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

Greg and Don, I stand corrected on the timing issue. I stand by my other implications and conclusions.

Dan

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.

Bob T.: “MacArthur’s assistant, Phil Johnson is a member of the Reformed Baptist Association and a wild eyed Reformed theology advocate.”

I’ll savor that and perhaps use it as an endorsement on my next book. It’s a stunning example of how and why fundamentalist debates always seem to miscarry about as quickly as they start. My idiosyncrasies are no more relevant to this thread than Mr. T’s bling is to Bob T.

Plus, Bob is wrong on just about everything but the spelling of my name. I’m not “MacArthur’s assistant.” I’m not a member of “the Reformed Baptist Association”—whatever that is. Though baptistic by conviction, I’ve never been a member of any Baptist organization. And though I’m Calvinistic in soteriology I have never championed “Reformed theology” as a system; I’m too Baptistic for that.

Likewise, I’m a fundamentalist by conviction but too independent to join the kind of “fundamentalist” fraternity where brashness is mistaken for leadership and trivial matters and trite ideas are treated as if they were fundamental doctrines.

[Phil Johnson] Bob T.: “MacArthur’s assistant, Phil Johnson is a member of the Reformed Baptist Association and a wild eyed Reformed theology advocate.”

I’ll savor that and perhaps use it as an endorsement on my next book. It’s a stunning example of how and why fundamentalist debates always seem to miscarry about as quickly as they start. My idiosyncrasies are no more relevant to this thread than Mr. T’s bling is to Bob T.

Plus, Bob is wrong on just about everything but the spelling of my name. I’m not “MacArthur’s assistant.” I’m not a member of “the Reformed Baptist Association”—whatever that is. Though baptistic by conviction, I’ve never been a member of any Baptist organization. And though I’m Calvinistic in soteriology I have never championed “Reformed theology” as a system; I’m too Baptistic for that.

Likewise, I’m a fundamentalist by conviction but too independent to join the kind of “fundamentalist” fraternity where brashness is mistaken for leadership and trivial matters and trite ideas are treated as if they were fundamental doctrines.

From the Pyromeniacs site of Phil Johnson:

Who is Phillip R. Johnson?

First off, Phillip R. Johnson is not the Phillip Johnson who wrote Darwin on Trial. That’s Phillip E. Johnson.* (It’s a fine book nonetheless.)
Phillip R. Johnson is perhaps best-known for the blog he founded, and a few other notable websites.

hil was born June 11, 1953 in Oklahoma City, OK. He spent his formative years in Wichita, KS, and then Tulsa, OK. He graduated from Nathan Hale High School in Tulsa in 1971. That same year he was led by the grace of God to trust Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. (If you want to read Phil’s own account of his conversion, click here.)

Today Phil is the executive Director of Grace to You, a Christian tape and radio ministry featuring the preaching ministry of John MacArthur. Phil has been closely associated with John MacArthur since 1981 and edits most of MacArthur’s major books. Phil pastors an adult fellowship group called GraceLife at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, CA. He is a board member of The Martyn Lloyd-Jones Recordings Trust in England, and a member of the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals (FIRE).
Phil studied at Southeastern Oklahoma State University for one year, then transferred to Moody Bible Institute, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in theology (class of 1975) . He also spent one year at a fundamentalist Baptist school in Tennessee, and took some courses in publishing and editing at the University of Chicago. He was an assistant pastor in St. Petersburg, Florida and an editor for Moody Press before moving to Southern California to take his current position in 1983.
Theologically, Phil is a committed Calvinist—with a decidedly Baptistic bent. (That explains his love for Charles Spurgeon). Phil is also an inveterate reader and bibliophile. He has a beautiful wife (Darlene), three grown sons, two fantastic daughters-in-law, two magnificent grandchildren, a beagle, and a mortgage.
For an abbreviated bio and hi-res photo of Phil, click here.

A PS from Phil: The Darwin on Trial Phillip Johnson—the more distinguished Phillip Johnson—teaches at Berkeley. I used to put his e-mail address here for those who were looking for him, but people kept sending him mail meant for me, which only compounded the name-confusion problem. So if you want his e-mail address, you may get it from his home page at The Access Research Network.



… or why not visit

on your way out?
Copyright © 2001 by Phillip R. Johnson. All rights reserved. hits

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:

Likewise, I’m a fundamentalist by conviction but too independent to join the kind of “fundamentalist” fraternity where brashness is mistaken for leadership and trivial matters and trite ideas are treated as if they were fundamental
doctrines.

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.

I hope everyone noticed that Phil never once disavowed ‘wild-eyedness’!

8-)

[“Don Johnson”] If the issues were about interdenominational cooperation, you might have a bit of a point. Last I knew, however, I was still in some fellowship with Presbyterians and at least one Methodist.

But the issues here are not about denominational distinctives, but about the essence of fundamentalism.

Do you have a different set of criteria for inter-denominational fellowship than you do for … whatever kind of fellowship* it would be called if you extended it to MacArthur, et al? (As an aside, your Presbys must not be fully Westminsterized, or do you fellowship with pedobaptists?)

Furthermore, the orthopraxy you feel we must separate from MacArthur on is what, exactly? Associating with those who you feel he shouldn’t?

*I’d use intra, but MacArthur’s not a Baptist.

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

[DavidO] Do you have a different set of criteria for inter-denominational fellowship than you do for .

Absolutely.

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?

Steve, I think you are right, there are a lot of explosives being applied. And I think it is a good thing for the long term health of the church. For too long Fundamentalism has permitted heresy within in its ranks because the heretics looked like everyone else on the surface. If these cultural fundamentalists can finally be culled from the truly biblical fundamentalist herd, it will only be a good thing for the church.

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.

[Chip Van Emmerik] If these cultural fundamentalists can finally be culled from the truly biblical fundamentalist herd, it will only be a good thing for the church.

Chip, I think that is an oversimplification. Do you have “cultural believers” in your church? You bet you do! Do you want to get rid of them all? No, you don’t. So, why do you want to “draw the lines” of conflict in a way to force a split? I don’t agree that it is always a good thing.

If these cultural fundamentalists can finally be culled from the truly biblical fundamentalist herd, it will only be a good thing for the church.

Reformed theology is not the enemy….the absence of theology is.

I affirm both of these statements!

[Don Johnson] Absolutely.

This is probably not the time and place, but I’d like to hear more about that sometime. Not sure I understand.

[Ron Bean] 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.

Ron, stop…You’re letting the cat out of the bag! :D

Bob,

You said:

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.

If http://audio.gracechurch.org/sc/2005notes/JohnsonDeadRight.pdf] 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:

In fact, let me say this: From the title of the seminar, those of you who don’t know me might assume that I am someone who is hostile to the principles of fundamentalism. That is not the case. In the historic and classical sense of the word, I am a fundamentalist. I have never really been a member of the fundamentalist movement, but I have always had an interest in the movement and a deep sympathy for the true principles of historic fundamentalism. Here’s what I mean by that: I believe wholeheartedly in the authority and the inerrancy of Scripture. I’m quite willing to be militant in defense of the gospel. In fact, I believe as Christians we have a duty to contend earnestly for the faith whenever vital gospel truths are threatened. I recognize that there is a core of truth that is absolutely essential to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and when someone’s teaching deliberately rejects or fatally compromises any of those essential truths, true Christian fellowship is impossible (and seeking spiritual fellowship with such people is absolutely out of the question). I am not willing to pretend that someone who rejects the essentials of the gospel is my brother or sister in Christ, and I would not knowingly align myself in ministry or Christian fellowship with such a person in the name of Christian unity.

The doctrines I would deem fundamental include (but are not limited to) these: 1) the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures; 2) the doctrine of
Christ’s virgin birth; 3) the principle of substitutionary atonement; 4) the bodily resurrection of Christ; and 5) the literal truth of all the miraculous elements of Scripture. Historically, all authentic fundamentalists have been united in their affirmation of those five doctrines as truths that are essential to the gospel. They’re sometimes called “the five fundamentals.” I would also insist that the doctrine of justification by faith is an essential gospel truth. In fact, I would put the doctrine of justification at the head of the list (and if time permits I’ll explain why that’s such an important issue for historic fundamentalism).

In other words, in the historic and original sense of the word, I am a fundamentalist at heart and always have been since the day of my conversion.

[Bob] 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 want to continue this discussion http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-lordship] on the Lordship thread , but I’m convinced that you believe in some kind of hyper caricature of the LS movement. Nathan Busenitz, http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/10/30/lou-and-lordship-part-1/ who’s written extensively on this http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/09/hey-i-thought-the-lordship-discussio… at the old Pulpit blog , wrote this:

It seems to me that there are three basic positions on the lordship issue. And they each center around two essential questions (which in reverse order are): 1) What does it mean to repent? and 2) Is repentance necessary to saving faith?

To the first question, the lordship camp answers that repentance is a change of heart (from love for sin and self to love for Christ) which results in a change of behavior (John 14:15). To the second question, lordship advocates unequivocally answer “yes.”

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; Jay C.

1. The Fundamentals have little to do with the early Fundamentalists in that many who endorsed the doctrines set forth in the Fundamentals stayed in the denominations and continued in ministry association with those who did not.

2. The Fundamentalists separated.

3. Some were reformed, some were non reformed Calvinists.

4. Most all Fundamental Baptists did not hold to the post Dort Calvinism that advocated regeneration preceding faith.

5. The issue here is not Calvinism or Reformed theology but having an associate of John MacArthur speak in a Fundamental Baptist school chapel which appears to give endorsement to that speakers views and to the well known ministry of John MacArthur.

6. The Hyper LSG of John MacArthur goes beyond the LSG of most Reformed theologians such as Michael Horton as seen in Horton’s book on the matter. It involves serious errors. What he believes is clear and beyond speculation. He has written much on the subject.

7. If you endorse John MacArthur’s Gospel you are in serious error. You most likely have read his books and know what he believes. I stand with the IFCA and many others who have sought to warn him and others of these serious errors concerning the Gospel.

8. Perhaps you consider yourself a Fundamentalist but the basic problem here on SI is that many post who are not presently practicing Fundamentalists. They are like Phil Johnson and willing to claim the label or position but never really have practiced Fundamentalist convictions. Some who have posted here are in ministries in churches that are moderate evangelical and even a type of new evangelical. They are churches with minimalist doctrine yet they post on here claiming some sort of Fundamentalism. The issue of the NIU chapel speaker is regarding a Fundamental school. All sorts of posts here desire to get off the topic and related evidence.

Jay C., what church are you involved in ? Is it forthrightly Fundamentalist?

I have attempted a straight line of evidence, Chapel speaker, Speakers ministry association, major problems with the ministry of association which includes the Gospel.

This thread involves too many non relevant posts. It has become silly!

Have a blessed Thanksgiving all.