An Open Letter to Lance Ketchum
Dear Brother Ketchum,
Over the past couple of months my attention has been directed to several of your writings, some of which mention me. While I do not make a practice of responding to unsolicited criticisms, two factors have influenced me to write to you. The first is the fact that we have labored together in the same corner of the Lord’s vineyard and have come to know each other well enough to speak frankly. The second is that, while I know you to be an honorable man who would never willingly misrepresent a brother, your recent writings have contained a sufficient number of misunderstandings that I have heard people question your credibility. So I am writing to you simply to set the record straight, I hope in a way that is charitable.
One of your concerns is that you believe you have been ridiculed, particularly within the Minnesota Baptist Association. You state, “I have talked to a few men in the leadership of the Minnesota Baptist Association of churches regarding these issues. My comments were received with a smirk of derision and ridicule.” Since the only board member of the Minnesota Baptist Association whom you mention by name is me, people are likely to infer that I have ridiculed you, or perhaps that I have encouraged others to ridicule your pronouncements.
Actually, I don’t recall having heard you ridiculed, either in public or private, by any board member or pastor of the Minnesota Baptist Association. Personally, I respect you too much to subject you to mockery. I have witnessed God’s grace in your life. I have watched you face severe trials with equanimity, treat opponents tactfully, and persevere both in faith and in ministry. While we disagree about some issues, I believe that you are a man of honor and a man of God. If I heard someone attack your character, I would want to be one of your defenders.
As you know, however, defending a man’s character is easier than defending his every pronouncement. For example, you recently complained that someone ridiculed your article on the Hegelian dialectic. Yet your description of Hegelian dialectic contains little that would be recognized by anyone who had perused a serious book about Hegel, let alone read Hegel himself. Consequently, I find that you have left me with no answer for those people who wish to ridicule it.
The same may be said of your remarks about John MacArthur. You state, “John MacArthur is a hyper-Calvinist, believes in Lordship salvation, Presbyterian polity, uses CCM and Christian-rock in his church ministries, and is undoubtedly a New Evangelical.” Some of your allegations are certainly true: for example, John MacArthur does believe in Lordship salvation. Some are beyond my knowledge: I really do not know whether MacArthur uses CCM or “Christian-rock” in his church ministries, though I know of many fundamentalists who do. (The only rock concert to which I’ve ever taken my wife—inadvertently—was a chapel service in one of the King-James-friendly Bible colleges). Some of your observations are simply not accurate. MacArthur’s polity is not so much Presbyterian as it is Plymouth Brethren. No historic definition of hyper-Calvinism can imaginably be applied to MacArthur. Only the most pejorative standards would classify him as a New Evangelical. When people ridicule you for making such accusations, it becomes very difficult to defend you.
As I recently glanced through your writings, I discovered that I myself had been similarly misinterpreted. For example, you stated that I have “regularly criticized people for criticizing Reform [sic] Theology, especially Reformed Soteriology. Under [Bauder’s] paradigm, anyone believing that Reformed Soteriology is unscriptural, and is [sic] willing to say that publicly, is outside of his acceptable Fundamentalism.” Well, there is a grain of truth here. I have on a couple of occasions said that we do not need to fight about Calvinism. But the fact is that I myself believe that some tenets of Reformed thought are unscriptural, and I am willing to say so publicly. For example, I do not believe in Limited Atonement as it is traditionally defined. I have actually written about some of the areas in which I differ with Reformed theology, and I see no particular problem in allowing others to express their disagreements as well. The question is not whether we may disagree, but how. The kind of disagreement that would label John MacArthur as a hyper-Calvinist is clearly not helpful. It is the kind of thing that invites ridicule. Though I disapprove of aspects of MacArthur’s soteriology, disagreement does not deliver me from the obligation to represent him fairly.
The same can be said of the following sentence:
When professed fundamentalists such as Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. Douglas McLachlan, Dr. Timothy Jordan, and Dr. Dave Doran begin to defend men like Al Mohler, John Piper, Ligon Duncan, John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Mark Dever, C.J. Maheney [sic], and Rick Holland (to name a few), it becomes very apparent that there has been a considerable change in direction regarding the practice of militant separation.
You seem to think that it is unacceptable to defend men when they are falsely accused. Well, I am willing to defend these men from slanders against their character or false statements of their views, in the same way that I am willing to defend you. Nevertheless, at a great many points I have challenged their views: in some cases over miraculous gifts, in other cases over church polity, in yet others over contemporary methodologies. I have attempted to persuade them that fellowship and separation involve more than simple adherence to the gospel (some of them already understand this to varying degrees). I think that I can defend their character while disagreeing with some of their theology, just as I do with you.
If you scold a child for everything, then she will pay no attention when you scold her for the thing that matters. Something like this has happened with the incessant fundamentalist scolding of conservative evangelicals. If you want to open the way for competent fundamentalists to articulate our differences with conservative evangelicals, your best approach is to expose and reprove fundamentalist periergazomenous* whose only spiritual gift appears to be censoriousness.
“But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you…though we are speaking this way” (Heb. 6:9, NASB). You are an honorable man, and that is why I have felt comfortable offering both clarification and exhortation. I trust that you take my words in the charitable spirit in which they are intended.
With affection,
Kevin
Notes
*—see 2 Thessalonians 3:11.
Untitled
Christina Rossetti (1830-1894)
Thy Name, O Christ, as incense streaming forth
Sweetens our names before God’s Holy Face;
Luring us from the south and from the north
Unto the sacred place.
In Thee God’s promise is Amen and Yea.
What are Thou to us? Prize of every lot,
Shepherd and Door, our Life and Truth and Way:—
Nay, Lord, what art Thou not?
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 726 views
[Kevin T. Bauder]GregH,
No brag. Just fact.
KTB
LOL. So you double down. (Glad I have Wikipedia because I was not around for Guns of Will Sonnet.)
If you have time, I would love to understand why you are taking this tact. I am going to assume you know exactly what you are doing. And I also assume that your primary reason for interacting here is to influence (not necessarily Don but the larger audience that is reading). After all, you could do this privately.
So, with that in mind, what perception do you think you create when you make statements like “I am equal time”? (especially considering that the person you compared yourself to is perhaps the most pompous windbag alive)
Limbaugh gets away with it because he has a big choir, but that rhetoric certainly does not enlarge his choir. I think the same is true for you when you make statements like that.
So you are stating facts instead of bragging. I certainly understand why you say you are “equal time.” But how do those kinds of statements help you influence?
I am merely curious. I said you are handling this in a clumsy way, but maybe I am wrong and just not smart enough to understand what you are doing.
First, somebody made reference to the kind of Fundamentalism that Don and Lou want. Please don’t put Don and Lou in the same category. You need to know that I look up to Don. He has been faithful to the ministry that God has given him. Anybody who can pastor the same church for—well, I don’t know how many years, but its been a long time—deserves a little respect. Don has been willing to back up and turn around in some of his methodology, even while he is encouraging me to do the same. One of the reasons that Don and I are talking right now is because I have to take him seriously. I believe that the kind of Fundamentalism that Don wants is, in most important respects, the kind of Fundamentalism that I want. The mere fact that he is willing to enter these forums and to let guys disagree with him is, I think, a clear evidence that he is not of the same mold as some of the Grey Eminences of Fundamentalism Past.
Yes.
I’ve been an SI Member since 2004 or 2005, which is more than long enough to have seen most of the IFB leadership come and go on this site. Most of those that have joined haven’t lasted six months, and if they did join, almost all of them refused to take place in these kinds of discussions. I understand why, to a point - it can (and does) sometimes seem like the worst kind of ganging up on them, and they are busy men with many irons in the fire that need to have a higher priority than internet forum boards. I understand that quite a few of those leaders still follow without logging in, and I wish they would join and interact more.
My point - and I want to be clear on this - is that I think we NEED people like Don on here. We NEED the interaction with more ‘type A’ fundys’, even if and when we disagree with them. Driving them out of the ‘younger’ camp is ultimately to do a disservice to both their experience and wisdom and a way of diminishing our own heritage as believers and Fundamentalists. Such things ought not to be, brothers.
Don and I disagree on a few things, but Don has always been very gracious to me personally, has reached out to me privately on more than a few occasions, and has been very helpful in pointing out things that I either missed or needed to know. I’ve learned from him and his example, and I am very glad that he’s having this interaction, even though I am disappointed in how the conversation has gone. I do not want Don to leave or get so aggravated that he throws his hands up and quits, like so many of the men that came before him. I do wish that some more of the leaders in the FBFI would ‘get’ the concept of discussion boards and would interact more with us because we need that kind of sharpening so that Don didn’t have to try to be the ‘one man army’ that it seems like.
Don is LIGHTYEARS away from where Lou is. To group the two together, in my mind, is to defame Don and is completely unfair. Lou is his own special piece of work.
"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
Lou is not a member here and so cannot defend himself on this forum
Lou has several blogs. Honestly they are largely critical of Sharper Iron and sometimes me.
But if anyone is interested there are here:
http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/
AND
http://sharperironintheironskillet.blogspot.com/
I’m not trying to give him free publicity but frankly if anyone wants to read his blog there are the links
NOW DIRECTING THIS THREAD
It is not about Lou so let’s no longer criticize him.
[Dan B.]Does anyone have audio from the Lansdale conference referenced in this thread? I’m especially interested in the 2 panels. Links to those files that I’ve found online (pointing to http://www.advancingthechurch.org/) seem to be out of date.
Dan -
I was rummaging around through my stuff today and discovered that I actually have copies of the MP3 files for all the sessions from the 2011 conference. If someone wants to point me to an online repository or a good way to send you approx. 1GB of MP3’s, I’ll be happy to forward those files on to you.
"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
Thank you, Jay. You could sign up for Dropbox or Google Drive/Docs (you already have it if you have a Gmail account) and upload them there. If you go with Dropbox you’ll need to place those files in the ‘Public’ folder then share the link (right-click the item > ‘copy link’, IIRC). If Google Drive, then simply right-click > share. Alternatively, there are services for transferring big files, but I’ve not used them. A quick Google search turned up this solution, which seems rather intuitive: https://www.transferbigfiles.com/
Again, thanks for remembering my request.
I re-read Dr. Ketchum’s article of 31JAN13, responding to criticism, below:
http://mibaptistpastorsfellowship.blogspot.com/2013/01/defining-points.html
This is the dividing line, and Dr. Ketchum raises a very important point:
When independent, fundamental Baptists (I.F.B.) practice separation, most churches that are interdenominational are excluded by that separation without other considerations. This practice has certainly always included all those believing in paedobaptism and those holding to any sacramental views of salvation. Therefore, independent, fundamental Baptists would not cooperate with fundamental Presbyterians and Congregationalists without consideration of any other doctrines to which they might agree. This would be true of fundamental Pentecostals and Charismatic churches as well. In most cases, this was true of any churches that did not believe in the eternal security of the believer. These were doctrines that resulted in separation from those believing them.
The contradiction of all this is that men like Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. Doug McLachlan, Dr. Timothy Jordan, Dr. David Doran, and Dr. Matt Olson all profess to be independent, fundamental Baptists. However, their new definition of the practice of separation is like that of the interdenominational Fundamentalism. They want most other doctrines other than the Gospel to be eliminated from the practice of separation. Independent, fundamental Baptists do not agree and do not like what they are trying to do. They are convoluting what it means to be an independent, fundamental Baptist.
Where you stand on this entire controversy depends on which type of fundamentalism you’re trying to be a part of. This inevitably leads us back to issues of separation - but Dr. Ketchum clearly lays out his basic problem with what he sees as compromise on the part of Dr. Bauder and others. In cooperative mionistry, he draws the circle much tighter than some other fundamentalists do. This is the issue. I don’t think this has really come out in the posts so far.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
The problem with Lance Ketchum’s statement is he is confusing lack of ministry partnership with separation. IFB’s do not usually engage in ministry partnership with Presbyterians, etc. When engaged in evangelism, followed by church planting, followed by ministerial training (what we usually call missions), the differences in baptism, church constitution, and schooling are too great to allow partnership. In short, we endeavor to plant and perpetuate Baptist churches. How could it be otherwise if one believes Baptist doctrine to be Biblical? Indeed, even Southern Baptists do the same.
This is not the same as separation. Separation is fundamentally a disciplinary action. We separate from those who falsely claim to be Christians. We separate from those who distort the Gospel. We separate from those who reject the Bible as the authoritative word of Truth. In short, we separate from counterfeit Christians and false teachers. We do not separate from genuine Brethren who are committed to the Word of God.
Not every area of fellowship is local church level. There are levels where ministry partnership in church planting is not appropriate, but fellowship in the larger cause of opposition to apostasy and mutual appreciation for principled fidelity to the truth of the Gospel is both appropriate and God-honoring. Please think through the history of Fundamentalism. Fundamental Baptists are only one part of this history. Without others, there is no Fundamentalism, at least not as it exists in American history. Dr. Bauder and those who think as he does are simply recognizing this fact. Lance Ketchum, and those who think as he does are changing the definition of Fundamentalism as it is historically understood. Ketchum is wrong in his description of the separation practices of Fundamental Baptists in America. He is narrowing the definition. Once again, we come back to this basic question: What is a Fundamentalist?
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]This is not the same as separation. Separation is fundamentally a disciplinary action. We separate from those who falsely claim to be Christians. We separate from those who distort the Gospel. We separate from those who reject the Bible as the authoritative word of Truth. In short, we separate from counterfeit Christians and false teachers. We do not separate from genuine Brethren who are committed to the Word of God.
I would presume you are separated from the Pope, correct? How is your separation from him a disciplinary action? He doesn’t even know you exist (I assume).
Separation is fundamentally a pastoral action, intended to guide the flock under your care or preserve yourself, your church and your immediate circle of influence from error.
[G. N. Barkman] Please think through the history of Fundamentalism. Fundamental Baptists are only one part of this history. Without others, there is no Fundamentalism, at least not as it exists in American history. Dr. Bauder and those who think as he does are simply recognizing this fact. Lance Ketchum, and those who think as he does are changing the definition of Fundamentalism as it is historically understood. Ketchum is wrong in his description of the separation practices of Fundamental Baptists in America. He is narrowing the definition. Once again, we come back to this basic question: What is a Fundamentalist?
I don’t think Lance is entirely wrong. I don’t recall all he said in his piece, but I doubt that he thinks there are not fundamentalist Presbyterians, for example.
But if you do look at the history of Fundamentalism, you will not see cooperative or coordinated efforts between Baptists and Presbyterians, or others. Each group fought its own battles in its own sphere. There may have been encouragement, prayers offered, etc, but essentially the battle Machen and others fought among the Presbyterians was a Presbyterian fight. No Baptists involved. The battles fought in the Northern Baptist Conference involved Baptists. They were all fundamentalists functioning at the same time as fundamentalists, but their efforts were primarily coincidental, not cooperative.
I will grant that at some levels various groups did cooperate, like in the Bible conference movement, in revivalism, etc. But these were not essentially fundamentalist efforts for the most part. When they were in the battle, they fought the battle within their own denominations.
You said in your post “IFB’s do not usually engage in ministry partnership with Presbyterians, etc.” This is always true.
And when independent Baptists act as fundamentalists, they primarily (entirely?) do so in a Baptist context. There is nothing surprising or wrong about that.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
If you would list the verses used to support the doctrine of separation from professing Christians, you would find that the majority of them (perhaps all of them) deal with disciplinary situations. If this sounds strange, could it be that the Biblical foundation for this doctrine needs careful re-examination?
G. N. Barkman
It is only in recent years that I have heard anyone using Mt 18 and 1Cor 5 as separation passages. I spent a total of 10 years at the “Fortress” and never heard of discipline being a part of the separation argument.
To be sure, on a local level, if we have to put someone out of our assembly for doctrinal deviation, it is a kind of separation. But it is not ecclesiastical separation. A lot of confusion has been caused by conflating the two doctrines.
In the days of the New Evangelicalism, the actions of Jones and Rice et al towards Graham may have had something of a disciplinary element as they were personally known to each other and a distance was created in their relationships.
But the churches who followed one side or the other separated either from the New Evangelicals or from the Fundamentalists - not as a matter of discipline but as a matter of guidance and wisdom (as each pastor/church saw it) for the good of their own churches and ministry.
As I said, separation (ecclesiastical) is primarily pastoral. I lead our people away from all sorts of people we will likely never meet: Emergents, New Perspective, Liberal, Neo Orthodox and New Evangelicals. And to some extent Conservative Evangelicals. I do so, not to have an impact on those from whom I am separating, but to have an influence on the people I am pastoring, the people for whom I am separating.
In saying that, it is not that we have a weekly “witchhunt” on the “Demonic Doctrine of the Week” or anything like that. But as fads come up or the people in our church mention someone they are wondering about, I try to show the errors and warn about influences. And of course some influences are worse than others.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
As I said, separation (ecclesiastical) is primarily pastoral. I lead our people away from all sorts of people we will likely never meet: Emergents, New Perspective, Liberal, Neo Orthodox and New Evangelicals. And to some extent Conservative Evangelicals. I do so, not to have an impact on those from whom I am separating, but to have an influence on the people I am pastoring, the people for whom I am separating.
Don,
Appreciated that last post. Had a quick question for you though - why do you ‘lead away’ from those types? Are we not supposed to be “simple concerning evil” and “growing in our faith”? I’m not playing gotcha and don’t mean to insinuate such - it just struck me as odd because I see the point of preaching to ‘build up others’ instead of combating that which is false.
Heretics, apostates and troublemakers are a dime a dozen, and there will always be more heresies to combat. Why not teach truth and let that guide them away? I think that’s the thrust of Paul’s point in Ephesians 4 and 2 Tim. 3.10-4:1-5 (for starters).
"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
As separation passages come up in regular preaching, the topic may be touched on. In Sunday school classes for adults, I have taught Church History from time to time. Some controversies are naturally covered along with evaluations of what people did and how we can apply it in our world.
These are not the main topic of conversation every week or every year. Check our sermons at gbcvic.org and you will see the topics covered. We try to have a thoroughly well-rounded approach to the word of God.
Sometimes people come to me with questions - a number of years ago, Chuck Swindoll was pushing Dietrich Bonhoeffer on his radio program. People asked me what I thought and I told them, showing them where there were serious questions in Bonhoeffer’s life and teaching.
Or just recently someone asked me about a particular website that I had never heard of. They were offering free Bible study CDs. Well, it turns out the site is the remnant of Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God that didn’t repent of his errant teaching. They believe the Spirit is a force, not a person and that God the Father and God the Son are a Family - not one God but essentially two.
I warned the enquirer off that site in no uncertain terms.
I have had our folks ask about John MacArthur, for example. I will explain areas where we will differ with him and then give a qualified recommendation - he is helpful in some areas, but you have to understand where he differs and why.
Other times people will come to me asking about some event going on in town with other churches and ask if we would want to be involved (or why aren’t we involved). That is another opportunity to help guide thinking, pointing out appropriate passages and teaching them to be discerning.
It sounds good to say “Why not teach truth and let that guide them away?” but, quite frankly, it doesn’t work. The Lord uses the image of shepherds and sheep for a reason. People don’t always remember everything they are taught, they easily wander, they need shepherding (pastoring). A pastor who refuses to warn of dangers is a fool and will be held accountable by the Chief Shepherd.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
It seems to me that the word “separation” is being used too broadly for any and every kind of warning and caution. In such a manner, we end up “separating” from everyone. Even when it comes to good churches and ministries, when someone asks specific questions, we often reply by commending strengths but also mentioning weaknesses.
“Separate” is an action verb. I can only separate from someone with which I have formerly been in union. I don’t separate from the Pope because I have never been joined to him. I teach the errors of Roman Catholicism, but have no need to separate from Rome. But the Reformers did, because they were formerly members of the Roman church. The Protestant Reformation was a prolonged act of separation which was disciplinary in nature.
I wasn’t thinking of Matthew 18 or I Corinthians 5, although there may well be some helpful applications there. I was thinking of other passages used to teach separation, such as II Thessalonians 3:6-15 and Titus 3:9-11. It seems to me that most of the “separation” passages are dealing first and foremost with some type of disciplinary action within the local church. Perhaps it would be helpful to discuss specific passages. Maybe someone would be willing to offer a separation text which is not disciplinary in nature, and let us discuss it together?
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] “Separate” is an action verb. I can only separate from someone with which I have formerly been in union. I don’t separate from the Pope because I have never been joined to him. I teach the errors of Roman Catholicism, but have no need to separate from Rome. But the Reformers did, because they were formerly members of the Roman church. The Protestant Reformation was a prolonged act of separation which was disciplinary in nature.I wasn’t thinking of Matthew 18 or I Corinthians 5, although there may well be some helpful applications there. I was thinking of other passages used to teach separation, such as II Thessalonians 3:6-15 and Titus 3:9-11. It seems to me that most of the “separation” passages are dealing first and foremost with some type of disciplinary action within the local church. Perhaps it would be helpful to discuss specific passages. Maybe someone would be willing to offer a separation text which is not disciplinary in nature, and let us discuss it together?
I wrote an article a while ago on this topic, but I agree with you - unity is the prerequisite for separation, and unity (not separation) is the assumed state and NT goal for the church. Look at passages like I Cor. 1:10-14; Eph. 2:11-22, 4:1-16; Philippians 2:1-17; see also the explicit warnings to separate from some in Romans 16:17-20, 1 Thess. 5:12-15, 2 Thess. 3:6-15 [Interesting that the admonition to separate becomes much more pointed and clear in a second epistle to the same church, yes?] , and 1 Tim 6:3-10.
I don’t want to hijack this thread, but if there’s more interest in this subject, we should probably fork this thread and start a new one.
"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
[TylerR]I re-read Dr. Ketchum’s article of 31JAN13, responding to criticism, below:
http://mibaptistpastorsfellowship.blogspot.com/2013/01/defining-points.html
This is the dividing line, and Dr. Ketchum raises a very important point:
When independent, fundamental Baptists (I.F.B.) practice separation, most churches that are interdenominational are excluded by that separation without other considerations. This practice has certainly always included all those believing in paedobaptism and those holding to any sacramental views of salvation. Therefore, independent, fundamental Baptists would not cooperate with fundamental Presbyterians and Congregationalists without consideration of any other doctrines to which they might agree. This would be true of fundamental Pentecostals and Charismatic churches as well. In most cases, this was true of any churches that did not believe in the eternal security of the believer. These were doctrines that resulted in separation from those believing them.
The contradiction of all this is that men like Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. Doug McLachlan, Dr. Timothy Jordan, Dr. David Doran, and Dr. Matt Olson all profess to be independent, fundamental Baptists. However, their new definition of the practice of separation is like that of the interdenominational Fundamentalism. They want most other doctrines other than the Gospel to be eliminated from the practice of separation. Independent, fundamental Baptists do not agree and do not like what they are trying to do. They are convoluting what it means to be an independent, fundamental Baptist.Where you stand on this entire controversy depends on which type of fundamentalism you’re trying to be a part of. This inevitably leads us back to issues of separation - but Dr. Ketchum clearly lays out his basic problem with what he sees as compromise on the part of Dr. Bauder and others. In cooperative mionistry, he draws the circle much tighter than some other fundamentalists do. This is the issue. I don’t think this has really come out in the posts so far.
And for more and more men not trying or wanting to be part of any type of fundamentalism. I don’t know Lance from the pope. But when I see good and godly men like those attacked who don’t fit into his IFB mold I am glad to not call myself IFB yet glad to still have some friends that are. Lance thinks their “new definition of the practice of separation is like that of interdenominational Fundamentalism” and they are “convoluting” what it means to be an IFB. I think their practice has become more biblical and more pleasing to God. Who’s right? For now that will not be settled but no surprise that many refuse to be locked into something stridently stringent that goes beyond Scripture. Happily, we stand and fall before our Master not before opinions of men, not Lance’s, not mine!
Steve Davis
Discussion