"It is simply unbelievable that you didn’t see a huge negative reaction coming."

I am wondering who got to decide for all people and for all time that John MacArthur is not a fundamentalist.
He is a member of a self-declared fundamentalist group of churches -- IFCA International.
If we believe in the authority, autonomy, etc. of the local church, shouldn't that count for something?
Oh, but the drama of it all...

I don't know who decided that, but I'd guess half their congregation uses a MacArthur Study Bible.

I have no idea who Don Johnson is, but his condescending and obnoxious tone is the EXACT reason why so many genuine fundamentalists do not want to be associated with the name anymore. This ridiculous quibbling about who invites whom and whether or not they pass the "purity" test is why thousands of our young people would rather go to a dentist than listen to or read this kind of rubbish. Rick Holland not a fundamentalist? John MacArthur not a fundamentalist? Ware is suspect because he dare teaches at an SBC seminary? What planet does he live on?

In the real world of academics and ministry, such discussions are smirked at for the trivial pettiness they embody.

Sounds to me like Matt Olson is doing a fine job at Northland and doing the right things in making it an international institution with a Biblical Worldview that doesn't get caught up in these extraBiblical and petty political spitting matches.

Dan,
I am one of those who "would rather go to a dentist" than read some of the vitriolic responses that arise in issues like this. I have never understood the attitude that is so characteristic of many such discussions (for the record, I am not singling Don out--he's not alone). It would be interesting to hear if anyone finds this method of polemic "evangelism" to be either helpful or holy.
Concerning Northland, I agree with you 100%. Matt Olson is one of many godly men that God has placed in leadership there. May God continue to grant them wisdom as they serve through leading.

Don,
Dan laid the charge (which I am sure many agree with) that it is this kind of attitude and tone which are responsible for many either distancing themselves from fundamentalism or leaving altogether. How do you answer this charge? I think it may be helpful if you could share why you think this is the right way to go about maintaining personal, ecclesiastical, and institutional purity. It would be presumptuous of me to believe that you haven't thoughtfully and prayerfully considered the benefits of your approach to disagreement. Thanks.

Cordially,

E.

How did Northland "used to teach" their students in worship (not globally)? So how does one teach students how to worship globally musically? I wonder if it means they learn the Asian musical scales, etc. I don't understand how this is to be played out. What does it mean?

Maybe I don't know enough about music to understand. At least in the area of "pop" music, much of the world "follows America" and doesn't actually originate their own. (I can't believe how much American pop/rock is played here on the radio--in English. -- I'm in Poland)

Does anyone know? And why couldn't the director of Fine Arts go along with that? Does it actually mean a change in direction in practicality? I'm just asking, as I'm curious. I'm not "fighting" or being controversial--I much prefer that people just say what they believe and be done with it. If it is a change in direction, pastors can either accept it or leave them alone and go somewhere else.

Since I didn't go to Northland, I've not really any experience with their music philosophy anyway. All I knew was that people raved after visiting there how the students were "all so spiritually minded". That's a nice compliment. (However, I'm not naive enough to believe that all students in any school are "so....)

Thanks for posting the link and I'm thanking Don for posting the original links on SI from 05 and 06.

I couldn't agree more, Dan. It is also very interesting that those who have all the separation issues in line with the fundies get far more lattitude with their errors. Case in point being those who are KJVO--a simple reading of the original "Fundamentals" provides a clear idea of what the early fundamentalists believed concerning the Holy Scriptures and it is polar opposite to the KJVO heresy. I have a novel idea for those leaders in Fundyism--separate from those who are unorthodox and fellowship with those who are not. Wouldn't it be great if we just cut the political garbage and actually used Scripture as our guide?

I am encouraged to see that Northland seems to fear God more than man--we all need a good dose of this, IMHO.

Matthew Richards
Indianapolis, IN

Mr. Johnson said in his condescending and obnoxious rant that he and Matt Olson have "some issues between us." I am not wondering if it is more likely that Mr. Johnson has issues with Matt Olson verses the other way around.

My point here is that Mr. Johnson does not describe one bit of how he has biblically talked to Matt Olson about these perceived issues and the responses that Matt Olson has given him. Unless he can do that his post is merely a clanging gong.

On many if not most topics such as these, I'm more interested in what interpretational/applicational method was employed in order to reach one's conclusions, rather than the conclusions themselves. There are some that I believe are mistaken in their conclusions, but because I see their respect for Scripture, compassion, and humility, I walk a whole lot further down the path with them than with someone who is 'right' but lacking in the fruits of the Spirit. I have faith that someone with the right attitude will eventually come to the right conclusions (my computer screen suddenly turned into a mirror- ha ha!) but someone who is angry, aggressive, combative, proud... (and I am not talking about Bro. Johnson here- capiche?) can be right all the live long day- but what good is it? Wasn't that the problem the Pharisees had? They were so 'right' but also so coldly arrogant that it seemed like they weren't worth shootin'- and yet Jesus took the time with them, and some of them were converted.

On the OP- I agree with Bro. Johnson that Bro. Olson's statement appears naive.

Bob,

I always appreciate your thought-provoking writings and, as always, you raise many good points.
I cannot possibly respond to you point-by-point, however you are much harder on MacArthur and his teachings than I would be. Yes, he is much more favorable to Reformed theology than I am and there are probably areas of disagreement between us. After years of careful thought, I do believe that much of the Lordship issue is semantics and context -- although again there are a spectrum of beliefs and I may have some disagreement, at least with the way that MacArthur phrases things at times.
Regarding the IFCA in general, I have personally interacted with several men in the leadership of the organization. To paint the group as non-fundamentalist, in the true sense of the word, would just be silly.

I think it is much ado about nothing. Remember this section from the open letter?

Whether one agrees with CCM or not, it does seem ridiculous (at least to me) to export musical standards to churches planted outside of US culture (which is what NIU is doing via the preparation of men and women for Great Commission living), simply because US culture isn't the final arbiter of what is and is not musically acceptable. God's Word provides that instruction, and any attempt to convince people in Japan, for example, of the superiority of SoundForth Music to whatever they have simply because we feel that SoundForth music is better than CCM is both foolish and dangerous. Andrew K pointed this out very well, and I can tell you that when I was at NBBC, there was a lot of confusion over why what passed and why.

It is far more important that Christians figure out things by themselves through the study of the Scripture and fellowship and prayer than we spoon feed them everything and wonder why they can't seem to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

Bob,

I know that you think of Lordship as a dangerous heresy (and I disagree with you), so let's pass over that. I'm quoting, word for word, the IFCA International Doctrinal Statement. Can you please tell me where they are either:

1. in error theologically (again, aside from the LS position)
OR
2. holding to a position that you disagree with?

Thanks.

Matt...I knew that was what you were doing. We share some common "heritage." (Oh my!) Your injection of the topic was timely and appropriate in that these truly are the three "big issues" I see weekly in papers from my students. And while many of us have settled these issues in our hearts and minds long ago, the firestorm that they are capable of producing in a church setting is simply amazing. Yet we fiddle while Rome burns....

Dan

Don, unfortunately because we mostly end up discussing only the items we disagree on, I don't ever get to express my admiration for what I perceive as your character and commitment to Christ, as well as your faithful labors in the Great White North. Please know I entreat you as a father.

The point you make is only salient because fundamentalism is now a place where everyone within the movement (for lack of better nomenclature) should just be saying, according to you, "Well, duh!" This is why he feels (or may feel) the need to play politics. But if the Baptists had not participated with the Presbys or the Anglicans or the Episcos (whom I can never spell properly) we wouldn't be having a discussion of this sort.

Sure there are probably some greater differences between those other denominations and "us" now, but the differences that existed between them back in the day surely exceeded the differences between "us" and John MacArthur.

In other words, your point, clear as it is, seems to me to confirm an unhealthy parochialism in fundamentalism.

J

I am in agreement with their statement. The problem is most in the IFCA are not in agreement with some of it.

This point is IMO beyond argument. The official history of the IFCA is a book titled "For Such A Time As This' by J.O Henry. 1983, IFCA Press. This was authorized by the National Board and speaks for itself. I knew J.O. Henry very well. Had numerous conversations with him as a student and later at IFCA meetings . He was one of my History Professors as a student at Biola. He was a promoter of Keynesian economics, the Democratic party, and a classic New Evangelical. He was in charge of the IFCA Chaplaincy, and on the National committee more than once. The book tells the story of the IFCA Fundamentalist battles from the stand point of the New Evangelicals who won the battles causing the more Fundamentalist elements to leave. The final battle was at 1979 (PP. 195 to 199). The natural progression continued until the late 1980s and in about 1990 they dropped the name "Fundamental" and adopted the acrostic "IFCA" with "International" as the official name. I was active in the IFCA for 10 years. I know many, many members. Most all that I know are Conservative Evangelical. Many members are more moderate Evangelical. In the 1970s many of their churches quietly supported Billy Graham crusades. The large church, Alderwood Manor Community Church, in the Seattle area, then Pastored by two time IFCA national president Lowell Wendt, ran several busses to the BG Seattle Crusade in 1975. He told several of the IFCA pastors that he was doing this and announced it at the North West Regional meeting in Roseburg Oregon. I was there. There were no protests, only support for his "loving" attitude and position.

As you most probably know there are many churches and organizations who have, and are, going through the changes that involve a doctrinal and position statement on paper that they in practice do not any longer endorse. One example in the IFCA statement is this:

(

John MacArthur holds to the Reformed view that does not espouse two natures as do several in the IFCA who agree with the Reformed view and/or "Needham" in his book on God's will. This is well known yet these are allowed to stay in the IFCA.

If you took the trouble to get the IFCA statement off their website you probably also read their statement on the "Nature of Saving Faith."This is their official position agreed to by 93% of the members. It is obviously contrary to the MacArthurism gospel and those who are MacArthurites. John even has had his hyper LSG made a part of the Grace Community church official position.
The result is that many members in the IFCA, particularly the Master Seminary graduates coming into the IFCA, do disagree with the IFCA position of saving faith. By the way, I call MacArthur's LSG as hyper as it is more extreme than the LSG as set forth by Michael Horton and most Reformed theologians.

The evidence is clear that IFCA International does not practice, or most members hold to,Keynesian the classic Fundamentalist view on separation. They do not enforce and/or practice their statement of faith and positions. Their own book on their history reveals this. It has become increasingly so in the last ten years.

The evidence is clear that John MacArthur is not associated with a group that practices Biblical separation and that he himself does not consistently practice Biblical separation.

The evidence is also available from local churches and from many actual graduates of Masters Seminary that there are serious problems with the fruit of John MacArthur's ministry. These include a militant Reformed Calvinism that splits churches and the fact that most do not practice Biblical separation. I have been directly told by Masters graduates who are active in the IFCA that they are out to change the IFCA even further. They do not mean to be more Fundamentalist.

Matt Olson, Les Ollilla, Doug McLachlan, and others must be naive as to the real ministry results and consequences of some of John MacArthur's beliefs and ministry, as seen by those here in Southern California and the West coast. He has a good ministry in many respects but the increasing negative consequences is a concern to many. Why do these classic Fundamentalists feel a need to have association with this ministry? Why travel to Grace Community for a meeting? Mac Arthur may be viewed as a big name and influential preacher in some circles. However, the concerns increase as you cross the Rockies and with those more familiar with all aspects of the ministry and results.

As convictions erode and institutions change, it is never clear cut denials and open change of practices. It is always gradual undercover change and a gradual minimizing of convictions without any direct assertions. It is here a little and there a little until all of a sudden a there is realization that there has been a real change that has taken place. Some Fundamentalists are not Paranoid just experienced.

As to the endorsing of KJVO and some considered Hyper Fundamentalists. Just don't do it!! That has no bearing on the right or wrong of other endorsements and associations.

As for the calling statements by Don johnson as arrogant and condensending. NONSENSE! That was the old continued accusations of the Neo Evangelicals whenever such issues were raised. By contrast they hoped to be seen as loving and humble as they advocated their compromise. I have lived through some of that.

Rick Holland is not only on the staff at Grace Community church, he is the driving and organizing leadership behind the ResolveConference for youth and young adults. This is a conference that pushes Reformed theology conviction within the context of extreme hard driving music imported from our contemporary amoral youth culture.

What was said to the students of a college or university when he is invited to speak in chapel?

Well, Kevin Bauder should get some credit for that portion of the definition. See his lectures at International Baptist Bible College a couple of years ago. You'll have to work through a long series of lectures including some misinformation, but his term is 'orthopraxy'.

What a weird question. Why would I have an objection to having someone like Paisley speak? Who would question his fundamentalism?

You can hold your firm belief all you want, but I believe the link to my post came first.

There is a Hebrew word for that...

What would be "worse" than driving someone into the arms of mainstream evangelicalism? Why would fundamentalists want to retain people who were comfortable with mainstream evangelicalism or "worse"?

Not logical, captain.

I got the email from Matt Olson last night, and posted the contents in the mod. forum. Later on, I contacted NIU and asked for permission to repost, which they graciously granted 20 minutes later. Aaron then decided to run it, sometime late last night, on the front page today, after some other back and forth. I think anything that posts to the front page with a midnight timestamp is actually loaded by the computers at that time, but I don't know.

We move quickly in these here parts of the cyberworld

One thing I always try to do when people speak rather vaguely is ask them to be more specific. And when someone is repeating what someone else says without knowing the exact details behind what was said to me is not very good. One of the things I learned at N was to give people the benefit of the doubt, something I don't think some of us have given him. (again, has anyone asked what the backlash was specifically?) Perhaps a few individuals labeled him and NIU as heretical after this (trust me, some of the churches that sent kids there when I went certainly probably did), but over all most churches have been supportive? Instead it seems we jump to the details we want to hear (or not want to hear).

So before we start calling him and the rest of the leadership team at N naive, perhaps we need to ask them the actual details. If in fact they expected the entirety of F to congratulate him, ya, probably a bit naive. But lets get the facts first.

From the Pyromeniacs site of Phil Johnson:

Sorry for calling you an assistant to John MacArthur. You are much more than that. However, you are Reformed Baptist according to your Bio. and were you not once connected to a group of Reformed Baptist churches? It does appear that you are connected closely with John MacArthur and are Reformed enough to be involved with a group that uses that name. You also are listed in the letter of Matt Olson as being involved with a meeting of Matt Olson and others with MacArthur. Are there not really some things right besides your name?

You stated:

Now you are a Fundamentalist? So Fundamentalism is not "Dead Wrong" as it does have you as a live person embracing it but still criticizing it, or some such as me, as concerned with trivial ideas and trite matters. Acts 20:17-35 demands diligence in watch care for fundamental doctrines and also what some may consider trivial or trite but which can have dire consequences.

However, most do not consider the Gospel a trivial or trite matter. They do consider the Hyper Lordship Gospel of John MacArthur as a Gospel embedded with major errors and which has some serious unintended consequences. It is a Gospel involving saving faith rejected by the IFCA in 1990, yet John is still a member of the IFCA. The well qualified committee of the IFCA was gracious, conciliatory, but definite. It included Robert Thomas from Masters.

I think your post was brash, overstated, and failing to deal with the substance of the concerns I have expressed.

What I said about you appears to be essentially correct though I had your title wrong and wrongly associated with the wrong group. Sorry about that. I will apologize for calling you a wild eyed Reformed Baptist. Your just wild with words and Reformed and also a Baptist. Of course I did qualify your Reformed theology by calling you a Reformed Baptist, which you say you are. Sorry for the errors.

Have a really blessed Thanksgiving.

To top it all off, it appears Mr. Johnson is not only wild-eyed, but also has a goatee!!!

It seems like there is a lot of explosives being applied at the current "fault lines" of fundamentalism. Is there a real hope for a split? Does anyone really want that? How is that productive?

A quick perusal of the list of contributors to "The Fundamentals" reveals that many, if not most of them were Calvinistic/Reformed. Reformed theology is not the enemy....the absence of theology is.

I affirm both of these statements!

Ron, stop...You're letting the cat out of the bag!

Bob,

You said:

If you've read Dead Wrong, then you would know that Phil never once rejected the term Fundamentalist, although his aim was to describe the FundY movement of the 60-early '90's as dead, and rightly so. You'd also know that he said:

I want to continue this discussion on the Lordship thread , but I'm convinced that you believe in some kind of hyper caricature of the LS movement. Nathan Busenitz, who's written extensively on this at the old Pulpit blog, wrote this:

I really think you'd answer yes to both questions, which is why I want to discuss this more, so let's take that discussion to a different thread. See you there!

To JC

Jay C. The LS Gospel has been discussed on here endlessly. What you may need is not further discussion but repentance from endorsing a gospel with serious errors and endless unintended consequence.

That's the problem, Jay- who gets to define what. Fundamentalism means different things to different people, as does separation, militancy, convictions, fellowship...

One the one hand, there is the idea of only separating over 'vital' doctrines. Then there is separation over vital doctrines and what should be accompanying practices, including those of morality and ethics. But then there is that indefinable area of separating according to one's conscience.

But even if I 'separate' from someone because I'm being led by my conscience to do so, degrees of separation come into play. Separation doesn't mean I am not courteous, or that I won't enter a building in which Dr. Samuel J. Snodgrass has also entered- but to some, that is exactly what it means not to fellowship with someone. It also doesn't mean that I won't read Dr. Snodgrass's books or listen to his sermons. What it will probably mean (on a case by case basis), is that I will be careful in to whom and how and when I recommend Dr. Snodgrass's materials, if I recommend them at all. And if I can't recommend him or befriend him, even if it is because of my conscience, I still need to have a clear Biblical reason for my actions.

I think the purpose and functions of a university differ drastically from that of a church, so it follows IMO that there will be more leeway as to how differing beliefs and ideas are presented and considered.

By the way, SI does not limit registration and participation by whether or not someone considers themselves a Fundamentalist, but by their agreement with the Doctrinal Statement and Comment Policy. If someone wants to call that a compromise, then they obviously don't understand the purpose of this forum.

Aaron had to break that previous post into two - I'm just cleaning up formatting.

Quote:
J

Thank you for your admission to be involved with "IFCA International."

First, they are a Conservative Evangelical organization with a few Fundamentalists and a few New Evangelicals. There are really no Fundamentalists in the IFCA West coast regionals. I offered some evidence regarding the IFCA actual positions and practices on a prior post.

Second, they are to be commended for initiating a study committee in 1990 in response to the MacArthur Lordship Gospel as set forth in his 1988 book. They are to be commended for adopting the statement of the committee titled "The Nature of Saving Faith" This was a rebuke of the Lordship Gospel of MacArthur and of some others.
i do essentially agree with that statement.

You wanted to discuss the LS gospel further. Why? Do you differ with the IFCA position?

MY PERSPECTIVE ON THE GOSPEL AND THE DANGERS OF THE LS MACARTHUR GOSPEL.

One book I recommend on the Gospel is "Getting The Gospel Right" by C. Gordon Olson, Global Gospel Publishers, originally published 1981. Last revision 2005. I have used this as required reading in theology classes.

As to repentance in the NT. I have counted 7 different nuanced views by published theologians. In the NT Repent appears 34 times and Repentance 22 times. I see the word used as a call to turn and believe, as a fact occurring in the believer subsequent to regeneration and justification, and used as a call to believers. It is used in connection with sin but 9 times. It is used more of believers than unbelievers. It is involved in salvation but not as a condition of salvation. It is most often used as a call to those who already believe.

The only book in the NT evidently specifically designed to give the historic basis of salvation and the requirement for obtaining it is the Gospel of John. It does not once use the words repent or repentance. The one book designed to teach the theology of salvation and its application is the book of Romans. It uses the word repent one time at 2:4 where the issue is not the Gospel but a call to mankind contained in the common Grace of God. It does not use repentance with regard to the Gospel. A second teaching book on the Gospel is Galatians. It appears designed to deal with the place of the Mosaic law of the theocracy with regard to the Gospel which is based on the Death of Christ. It does not used the words repent or repentance one time.

The NT teaches that one is saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The Greek verb Pistuo appears 234 times in the NT and is translated as believe or believing. The noun Pistis appears also exactly 234 times and is translated faith. Why the difference in English words for the noun and verb? The explanation is sometime set forth that the KJ translators, not knowing there was even such a thing as Koine Greek, were somewhat confused as to nuances of the meaning. They were in a classical Greek orientation trying to translate the evolved Koine Greek. In actuality we now know both the Noun and the verb are best translated as "believe." The personal nature of the belief is seen in the prepositions used and context. When one believes on, or in, they do know, assent, and trust in. Such reliance will implicitly acknowledges that Christ is Lord over sin and death and salvation. Belief involves knowing enough but often not very much. The word believe (faith) appears in the NT with regard to salvation 150 times without repentance or repent being mentioned. We are saved by believing. The one believing will then repent. Such repentance may manifest itself in various degrees and ways and vary from convert to convert.

Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin saw believe (faith) as involving knowledge, assent, and trust (or reliance upon). The later Calvinists, especially the English Puritans, added the volitional aspect. This emphasis of will brought about the view that merely a convicting work of the Spirit was not enough and unregenerate man must first be regenerated or transformed and then he is given faith and thus converted. Man's will is therefor exercised by God and it is all of Grace. Believing became Intellect, sensibilities, and volition. MacArthur has a believing that is Knowledge, assent, submit, and sacrificially follow.

MacArthur has taken the Puritan Gospel and taken it further by emphasizing a "willingness" to be submissive to the full Lordship of Christ. He then defines submission as a "willingness" to follow Christ. He then defines following Christ as a willingness to take up the cross and follow him and a willingness to give up everything. We then have believing (faith) that is filled with making a commitment to works. Is a willingness to do works what believing is? Believing is focused on the works of Christ. The simple reliance upon Christ alone for the gift of salvation must be our focus not an examination of ourselves and our estimation of our willingness as the necessary condition of knowing we are saved. Other statements made make this a man focused gospel with coverup of the so called Reformed Doctrines of Grace. Salvation may be stated as Christ alone, faith alone, Grace alone. But those phrases are modified by definitions which import a call to follow in life and service as the necessary definitions involved. The Gospel of John MacArthur is not just the Lordship Gospel of Reformed soteriology but a Hyper Lordship Gospel built upon bad exegeses, wrong application of statements in the synoptic Gospels, and attacking straw men of the so called Non Lordship Gospel. It is possible for the Gospel to be presented and followed up in such a way as bring about a decision but not real belief. The assent is accepted without emphasis on personal trust. That most often has little to do with Lordship v. Non Lordship. The one Gospel can be presented in a wrong context and emphasis.

On the Mark Cameron TV program John MacArthur was asked the simple question; what is the Gospel? He replied by referring to the words of Matt. 16: 24-27 and stating that is the Gospel. His explanation centered on the willingness to follow Christ sacrificially instead of reliance on Him and his death,burial, and resurrection.

First: Matthew 16 are words to OT saints and disciples to follow sacrificially but are not the Gospel that saves the soul. If it is then we must discard Romans. I was shocked at the reply. At that moment MacArthur went from mere error of the Gospel to heresy. However, I do not call him a heretic. He just had a lapse of heresy.

An understanding of the MacArthur Gospel emphasis is part of why any appearance of approval or association may be detrimental to students at a Christian school.

It is no trivial thing for a school to seek association with John MacArthur. His LS Gospel emphasis is dangerous to a proper understanding of the Gospel. Also, one needs to take a very close look at Masters College and Masters Seminary to get a proper understanding of the ministry consequences.

I'm not sure why this is relevant?

Jesus disagrees with you, Bob, about the importance of repentance.

Jesus commanded the apostles to include repentance as an essential part of their Gospel message:

The apostles obeyed Jesus' command and included the call to repentance as an essential part of their preaching.

Gregg, I do not mean to brush you off but time use makes me do so. I have posted on this thread regarding issues and did bring in theology to give reasons behind my position on this issue. Hoewever, I have stopped really debating theology online ,for the most part. Too timr consuming and just asserting evidence already made by many. This is exactly why I think it fruitless to debate the full issues of the LSG on some online thread. You are citing verses and making statements that have been very extensivly spoken to. IMO your definition of repentance is without lexical support. May I suggest the book I mentioned before; Getting the Gospel Right by C. Gordon Olson. Although I may disagree with him somewhat on repentance, cannot remember. But was very impressed with the book overall. Also, I believe the Doctoral Dissertation of Charlie Bing PHD on" Lordship Salvation" is still available online. He appears to adequatly handle the definition of Repentance, Faith, etc. He has whole chapters on each word. He handles the passages you cite. He has his doctorate from Dallas.

Also, Jays church doctrinal statement was never an issue. I had mentioned some posters who have associations that would indicate they are not now practicing Fundamentalists. When i was teaching at Talbot of Biola I fell into that trap. I have repented and have sought to be careful in ministry associations. Note that is ministry associations not personal fellowship or being students at schools. Jay responded with his doctrinal statement and also mentioned his church associations which were IFCA. I had mentioned the IFCA on prior posts. I left fellowship with them about 1985 because they were not practicing Fundamentalists. They are past Fundamentalists with good past resolutions on paper but few really stand by those today. Their own book on history gives the story of the declines.

There are indeed those who post here who are on the staff of churches that give little or no consideration to the issues requiring separation and are in reality moderate Evangelical ministries seeking to appeal to the largest possible evangelical Christian audience. The issue is not Doctrinal statements but philosophy of ministry and the practicing of the admonitions of Acts 20:17-35. This may not be contrary to SI policy. Nor should it necessarily be. But it does bring illumination to some discussions to know where some posters may be coming from.

Hope you can obtain Bing's dissertation. Let me know if you have a problem by just Googeling it.

@Don Johnson

how do you stretch credulity to a breaking point? did you mean to say credibility?

you have called Matt Olson a liar, and a despicable one. for you say he is doing exactly what he said he is not doing: playing politics. where is the evidence?

you are Matt Olson's adversary and accuser, yet you ask: "are we still friends?" unbelievable!

yes, Don, you are a fighter. I'm just not sure whose side you are on.

@Don:

how can you say you are not his accuser or adversary? deny all you want, you are not kidding me, maybe yourself, but not me.

yes, i very much disagree with you in the way you are criticising Olson. i asked for evidence, you provided none. i don't know Matt Olson at all, you do, but have not provided any thing substantial.

to believe your analysis would be credulity.

if you have to appeal to others thinking, this does not inspire confidence.

all i know you may be right on the politics part, you have not proved it though.

generally would disagree with your pot of stew clicheman.

credulity is the disposition or state of believing too easily. if you want to have an expression that says: " to stretch credulity" you may, but to me it doesn't make sense. in every day talk among English speakers "credibility" is the choice of word to use to express the point Don Johnson was making. Don Johnson is not a brain surgeon, and i'm no dummy. i know what i'm talking about Greg.

the analysis i was talking about was more Don's treatment of the whole situation: "impressionable young people", "expect drop in enrollment" not merely whether Olson was playing politics or not.

yes, i have never heard of this usage as you describe it. i say it is archaic. why not focus on clear communication rather than obscure speech? my everyday speech is Hawaiian Creole English (pidgin) not flowery highfalutin verbiage.

i did not respond to cause trouble in any way that you are implying. i have better things to do. count me out of this discussion.

the catch phrase that i was referring to was "pot of stew" which i thought the self-professed "walking cliche" would get not the one about credulity.

i do not have the time to get bogged down on forums until the week of Christmas as my calendar is full until then.

I am shaking my head at it myself. I keep saying, "why bother?" But then I think maybe one more post will help him see the light...

That was the whole point for posting the DS of my church...I don't think he can

To further my argument, I should note that:
1. My current pastor is not only affiliated with IFCA Intl, but he's also a TMS grad.
2. His son has attended TMS as well.
3. Pastor been on the Executive Committee of IFCA Intl in the past and has also served as the President of the Northeast Region
4. Finally, he lead the church through a complete revamping of said Consitution and Doctrinal Statement for our church over ten years ago. Neither document has ever been Scripturally challenged by anyone else since then.

Bob's argument seems to be that Lordship theology is heretical, and since the church I go to teaches Lordship Theology, I wanted Bob to come out and specifically point out the error in what we preach and teach, since it's articulated in the GBC DS with plenty of Scriptural support. Since it's now been just under six months, and Bob has not yet done that (although I'm sure he will object to something now that this zombie thread has revived), I think that it's safe to assume that his objections are more of objections to John MacArthur and/or Phil Johnson in particular than they are about any real Scriptural substance.