What, precisely, is a “Convergent” fundamentalist? That is, what are the “marks” of a “Convergent” fundamentalist?

Mark wrote (it’ll appear above soon):

James White ARDENTLY says he is NOT a fundamentalist. James sees himself FIRMLY as a Reformed Christian. That is his identity. James White mocks and caricatures “fundamentalists” as KJV only dispensational … and that is being kind. By the way, I think James would agree with everything I wrote.

He’s speaking about the movement, not the philosophy and mindset he brings to his theology and ministry. That is an important distinction. Many people who are, essentially, “fundamentalist” in their theology and philosophy to ministry would want nothing to do with “fundamentalism” as a movement because of the excesses of that movement.

I think we really need to distinguish between (a) fundamentalism as a philosophy to ministry and life, and (b) “fundamentalism” as an identifiable movement.

James White was raised in the GARBC.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

and credo-baptist. What can you do together with a Reformed person OTHER THAN talk about inerrancy and Calvinism. You can’t agree with baptism. You can’t agree to end times. Most Reformed have a totally different worship style.

So, we can stand on the stage and wave together, but after the crusade is over, you have the same problem that was present at Billy Graham crusades. Would you send new converts to a paedo-baptist church? Is it REALLY OK for people to teach amillennialism if you are a confirmed pre-millennialist?

That is my problem. I have several Reformed Presbyterian friends, but we can’t do much together.

I know you like James White. I have learned from him as well. But if you get close to him, you find he is surrounded by some really critical people IMHO. Try joining his special network talk channel. Have you done that? You’ll see some interesting things. I did for a while and …well, I was really disappointed.

You wrote:

What can you do together with a Reformed person OTHER THAN talk about inerrancy and Calvinism. You can’t agree with baptism.

You can with Reformed Baptists!

You can’t agree to end times. Most Reformed have a totally different worship style.

I think there are things to learn from their worship style, and vice versa.

So, we can stand on the stage and wave together, but after the crusade is over, you have the same problem that was present at Billy Graham crusades. Would you send new converts to a paedo-baptist church? Is it REALLY OK for people to teach amillennialism if you are a confirmed pre-millennialist?

This is why I want to know more about Reformed Baptists. Regarding the end-times issue, it is not a deal-breaker with me.

It depends on what your overriding filter or concern is for ministry:

  • If you’re a “B”aptist, then you’ll tolerate all manner of deviations on soteriology, bibliology, sin, theology proper (really, just about anything) because you’re “together” as Baptists. Ecclesioloogy is what matters most, so you’ll form associations based on that principle.
  • If you’re “R”eformed in your thinking, then you’ll tolerate all manner of deviations on eschatology and ecclesiology (e.g. MacArthur) because you’re “together” on theology proper and salvation. You’ll form your associations based on that principle.

I don’t believe fundamentalist Baptists have any leg to stand on when they speak of their track-record on separation. All militant conservatives choose where they want to focus their “seperatism.” Until, for example, the GARBC, FBFI and ACCC come out and publicly denounce the re-inspiration views of the KJV, the heresy of semi-Pelagianism, then we simply have a massive double-standard.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

“In a…recent work, six authors contributed to a Zondervan project called Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (2011), which was designed “to navigate … differences and preserve the meaning and mission behind the name we each claim” (p. 17). That name is the label evangelical, and the claimants form a self-described spectrum of evangelicalism under the labels fundamentalist, confessional evangelical, generic evangelical, and post-conservative evangelical. The conclusion of the book encourages a convergence of the first two categories as close theological relatives that should distance themselves from the last two members of the evangelical family.”

https://accc4truth.org/2016/06/15/the-doctrine-of-separation-and-the-spectrum-of-evangelicalism/

–––––––––––––––––––—

This is the book mentioned (which I’m sure many, or even most, S/I readers are familiar with):

http://www.zondervan.com/four-views-on-the-spectrum-of-evangelicalism

–––––––––––––––––––—

Question: Did the book really encourage “convergence” between Fundamentalism and Conservative (aka “Confessional”) Evangelicalism (as the ACCC claims)?

I put myself into the camp of a Reformed Baptist, and am a member of a reformed baptist church, as I have had in the past.

[TylerR]

You wrote:

What can you do together with a Reformed person OTHER THAN talk about inerrancy and Calvinism. You can’t agree with baptism.

You can with Reformed Baptists!

I agree. You can talk about a lot of things with Presbyterians, including the preaching to the lost, discipleship of believers, challenges in the ministry….

You can’t agree to end times. Most Reformed have a totally different worship style.

I think there are things to learn from their worship style, and vice versa.

While Reformed Baptist as a hold do not hold to a single view of the end times, they are also not dogmatic on their view. Their are a lot of Reformed Baptists that are dispensational, as well as many other views. They respect other’s beliefs and they have more times than not, explained that this was their view, but that they could also be wrong. For prophecy, this is a pretty good step, and much more gracious than most fundamentalists. Given the fact that even the Apostles themselves were not entirely clear and accurate in their interpretation of the Old Testament, I am not going to be dogmatic on prophecy. The Bible provides clear evidence of why prophecy should not be dogmatic. Its purpose is to allow those individuals to look back, when prophecy is fulfilled and see the evidence and confirmation of the current situation.

I would also say that the worship style is different, but not that far off some fundamentalists, and is more regulative than most fundamentalist churches that I have been in.

I should add that I am eternally grateful for my professional ministry education in a fundamental Baptist institution - Maranatha Baptist Seminary. I’m not making my comments as a bitter defector from “the cause,” but as a member of that movement who is simply making some friendly critiques. There is a large quality difference between those educated in intelligent fundamentalist institutions, and those who are not. In other words, I’m an insider simply thinking out loud about how we can be “always reforming” our own camp to make it more Biblical.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Maranatha has a number of “Position Statements” which accompany the institution’s Statement of Faith.

Behold this position statement from Maranatha on Christian liberty. Whoever wrote these is a genius:

The Bible faculty are committed to the biblical practice of Christian liberty. We acknowledge that Scripture binds believers together around non-negotiables such as the gospel, fundamental doctrines, and clear biblical mandates, but allows for a variety of applications of biblical principles to areas not specifically enumerated in Scripture. We encourage all believers through their study of Scripture to establish personal convictions that glorify God in all areas of life and promote unity with fellow believers.

Paul clearly defines in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8–10 that believers are neither to be “despising” nor “judging” others because of different practices in “doubtful things,” but rather are to receive one another as fellow-servants. We reject all attempts to elevate extra-biblical standards to the level of scriptural authority; such attempts often divide the Body of Christ and/or endeavor to establish one’s holiness apart from the work of Christ. Such practices lead to spiritual elitism, pride, and inauthentic holiness that stress the external over the internal. Believers must, therefore, be convinced in their own faith of the rightness or wrongness of a practice through their personal study of the Scriptures and stand before God in assurance of their faith while biblically loving those of differing persuasions. We also recognize the need for submission to institutional standards but acknowledge these do not produce holiness in and of themselves, but can be helpful prior to the formation of personal convictions.

Behold their position statement on “contemporary issues:”

The Bible faculty are committed to transparent interaction with students on contemporary issues. Discernment is a character quality and acquired skill that is necessary for spiritual success. The ability to practice keen insight and judgment in contemporary issues cannot be developed in an environment that limits discussion and hinders transparency. At the same time, open discussion without progression toward biblical answers does not meet the standard of a valid education. It is our desire to provide students a forum for communication so that education in critical thinking and biblical discretion can take place. In particular, we recognize that our students are being impacted by many conservative evangelicals via their writings, speaking, and internet communication. We acknowledge that many of these men and women have made positive contributions to the Body of Christ. We also note that aspects of their teaching and practices fall outside of the boundaries that we believe are biblical. We seek to instruct and model for students to “prove all things, hold fast that which is good.”

This is the kind of fundamentalism which is worth propagating.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Baptist Streams Converge in the Arizona Desert:

CHANDLER, Ariz.—“As leaders confront the challenges of the present, the benefits of a shared testimony and collective gathering around gospel fundamentals, hermeneutic principles, and Baptist church distinctives are as needed today as they have ever been,” wrote Pastor Greg Linscott in his Baptist Bulletin article “Independence Is Not Isolation.” In that article he reported that Dr. Michael Sproul and Tri-City Baptist Church would host a national conference “involving several leaders from across the spectrum of Baptist fundamentalism.” The conference would be a venue “to explore the possibilities and benefits” of fellowshipping, working, and standing together.

On March 7–9, that conference, called The Gospel Proclaimed, became reality. Attenders represented a variety of geographical locations, Baptist associations and fellowships, institutions and agencies, and individual congregations. They rejoiced together at the unity they found in gospel truth and ecclesiastical principles. That unity was a key goal of the conference. “Now more than ever, it is vital for distinct groups of independent Baptists to demonstrate that we are just as committed to the unity of those who love truth as we are to separating from those who distort the Gospel,” says the conference website. “We must avoid the disasters of the past that led to the destruction of sound doctrine and practice, while effectively communicating the unchanging gospel of God in a changing world.”

Sproul introduced the conference, and several Baptist fundamentalist leaders preached on pertinent questions, such as “Why a Baptist?” Nineteen men and two women led workshops on subjects such as evangelism, administration, Baptist history, ladies in ministry, and various church outreach ministries.

John Sauser of Baptist Church Planters expressed delight at the hope the event offered. “I’m rejoicing, seeing God’s hand at work bringing these different streams together in this setting. There’s a sense that this mutual awareness and fellowship around God’s truth provides strength to advance His agenda for our various churches.”

http://www.garbc.org/news/network-news/baptist-streams-converge-in-the-arizona-desert/

––––––––––––––––––––-

Or is it “convergence” only when Conservative Evangelicals are involved?

Here is the fundamental linchpin - which part of your systematic theology is most definitional to you, and how does this impact your doctrine of separation? Consider this excerpt from Larry’s post:

On March 7–9, that conference, called The Gospel Proclaimed, became reality. Attenders represented a variety of geographical locations, Baptist associations and fellowships, institutions and agencies, and individual congregations. They rejoiced together at the unity they found in gospel truth and ecclesiastical principles. That unity was a key goal of the conference. “Now more than ever, it is vital for distinct groups of independent Baptists to demonstrate that we are just as committed to the unity of those who love truth as we are to separating from those who distort the Gospel,” says the conference website. “We must avoid the disasters of the past that led to the destruction of sound doctrine and practice, while effectively communicating the unchanging gospel of God in a changing world.”

Sproul introduced the conference, and several Baptist fundamentalist leaders preached on pertinent questions, such as “Why a Baptist?” Nineteen men and two women led workshops on subjects such as evangelism, administration, Baptist history, ladies in ministry, and various church outreach ministries.

This is a very healthy example of the doctrine of ecclesiology as the most definitional area of systematic theology. Represented at this meeting are men who are Arminian and Calvinistic, Textus Receptus and Eclectic Text, Chaferian sanctification and Reformed sanctification, who have different views on something as fundamental as the New Covenant and the church, and probably on also the work of the Holy Spirit in the OT, etc. In other words, they’re together on “Baptist,” but agree to disagree on a whole host of other issues. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But, perhaps some Baptist fundamentalists should realize this:

  • Men do exist who simply have a different definitional area of systematic theology which informs their doctrine of separation. This doesn’t mean they’re not fundamentalists. It just means they’re fundamentalists who are a bit different than you.

Food for thought. This stems from my own conviction that “fundamentalism” is less an identifiable movement, but a more militant philosophy and approach to the truth of the Gospel and the Scriptures. This entire discussion from Frontline’s latest issue has clarified my own thinking in this area.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

First, no one can deny that historically fundamentalists have been drawn mainly from the dispensationalist ranks. That is not to say ALL have been dispensationalists, but dispensationalism was and is a huge factor in fundamentalist history, especially Baptist fundamentalist history.

Second, Tyler mentions the Gospel Proclaimed Conference. I attended half of it and was privileged to hear Mike Harding preach on “Why Dispensationalist.” It was an outstanding message, delivered in full “fire hose as drinking fountain” mode, as only Mike can do. We ran the manuscript on P&D in three parts. If you are interested, here they are:

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

I wouldn’t say dispensationalism is a distinctive of fundamentalism, exactly, but it certainly is a mark of the FBFI and most Independent Baptists.

Finally, I’d have to agree with this comment Tyler made above:

[TylerR] This stems from my own conviction that “fundamentalism” is less an identifiable movement, but a more militant philosophy and approach to the truth of the Gospel and the Scriptures. This entire discussion from Frontline’s latest issue has clarified my own thinking in this area.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

When I think of Fundamentalism proper, I think of it as a big tent that is both denominationally and theologically diverse.

When I think of Baptist Fundamentalism, I recall significantly less diversity. One would assume that this would limit those who do not hold to Baptist distinctives, however, at least in Baptist Fundamentalism, it seems that dispensationalism has been made a distinctive. My question is this: is it possible to change this? I think many younger fundamentalists find the mantra “Premil, Pretrib, Baptist” a little off-putting, especially understanding that you can be an ardent Baptist and not be dispensational, that there is room for discussion on issues such as the timing of the rapture, maybe even the nature of the millennial reign of Christ.

Now I understand that the FBFI is committed to a dispensational hermeneutic. That’s great for them! But for those who either disagree with that system, or do not make that system a distinctive for themselves or their ministry, is there any room for them to fellowship within the FBFI? Would it be possible for the FBFI to be theologically diverse among evangelical, separatist, Baptists? If not, my next question is why not?

I think another thing that is attractive about “converging” with conservative evangelicals, is that they have fellowships that operate on the very basic tenants of the Christian faith. You have MacArthur speaking at Ligoner, Ligon Duncan speaking at the shepherds conference. I mean, they have even embraced Joel Beeke (Dutch reformed). And the draw of their conferences and fellowships is the big tent. Not a tent big enough to let error in on the fundamentals, but a tent big enough to allow organized and coordinated fellowship and cobeligerance (sp?) over the things that really matter.

While dispensational theology may still hold sway with the majority of fundamentalists, making that a distinctive of fundamentalism is quickly becoming the position of yesterday.

Phil Golden

You wrote:

You have MacArthur speaking at Ligoner, Ligon Duncan speaking at the shepherds conference. I mean, they have even embraced Joel Beeke (Dutch reformed). And the draw of their conferences and fellowships is the big tent. Not a tent big enough to let error in on the fundamentals, but a tent big enough to allow organized and coordinated fellowship and cobeligerance (sp?) over the things that really matter.

I’ll take this opportunity to beat an already dying horse, but I think you see this level of cooperation because, for these men, being Reformed is the most definitional area of systematic theology for them. That means they’re willing to tolerate different approaches to ecclesiology (for example) in favor of being “on the same page” with soteriology and theology proper. This is precisely the same as Baptists at the “Gospel Proclaimed” conference being able to tolerate all kinds of other doctrinal deviations in favor of a shared eschatology and ecclesiology.

I believe many in the younger generation of Baptist fundamentalists do not see being “B”aptist as the definitional area of their systematic theology. Instead, for many of them, the definitional area is being “R”eformed in their soteriology and theology proper. They implement the doctrine of separation accordingly. Some Baptist fundamentalists seem to take exception to this.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

[Don Johnson] First, no one can deny that historically fundamentalists have been drawn mainly from the dispensationalist ranks. That is not to say ALL have been dispensationalists, but dispensationalism was and is a huge factor in fundamentalist history, especially Baptist fundamentalist history.

I don’t know if this comment is aimed at my earlier one, but yes, that is true. Dispensationalism is a huge part of traditional Baptist Fundamentalism, which is the ‘stream’ that I would place myself in.

What I am saying is that it is possible for true Fundamentalism to exist with all kinds of dispensational positions. A cursory review of the original Fundamentals volumes will bear that out…I seem to recall an article arguing for the AMillennial position by an author, but I didn’t see that one in the articles that ran on SI.

"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

I’m noticing that people are still asking what a “convergent” person is. Again, you want to argue against something, or for something for that matter, it helps to define it.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.