Minnesota- imagine that! A Baptist having a Bible church guy in! Why, last year, we even had a Free Presbyterian preach here (Dr. Michael Barrett).
Level you anti-Fundamentalist charges all you want. I understand that Fundamentalism not only entails separation, but implies a degree of unity with those who labor for a pure Gospel in their own contexts. My primary identity as a pastor and church leader is Baptist- in fact, I would get more specific and talk about a separatist, moderate to strong Calvinist, traditional dispensationalist Baptist. But I also understand that my beliefs and convictions do not and should not deter me from fellowship with Christian brothers who do not share all of those specifics- though they might and do limit that fellowship.
(BTW- I say this only to make the point that your Fundamentalism is much more sectarian than you care to admit. I am not interested in debating whether or not either of us is right in the specifics I listed. Anyone intending to chase that rabbit will do so without me tagging along.)
Joel stated:
“MacArthur has not replaced Biblical salvation with a works salvation. He’s just emphasizing repentance. To some of you who have down-played the volitional side (i.e. the “submission” part of saving faith), it sounds like works-salvation. This is nothing more than the gospel as spelled out in the Gospels (Repent if you want to be in the Kingdom) as well as James (Saving Faith results in a fruit of works). How in the world can you guys read works-salvation in that? Stop reading Lou and start reading you’re Bibles. To be fair, there have been a few passages that Mac has read his understanding of Lordship salvation that I don’t see in the passage. It is true that one can emphasize repentance disproportionate to faith that you end up switching sanctification with justification. If you read John in context and widely, I don’t believe John has crossed those lines consistently enough to make the charge that he has a false gospel.”
Joel, it is time for Fundamentalists to at least get the Gospel right and to have some understanding of the theology of the Gospel. MacArthur declares a false Gospel and has made his version of the so called Lordship Gospel a distinctive of his church. That makes it an uncompromising doctrine in his mind. He harshly criticizes any who disagree with him. The problem is he misunderstands the biblical definition of faith, the place of repentance in salvation, the definition of repentance, and the place of works with regard to faith. As a result he also misunderstands assurance of salvation.. He has a blatantly false interpretation of many Gospel passages such as the Prodigal Son and the Sermon on the mount. On top of all that is the fact that he tries to sell this unorthodox Gospel as the traditional Gospel as believed by the Reformers and some other Reformed theologians. He is also absolutely wrong in that historical perception. Now, just in case you think that I am being overly harsh please understand that everything I have just stated is also clearly stated with full explanation in the book “Christ The Lord, The Reformation and Lordship Salvation,” Michael S Horton, editor and a co author, WIPF & Stock, Eugene Ore. 1992. Micheal Horton is presently Professor of Theology at Westminster Seminary West. All the authors are Reformed theologians and the forward is by Allister McGrath of Oxford and a world renowned historian, especially of the Reformation.
MacArthur has claimed loyalty to the Reformers. He evidently appealed to some young Fundamentalists who may lack good grounding in historical theology. He also appeals to some who come from what has been traditionally called a “legalistic” oriented Fundamentalism. In their escape from some of that legalism they may have a tendency to not fully apprehend the implications grace. They may have experience with decisional emphasis and a shallow gospel presentation and followup. MacArthur calls that easy believism. The fact is MacArhur’s books declare a gospel that is contrary to the Reformers theology and based on extremely bad exegesis. He presents a gospel with almost no grace. The failure of so many in Fundamentalism to understand this may be one of the 21st century scandals of the Fundamentalist mentality. You mentioned “reading Lou.” I have read his book and it is poorly researched and he does not understand the issues. Lou is a KJVO person. His is also a gospel of legalism.
If you have not read the book “Christ The Lord” please do so. They do a good job of balancing the saving aspects of the Gospel and of our assurance. As a Classic Dispensationalist I do disagree with some of their views on sanctification and some (but not all) of their criticism of Chafer. They are fair in acknowledging that MacArthur does state that salvation is by grace alone through alone. However, they show that his main arguments and other statements refute those assertions and set forth a faith and works gospel. The book also deals with the errors of Zane Hodges.
Other interesting books on the subject are: “Getting the Gospel Wrong, Hixson; Getting the Gospel Right, Olson; Back to Faith, Lybrand.
In my opinion John MacArhur advocates an errant gospel that is sufficiently wrong to make us have a need to protect the flock from his misunderstandings.
Sorry if I am coming across as overly dogmatic and perhaps harsh, but the theological and historical facts are irrefutable if analyzed fairly. MacArthur has been dogmatic and harsh toward those who differ. Misunderstanding and harm has been done to some. No one should endeavor to defend MacArthur until they have read this book. It should put them on the right path. In my opinion these errors need to be exposed.
“MacArthur has not replaced Biblical salvation with a works salvation. He’s just emphasizing repentance. To some of you who have down-played the volitional side (i.e. the “submission” part of saving faith), it sounds like works-salvation. This is nothing more than the gospel as spelled out in the Gospels (Repent if you want to be in the Kingdom) as well as James (Saving Faith results in a fruit of works). How in the world can you guys read works-salvation in that? Stop reading Lou and start reading you’re Bibles. To be fair, there have been a few passages that Mac has read his understanding of Lordship salvation that I don’t see in the passage. It is true that one can emphasize repentance disproportionate to faith that you end up switching sanctification with justification. If you read John in context and widely, I don’t believe John has crossed those lines consistently enough to make the charge that he has a false gospel.”
Joel, it is time for Fundamentalists to at least get the Gospel right and to have some understanding of the theology of the Gospel. MacArthur declares a false Gospel and has made his version of the so called Lordship Gospel a distinctive of his church. That makes it an uncompromising doctrine in his mind. He harshly criticizes any who disagree with him. The problem is he misunderstands the biblical definition of faith, the place of repentance in salvation, the definition of repentance, and the place of works with regard to faith. As a result he also misunderstands assurance of salvation.. He has a blatantly false interpretation of many Gospel passages such as the Prodigal Son and the Sermon on the mount. On top of all that is the fact that he tries to sell this unorthodox Gospel as the traditional Gospel as believed by the Reformers and some other Reformed theologians. He is also absolutely wrong in that historical perception. Now, just in case you think that I am being overly harsh please understand that everything I have just stated is also clearly stated with full explanation in the book “Christ The Lord, The Reformation and Lordship Salvation,” Michael S Horton, editor and a co author, WIPF & Stock, Eugene Ore. 1992. Micheal Horton is presently Professor of Theology at Westminster Seminary West. All the authors are Reformed theologians and the forward is by Allister McGrath of Oxford and a world renowned historian, especially of the Reformation.
MacArthur has claimed loyalty to the Reformers. He evidently appealed to some young Fundamentalists who may lack good grounding in historical theology. He also appeals to some who come from what has been traditionally called a “legalistic” oriented Fundamentalism. In their escape from some of that legalism they may have a tendency to not fully apprehend the implications grace. They may have experience with decisional emphasis and a shallow gospel presentation and followup. MacArthur calls that easy believism. The fact is MacArhur’s books declare a gospel that is contrary to the Reformers theology and based on extremely bad exegesis. He presents a gospel with almost no grace. The failure of so many in Fundamentalism to understand this may be one of the 21st century scandals of the Fundamentalist mentality. You mentioned “reading Lou.” I have read his book and it is poorly researched and he does not understand the issues. Lou is a KJVO person. His is also a gospel of legalism.
If you have not read the book “Christ The Lord” please do so. They do a good job of balancing the saving aspects of the Gospel and of our assurance. As a Classic Dispensationalist I do disagree with some of their views on sanctification and some (but not all) of their criticism of Chafer. They are fair in acknowledging that MacArthur does state that salvation is by grace alone through alone. However, they show that his main arguments and other statements refute those assertions and set forth a faith and works gospel. The book also deals with the errors of Zane Hodges.
Other interesting books on the subject are: “Getting the Gospel Wrong, Hixson; Getting the Gospel Right, Olson; Back to Faith, Lybrand.
In my opinion John MacArhur advocates an errant gospel that is sufficiently wrong to make us have a need to protect the flock from his misunderstandings.
Sorry if I am coming across as overly dogmatic and perhaps harsh, but the theological and historical facts are irrefutable if analyzed fairly. MacArthur has been dogmatic and harsh toward those who differ. Misunderstanding and harm has been done to some. No one should endeavor to defend MacArthur until they have read this book. It should put them on the right path. In my opinion these errors need to be exposed.
[Joel Tetreau] 1. You don’t want to open your arms to these guys because they work with people longer than you would? Well…..Jesus would work longer with some of these than you would!Joel- I think I’m a Type A according to your taxonomy, but I really enjoyed your post anyway. :p The above comment reminded me of a discussion I had recently with someone about how we use Mtt. 18.
Matthew 18:15-16 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
It seems to me that the most common application of this is that we’ll go to a brother who has trespassed in some way, and if he is not immediately on board with our assessment of the situation, we either ignore the rest of the passage, or we wait about 5 seconds to employ the rest of the passage. What about giving the Holy Spirit a chance to work in their hearts? What about spending some time praying and fasting for our brothers before grabbing some friends for our own brand of the Inquisition?
If we are truly going to be meek about the process of restoration (Gal. 6:1), we need to examine ourselves, and remember how long it took for some of us to get our doctrine and behavior in line with the Word of God- and I’m willing to bet none of us have ‘arrived’ just yet.
But I also wonder if correction and restoration are even in our minds. I get the feeling that a few people would be sorely disappointed if some folks ‘got right’.
Some of the reactions to our conference are symptomatic of the anti-fundamentalist leanings on this blog.Jason,
My statement about “anti-fundamentalist charges” stems from this statement from Monte. If there is any anti-Fundamentalism here, it is against Fundamentalism as men like him and Fugate are re-defining it to be, not what it was since its inception, or even when it parted ways with the New Evangelicals later on.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Greg,
The charge of my re-defining fundamentalism is a little over the top, don’t you think? Fact is, I am not re-defining it; I am simply re-emphasizing it! Fundamentalism, you agree, has always been a “big tent” movement. Why is it that you have more toleration in the movement for baby baptizers than you do for “revivalists?” Both were a part of the initial movement, so why single out one “camp” as re-defining the movement.
If you were to visit my church, you would find a conservative, traditial fundamental Baptist church with Christ-honoring music and a warm evangelistic atmosphere. You would notice conservative dress attire worn by our members. You would find our people passionate about winning souls. You’d likely witness a baptism or two. The bus kids might make a little noise, but a worker would deal with it quickly. If you came on a Wednesday night, you would find me in a verse-by-verse study of the book of Jeremiah. Expositional preaching is the norm. In fact, a former staff member from the old 4th Baptist (the church where I grew up) visited a while back, and he told me that mine is a church “of which Dr. Clearwaters would be proud.” That’s a high complement to me since R.V. Clearwaters is a personal hero of mine. Fact is, our church has been described as a “blast from the past.” We even use hymnbooks! (John R. Rice’s “Soul-stirring Songs and Hymns”—can you believe it?)
When I examine the Greek New Testament, I always look at Scrivner’s TR as my authority. Is that a sin? Remember, John Calvin himself used the “Traditional Text.” Why does my doing so make me a criminal? The settings on your Bible Works program differ from mine. Does that make me “hetrodox?” The ongoing bashing of TR people is illogical and contradicts almost 1,900 years of church history. Is it non-fundamental to believe that the TR is God’s Word? (I became convinced of the importance of a settled New Testament text as a Greek minor at BJU in the 1980’s. I watched sophomore Greek students use the critical apparatus to make “decisions” as to the New Testament text. It was arrogant, obnoxious and—most of all—really, really ugly!) Old school fundamentalism widely, though not exclusively, used the KJV. What’s wrong with my continuing in their tradition?
As far as being anti-calvinist, I plead guilty. But there are a lot of fundamentalists who don’t sign on to Calvin’s Augstinian theology. In fact, I have no reason to even read Calvin. I have a “more sure word of prophecy.” So do you. My point: it’s not necessary to be a Calvinist to be a fundamentalist. I view it as a distraction. My point: Does my not being a Calvinst make me less of a fundamentalist? No.
Am I a Baptist? Yes. Do I have Baptist speakers on my platform? Yes. Seems consistent with my doctrinal position. Why fault a guy for cheering for his own team?
Am I a “revivalist?” Yes. Remember, fundamentalism was born in the fires of revival. Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. was a revivalist, too. I think I’m on pretty safe ground with that position.
Well now, is Marc Monte a fundamentalist? Yes. Is he “re-defining” fundamentalism? No. Is his brand of fundamentalism the only brand? Decidedly NO! But is his brand Biblicist! YES! And it’s a lot of fun, too! Come on in! The water’s fine!
The charge of my re-defining fundamentalism is a little over the top, don’t you think? Fact is, I am not re-defining it; I am simply re-emphasizing it! Fundamentalism, you agree, has always been a “big tent” movement. Why is it that you have more toleration in the movement for baby baptizers than you do for “revivalists?” Both were a part of the initial movement, so why single out one “camp” as re-defining the movement.
If you were to visit my church, you would find a conservative, traditial fundamental Baptist church with Christ-honoring music and a warm evangelistic atmosphere. You would notice conservative dress attire worn by our members. You would find our people passionate about winning souls. You’d likely witness a baptism or two. The bus kids might make a little noise, but a worker would deal with it quickly. If you came on a Wednesday night, you would find me in a verse-by-verse study of the book of Jeremiah. Expositional preaching is the norm. In fact, a former staff member from the old 4th Baptist (the church where I grew up) visited a while back, and he told me that mine is a church “of which Dr. Clearwaters would be proud.” That’s a high complement to me since R.V. Clearwaters is a personal hero of mine. Fact is, our church has been described as a “blast from the past.” We even use hymnbooks! (John R. Rice’s “Soul-stirring Songs and Hymns”—can you believe it?)
When I examine the Greek New Testament, I always look at Scrivner’s TR as my authority. Is that a sin? Remember, John Calvin himself used the “Traditional Text.” Why does my doing so make me a criminal? The settings on your Bible Works program differ from mine. Does that make me “hetrodox?” The ongoing bashing of TR people is illogical and contradicts almost 1,900 years of church history. Is it non-fundamental to believe that the TR is God’s Word? (I became convinced of the importance of a settled New Testament text as a Greek minor at BJU in the 1980’s. I watched sophomore Greek students use the critical apparatus to make “decisions” as to the New Testament text. It was arrogant, obnoxious and—most of all—really, really ugly!) Old school fundamentalism widely, though not exclusively, used the KJV. What’s wrong with my continuing in their tradition?
As far as being anti-calvinist, I plead guilty. But there are a lot of fundamentalists who don’t sign on to Calvin’s Augstinian theology. In fact, I have no reason to even read Calvin. I have a “more sure word of prophecy.” So do you. My point: it’s not necessary to be a Calvinist to be a fundamentalist. I view it as a distraction. My point: Does my not being a Calvinst make me less of a fundamentalist? No.
Am I a Baptist? Yes. Do I have Baptist speakers on my platform? Yes. Seems consistent with my doctrinal position. Why fault a guy for cheering for his own team?
Am I a “revivalist?” Yes. Remember, fundamentalism was born in the fires of revival. Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. was a revivalist, too. I think I’m on pretty safe ground with that position.
Well now, is Marc Monte a fundamentalist? Yes. Is he “re-defining” fundamentalism? No. Is his brand of fundamentalism the only brand? Decidedly NO! But is his brand Biblicist! YES! And it’s a lot of fun, too! Come on in! The water’s fine!
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
+++This thread is obviously going to create a variety of trails that are interesting and compelling to follow. However, please try to keep it in the middle of the road as much as possible, and if you want to pursue in depth MacArthur, Lordship Salvation, the TR/KJV debate… please feel free to create another thread for that purpose.
Also, try not to view disagreements as ‘accusations’. If you feel that you are being accused of something immoral/unethical/illegal/stupid, you can report the offending post to the moderating team using the handy dandy “flag this” link that has been conveniently provided at the bottom right hand corner of every post. No muss, no fuss, the thread stays on topic, it gives the moderating team something to do, and everyone is happy.
If you have a question or comment about this moderator note, please send a message to Forums Director Jim Peet.+++
Also, try not to view disagreements as ‘accusations’. If you feel that you are being accused of something immoral/unethical/illegal/stupid, you can report the offending post to the moderating team using the handy dandy “flag this” link that has been conveniently provided at the bottom right hand corner of every post. No muss, no fuss, the thread stays on topic, it gives the moderating team something to do, and everyone is happy.
If you have a question or comment about this moderator note, please send a message to Forums Director Jim Peet.+++
Marc,
Where I am taking exception is not that you hold the many positions that you have said you do. Rather, it is by emphasizing them as you have while simultaneously leveling “anti-fundamentalist” tendencies and expressed concerns/taken exception with what Bauder has stated (seemingly on similar basis), that you equate those positions to Fundamentalism. There is room for a great deal of what you describe yourself to hold to under Fundamentalism- if not, indeed, all of it. What I will argue, however, is that is not limited to what you describe yourself and your church as. If you walk into a church that featured relaxed casual attire, people dedicated to intentional discipleship and equipping, children sitting with parents or incorporated into family units (in and out of services), reading from their ESVs and singing the hymns of Wesley and Watts (interspersed with Anderson and Getty) rather than the gospel songs of Crosby and Sankey, it can be every bit as much a Fundamentalist congregation as what you described yours as being. There is room for latitude beyond what either of us have described, actually, because those issues have little if anything to do with Fundamentalism.
Now, there may be appropriate occasions to narrow your fellowship and emphasis. Your conference could serve as a good example of such an occasion. But don’t claim or imply that such things constitute what defines a good Fundamentalist- that attributes more than the label signifies. Pointing us back to the topic at hand, Bauder is consistent with these principles as a Fundamentalist in what he has written in that he never stated that there are not distinctions between the separatist Fundamentalist and the conservative evangelical. Rather, he addressed the attitude and demeanor with which those differences should be processed and articulated. I know for a fact that Kevin Bauder clearly understands what divides him from John Piper, et al. He does not believe that gives him (or any other Fundamentalist) license, however, to oppose them in the same way we oppose Mormons or Buddhists, and has issued a statement of rebuke to that end. You guys can drag all these other things (music, bus ministry etc etc) into it, but the bottom line is that Bauder is addressing Fundamentalist attitude and demeanor, not proposing a merger between two sides. He is inviting self-examination of those attitudes and expressions on our (Fundamenatlists’) part by pointing out what is commendable of these others. What is sad is that so many of us reading are acting like feuding children, so obsessed with the wrong of the other that we refuse to take responsibility for the sinful choices we ourselves make- instead we insist on justifying why our responses were or continue to be warranted. But this isn’t about where the CE men are wrong- that was never Bauder’s purpose in this article. They aren’t his audience, and don’t read him (at least not to the degree that his primary constituency would). It is where we are.
Where I am taking exception is not that you hold the many positions that you have said you do. Rather, it is by emphasizing them as you have while simultaneously leveling “anti-fundamentalist” tendencies and expressed concerns/taken exception with what Bauder has stated (seemingly on similar basis), that you equate those positions to Fundamentalism. There is room for a great deal of what you describe yourself to hold to under Fundamentalism- if not, indeed, all of it. What I will argue, however, is that is not limited to what you describe yourself and your church as. If you walk into a church that featured relaxed casual attire, people dedicated to intentional discipleship and equipping, children sitting with parents or incorporated into family units (in and out of services), reading from their ESVs and singing the hymns of Wesley and Watts (interspersed with Anderson and Getty) rather than the gospel songs of Crosby and Sankey, it can be every bit as much a Fundamentalist congregation as what you described yours as being. There is room for latitude beyond what either of us have described, actually, because those issues have little if anything to do with Fundamentalism.
Now, there may be appropriate occasions to narrow your fellowship and emphasis. Your conference could serve as a good example of such an occasion. But don’t claim or imply that such things constitute what defines a good Fundamentalist- that attributes more than the label signifies. Pointing us back to the topic at hand, Bauder is consistent with these principles as a Fundamentalist in what he has written in that he never stated that there are not distinctions between the separatist Fundamentalist and the conservative evangelical. Rather, he addressed the attitude and demeanor with which those differences should be processed and articulated. I know for a fact that Kevin Bauder clearly understands what divides him from John Piper, et al. He does not believe that gives him (or any other Fundamentalist) license, however, to oppose them in the same way we oppose Mormons or Buddhists, and has issued a statement of rebuke to that end. You guys can drag all these other things (music, bus ministry etc etc) into it, but the bottom line is that Bauder is addressing Fundamentalist attitude and demeanor, not proposing a merger between two sides. He is inviting self-examination of those attitudes and expressions on our (Fundamenatlists’) part by pointing out what is commendable of these others. What is sad is that so many of us reading are acting like feuding children, so obsessed with the wrong of the other that we refuse to take responsibility for the sinful choices we ourselves make- instead we insist on justifying why our responses were or continue to be warranted. But this isn’t about where the CE men are wrong- that was never Bauder’s purpose in this article. They aren’t his audience, and don’t read him (at least not to the degree that his primary constituency would). It is where we are.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Please take the lordship discussion to the following thread:
http://www.sharperiron.org/forum/thread-lordship
Thanks!
http://www.sharperiron.org/forum/thread-lordship
Thanks!
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Greg: My response had nothing to do with Dr. Bauder’s article per se. I stated back at post #51 that I don’t have time right now to write a lengthy response. My response stemmed from what I felt could have bordered on slight criticism of our big meeting. I almost got the impression that our speaker’s platform (with the exception of Dr. Phelps) was being viewed as an abberation of fundamentalism—if not foreign to it intirely.
Your last post clears that up, and I feel accepted within the broad tent of fundamentalism once again! It’s good to know that there’s a place for old-time religion, revivalistic, TR, anti-calvinists in the movement. In the words of Garrison Keillor, we’re just “happy to be here!” May our tribe increase! And may the fellowship be sweet!
(I’m glad that fundamentalism includes differing perspectives! If not, this blog would be boring. If everyone agreed with me, I’d change my position just to spice things up! —just kidding!)
Your last post clears that up, and I feel accepted within the broad tent of fundamentalism once again! It’s good to know that there’s a place for old-time religion, revivalistic, TR, anti-calvinists in the movement. In the words of Garrison Keillor, we’re just “happy to be here!” May our tribe increase! And may the fellowship be sweet!
(I’m glad that fundamentalism includes differing perspectives! If not, this blog would be boring. If everyone agreed with me, I’d change my position just to spice things up! —just kidding!)
Just clinging to my guns and religion... www.faithbaptistavon.com
Marc,
I apologize- it sure seemed like your insertion of the topic of conference was an indirect response to Bauder’s article, though.
As far as the aberration goes- that would be a topic worth pursuing sometime, though not here. I believe there is an argument to be made that Fugate would present problems predominately because of his adding to Scripture in regards to Bibliology- but again, another discussion for another thread.
I apologize- it sure seemed like your insertion of the topic of conference was an indirect response to Bauder’s article, though.
As far as the aberration goes- that would be a topic worth pursuing sometime, though not here. I believe there is an argument to be made that Fugate would present problems predominately because of his adding to Scripture in regards to Bibliology- but again, another discussion for another thread.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
And believe me, Monte can spice things up! I remember a debate between our societies years ago at BJU. The debate was over the issue of free trade and the Monte’s pulled out this serious looking file called the “Jumbo Fact File.” After they opened it, they pulled out a squirt gun and shot water at people to prove the superiority of American-made products. Later in the debate, one of the brothers, used his Sears suitcoat to prove this topic and said that it was guaranteed to be wrinkle-free through the rapture.
:D
:D
Don’t get me wrong, I think this is a good post and agree with Bauder whole-heartedly, but I can’t think of another movement of any type that argues so much about labels. Great articles on SI will get 4 or 5 comments but if there is an article on the label of Fundamentalism… open up the bandwidth because data is gonna fly. This isn’t so much a criticism as a question. Why? I’m here posting as well so I’m not excluding myself from this, but why do we so desperately long to discuss this issue?
“In the words of Garrison Keillor, we’re just “happy to be here!”
Uh-oh, Is Monte trying to bring his Minnesotan Lutheran friends into the fundamentalist tent?….
Uh-oh, Is Monte trying to bring his Minnesotan Lutheran friends into the fundamentalist tent?….
[jhorneck3723] Don’t get me wrong, I think this is a good post and agree with Bauder whole-heartedly, but I can’t think of another movement of any type that argues so much about labels. Great articles on SI will get 4 or 5 comments but if there is an article on the label of Fundamentalism… open up the bandwidth because data is gonna fly. This isn’t so much a criticism as a question. Why? I’m here posting as well so I’m not excluding myself from this, but why do we so desperately long to discuss this issue?I’ll take a shot at this one… I have a theory.
1) Fundamentalism has sort of been about labels from the beginning. That is, once the idea of standing by the fundamentals and fighting to keep/regain control of denominations in control of the Fundamentalists began, there was sure to be a fairly significant amount of attention (and properly so) to whether someone was or was not a Fundamentalist.
2) Many evangelicals specifically reputiated Fundamentalism but also didn’t want to be “Liberals” and coined the term “New Evangelicals.” The label was their idea, if I’m not mistaken. So from that point it became important to the Fundamentalist identity not only to affirm certain things but to not be a New Evangelical.
3) After New Evangelicalism sort of blended into lots of other things and Fundamentalists had withdrawn and built their own institutions, Fundamentalists began to fight over an increasing number of decreasingly important things… but the “labeling thing” continued to be a strong weapon in the arsenal. If you wanted to strongly decry what a leader or ministry was doing, you labeled them a neo-evangelical. So the terms still carry alot of emotional weight.
4) Controversy always generates more web traffic. Not sure what that means, and I believe in resisting the temptation to intentionally go after conflict to boost traffic, but it’s pretty predictable. It’s not just labels, either. I wrote a short series defending the value of rules last fall and these also generated a lot of commentary (that time, much to my surprise). So the common denomenator isn’t so much labels as it is controversy… or maybe just the drama of controversy. Human nature I guess.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
As I consider the unnecessary division between balanced fundamentalism and the militant strains of conservative evangelicalism I think of it as a kind of “Ecclesiastical Berlin Wall.” In the spirit of my favorite US President, “Mr Schismatic Fundamentalist” (“who says all conservative evangelicals are compromisers”) or “Mr. Arrogant Evangelical” (“who says all fundamentalist are stupid!”)…tear down that wall!”
I’ll add my own thought - “blow it up baby!” :)
Straight Ahead!
jt
I’ll add my own thought - “blow it up baby!” :)
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
I recall a message preached at BJU’s Bible Conference in 1976 that addressed the fracturing of fundamentalism over things like Bible versions, denominational labels, dictation, and some other things I don’t recall.
30 years later fundamentalists are still separating from each other over things like music, dress, personalities, pseudo-Calvinism, etc. These divisions are often typified by less than gracious descriptions of their brethren while the younger generation, weary of the rhetoric, has discovered conservative evangelicalism and finds its generally strong emphasis on Christ, sound doctrine and expository preaching a breath of fresh air.
BTW, I recall that the self-proclaimed essentials of new evangelicalism were dialogue and co-operation with theological liberalism and modernism and a willingness to let scientific discoveries affect their view of the first chapters of Genesis. That was pretty much it. For fundamentalists to hang the new evangelical label on the CE’s is not historically accurate.
30 years later fundamentalists are still separating from each other over things like music, dress, personalities, pseudo-Calvinism, etc. These divisions are often typified by less than gracious descriptions of their brethren while the younger generation, weary of the rhetoric, has discovered conservative evangelicalism and finds its generally strong emphasis on Christ, sound doctrine and expository preaching a breath of fresh air.
BTW, I recall that the self-proclaimed essentials of new evangelicalism were dialogue and co-operation with theological liberalism and modernism and a willingness to let scientific discoveries affect their view of the first chapters of Genesis. That was pretty much it. For fundamentalists to hang the new evangelical label on the CE’s is not historically accurate.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Ron Bean] BTW, I recall that the self-proclaimed essentials of new evangelicalism were dialogue and co-operation with theological liberalism and modernism and a willingness to let scientific discoveries affect their view of the first chapters of Genesis. That was pretty much it. For fundamentalists to hang the new evangelical label on the CE’s is not historically accurate.Ron, are you sure that is “pretty much it”? After all, [URL=http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/?p=276] Dave Doran said[/URL]:
[Dave Doran] And if the conservative evangelical position isn’t clear, then it seems hard to make definitive statements about how it is different from new evangelicalism.If Dave thinks it is hard to make definitive statements about how conservative evangelicalism is different from new evangelicalism, how can you be so sure that hanging the NE label on the CE’s is not historically accurate?
Actually, I think the philosophy of new evangelicalism is much more complex than you summarize it.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I prefer to think of new evangelicalism in simple terms for a number of reasons. One is that that is how I remember the issue when I was first introduced to it. When Harold Ockenga introduced the term at Park Street Church in Boston, his primary points were those that I mentioned, especially the refutation of separation from liberalism and modernism that marked fundamentalism. That proposal grew legs with Billy Graham.
I will confess that I lived in an isolated fundamentalist ministry (think “The Village”) for many years and didn’t know what was going on in the real world, so new evangelicalism may have changed. I wasn’t aware of it.
I also recall fundamentalist groups like the GARBC, FBF, IFCA, OBF, etc. who had strained relationships at best.
I think Joel’s wall idea sound like a plan.
I will confess that I lived in an isolated fundamentalist ministry (think “The Village”) for many years and didn’t know what was going on in the real world, so new evangelicalism may have changed. I wasn’t aware of it.
I also recall fundamentalist groups like the GARBC, FBF, IFCA, OBF, etc. who had strained relationships at best.
I think Joel’s wall idea sound like a plan.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Historically, I don’t see that dispensationalism is a fundamental of the faith. Other than questioning dispensationalism and increased emphasis on seminary training, I don’t see these traits in the CE’s with whom I am familiar.
The following is taken from an article published in the Christian Life Magazine (March 1956) entitled, “Is Evangelical Theology Changing?” There are the characteristics of new evangelicalism from the article:
1. A Friendly Attitude Toward Science.
2. A Willingness to Re-examine Beliefs Concerning the Work of the Holy Spirit (especially in relationship to holiness experiences, a second blessing sometime after conversion, speaking in tongues, and healing).
3. A More Tolerant Attitude Toward Varying Views on Eschatology (a questioning of the premillennial and pretribulational position).
4. A Shift Away From So-Called Extreme Dispensationalism. “The trend today is away from dispensationalism—away from the Scofield Notes…in fact, many…rarely use the word dispensation now.”
5. An Increased Emphasis on Scholarship.
6. A More Definite Recognition of Social Responsibility.
7. A Re-Opening of the Subject of Biblical Inspiration.
8. A Growing Willingness of Evangelical Theologians to Converse with Liberal Theologians. “An evangelical can…profitably engage in an exchange of ideas with men who are not evangelicals.”
Harold Ockenga’s Summary of Neo-Evangelicalism
1. A Repudiation of Separation.
2. A Summons to Social Involvement (see point #6 above).
3. A Determination to Engage in the Theological Dialogue of the Day (see point #8 above).
And Doran has a point in that we all like the simplicity of labels.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Discussion