Dr. Bob Jones III statements about the gospel in chapel today

I think he clarified his statement adequately. I was understanding him to mean that the Christian life isn't just about the gospel/salvation. There is much in the NT about living a fruitful Christian life which involves more than just 'being saved' or giving the Gospel message. Paul quite often rebukes behavior, so why shouldn't we?

.
It seems to me that folks love to talk about how 'man looks on the outward appearance but the Lord looks on the heart', and it's usually used in a way to excuse some kind of questionable behavior or activity. But we have an obligation to our fellow man to realize that since they can't see our hearts, we need to have something of our visible conversation reflecting what is inside. And I beg to differ that someone can have a heart full of the fruits of the Spirit and Godliness not be evident in one's life.

What we treasure will be evident in how we spend our time, energy, and money. Dr. Bob also uses the example of a church that uses sex to 'sell' its message. They'd just love Jack Schaap, wouldn't they? The bottom line is that we are never given permission or an example in Scripture of the church using cultural practices to draw a crowd, especially something as asinine as rock concerts, tattoos and body piercing. However, when you criticize such things, the retort is "But we are giving them the Gospel!" As if because we choose not to stoop to such base tactics we are somehow denying people access to the Gospel. Puhlease.

It is the Holy Spirit that does the work anyway- IMO when we use extreme methods to 'reach' people, we are communicating that the poor little 'ol Holy Spirit needs a big leg up from us. I don't think so.

I am pretty sure he meant what he said. There is a big difference between 'the Gospel' as promoted by the Conservative Evangelicals and their Fundie fans and 'the Faith' that Jude and the apostles describe.

You would do better to let a man speak for himself and not try to put words in his mouth.

James,

This is unChristian and unacceptable. Surely you do not wish people to deal with your words and actions in this manner, so I would hope you would refrain from doing it to others in the future.

In Christ,

Pastor Frank Sansone

James,

The comment I was referring to was mainly this last part:

"Further, if I lie about what others teach it is okay."

You are simply wrong about that and you have said things like that in the past.

First of all, the person who spoke in chapel today was Dr. Bob Jones, III. The situation you are referring to refers to Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. Two different individuals.

Second of all, even if you were not dealing with the wrong person, your comment is wrong. You should really do some research yourself instead of taking the very simplistic view of the issue that you have taken. May I suggest you do a search on the topic in the SI archives. There was a pretty good thread a few years ago that went beyond the one-sided presentation that is usually given. Notice especially the comments made by Larry Rogier in this context, as they help to bring some clarification to the issue.

Third of all, there is a difference between an inaccurate understanding of what someone has said and lying about what someone has said. In a previous thread, you sinfully judged the motive of Dr. Bob for the comment - indicating it was done in some type of attempt to gain students, etc. (Can't find the exact quote.)

James, he's right. The "lie" bit is out of line.
A bit busy tonight, but we may edit that out shortly.

As for the idea that the gospel is not an adequate criterion for separation, that views been around for a while. Mark Minnick was definitely advocating something similar at the PTTC in Troy in Jan. That is, he wanted to say it's "the gospel" but wanted to define the gospel quite expansively.
But bear in mind that even Kevin Bauder--who is probably among those BJIII had in mind--doesn't use "gospel" in the narrowest possible sense as the boundary of Christian fellowship/separation. The narrowest possible sense would be to take the couple of propositions in 1Cor.15:1,2,3 & 4 and say that's it (Jesus died for sinners and rose again).

But Bauder has argued more than once that it is also necessary to include "necessary inferences" from the gospel or ideas essential to it. I'm not sure I've seen him give an exhaustive list of these anywhere. But it is more than some include when they speak of the gospel as the boundary (so maybe BJIII is thinking more of the T4G and Gospel Coalition folks. Not sure. Haven't heard the audio yet.)

Personally, the for the sake of coming as close as possible to using a single meaning for a single term, I like to use "gospel" for the 1Cor.15:1-4 nucleus and other terms for the rest. So I guess I'm also among those who would say "the gospel is not a sufficient boundary."

But when it comes to disobedient brethren, doesn't pretty much everybody believe the gospel is not a sufficient boundary? I mean, everybody who believes in separation from disobedient brethren at all believes a brother can affirm the gospel yet be disobedient and need to be separated from. Even those who read 2Thess 3.6 as applying only to people who don't work believe you can hold to the gospel, refuse to work and need to be separated from.

So I think what BJIII is really getting at is a variation of "Some do not include enough in their grounds-for-separation standard." Of course, this is true. Some don't. But we're never all going to agree on what should be included and what shouldn't. Using the term "gospel" doesn't really solve the problem since we dispute what all needs to be included under that term. So... it's not really about that.
The fact is that we do not have a crystal clear exhaustive list in Scripture of what ought to be separated over and how and when. And people who love the Bible are going to have to learn to accept that this is an unavoidable reality and give each other some respect as we differ.

Edit:
Louise... (and James K) this thread is not about perceived false statements by BJIII. Let's leave that topic alone here. If you want to make a thread out of that, post it fully documented or leave the accusation unsaid.

I did not use the term "true gospel." Scripture also uses the term "gospel" more broadly in several places. I'll hunt down a few examples. Though I prefer to use "gospel" for the core ideas in 1Cor.15:1-4, I don't take the view that it's "incorrect" to use the term more broadly. I think it would be nice if we could all use it more precisely, but those who are less narrow do have biblical precedent for that.

Of course, they still need to be clear about what the content of saving faith is. I'm quite confident that BJIII is not unclear about that if you listen to him on a regular basis (which I once did for several years). Similarly, when Minnick was speaking on the subject at PTTC, he was crystal clear on that point, repeatedly emphasizing that there is a pretty small set of ideas that form the content of what one must believe to be justified. But he wanted to use "gospel" to include more than that. At the time, his argument was based mostly on the use of "gospel" in the introductions of a couple of the 4 Gospels. His reasoning was that the gospel is everything connected with Jesus Christ and His teaching. I guess Mark 1.1 is the only one of the 4 that uses the term. But among his thoughts was a comparison of Mark 1.1 with Acts 1.1 "all that Jesus began to do and teach."

We also have the term "gospel" used repeatedly in the Gospels for the announcement of the kingdom. I am not among those who would call this a different gospel but I do believe it's a significantly differently point of view on the gospel and certainly doesn't match 1Cor.15.1-4.

Rom. 2:16 also refers to judgment as "according to my gospel." This is a truth that does not appear in 1Cor.15

All that to say that there is ample biblical precedent for using "gospel" more broadly than "what you have to believe to be justified" or, per 1Cor, "Jesus died for sinners and rose again." And insofar as BJ's point is that focusing on the core can lead to neglect of the implications, he's exactly right. KBauder has made the same argument.

As for repeating hearsay, at least he noted that the information is suspect. He did not repeat it as fact if he noted that it was hearsay.
I'm not really in a position to know if it's accurate or not.

I hasten to note that the phrase "faith of the gospel" comes from Php 1.27

If Bob's point is that those who only want the gospel to be a test, then he would be right. If you go beyond conversion though, what doctrinal issues would be next: baptism, Lord's Supper, eschatology, polity, gender roles, creation, etc?

Actually, before we get there how much doctrine about the gospel itself should one enforce? Should those who reject the Lordship of Christ be considered as brothers?

Fundamentalism never made it far enough to satisfactorily deal with those questions.

It isn't enough to just be a fundamentalist. That is an adjective, not a noun.

The problem is slander. There is no emergent movement in the PCA. Name one PCA seminary professor whose emergent. None? OK, well, make your list of the 10 most influential people in the PCA, and then see how many are emergent. Still none. I posted BJU3's audio on a Reformed site composed of guys who are on the extreme conservative side of Reformed theology, many too conservative for the PCA, and they laughed at his comments. Laughed.

I'll also note that even some people who aren't happy with the PCA Strategic Plan, haven't called it emergent. No form of the word emergent appeared in the Aquila Report article. You can look up the people who wrote the plan, and none of them are emergent. By the way, the heart of the Strategic Plan, the new funding scheme, failed to be ratified, so it's a moot point.

I doubt that BJ3 makes his ecclesiastical digs randomly. The PCA is a major threat to his constituency. Several faculty members have left in the last few years and relocated to the PCA. BJU grads are pouring into the local PCA churches, and dozens of students are sneaking out to them. Lots of ministerial students, even ones from big BJU-supporting area churches, are electing RTS and other Reformed seminaries rather than Fundamentalist ones. Casting doubt using vague but scary claims is a longstanding Fundy practice. It's a scare tactic designed to discourage curiosity, and I heard it used over and over at BJU.

By the way, did anyone notice that the same group that's being accused of being "gospel-only" is being accused of preferring people over gospel?

Larry, do listen to the audio. BJ3's statements were that 1) a PCA pastor publicly stated that he'd rather preach a partial gospel if it got him a bigger church, 2) there is a noticeable emergent faction in the PCA, and 3) it is growing, such that conservatives in the PCA are wondering if they will have to separate again like they did from the PCUSA. Additionally, the implication was that this pastor's statement was not entirely out-of-place for the PCA.

Those are huge accusations. They were presented without a shred of evidence. My response was not a legal brief, but it should serve as a good starting point for exposing false claims. I know the PCA pretty well; I read its magazine, I read its presbytery minutes, I peruse its blogs, and I have spoken with a good number of the influential pastors and seminary professors. I read the Strategic Plan when it was presented and followed the commentary. When I first heard BJ3's comments, I immediately thought they he was entirely wrong, completely baseless. I checked in at this other site because the people there are known for nit-picking problems in the PCA. Many of the members are pastors, elders, deacons, and seminarians in NAPARC denominations. Not a single person stepped up to say they knew of any emergent activity in the PCA. The closest thing mentioned was some churches affiliated with Acts 29, which isn't really emergent. I checked with a few pastor friends, who denied the claims made by BJ3. Furthermore, no one knows anything about this supposedly unorthodox pastor, even though BJ3 said that the pastor made the statement publicly.

Discontents leaving the PCA generally do so because it isn't Reformed enough for their tastes - doesn't practice exclusive psalmnody, celebrates church calendar, uses musical instruments, doesn't move fast enough removing Federal Vision advocates, too involved in politics, not strong enough in enforcing the WCF, etc.

Now, what is clear is that a man trashed a denomination from his pulpit, and he did so based on nothing but questionable hearsay. Where lies the burden of proof? Until it is met, and it will not be met, he is guilty either of malicious intent or poor judgment, or both.

This discussion really has me scratching my head.

Does anyone live by the standard we're being told BJ3 has to live by here? What I mean is, people in leadership make judgments on the basis of the information available to them, and they share their judgments with those under their care when they believe it's important for them to know.
On a non-leadership level, people conversationally express judgments all the time. "The Packers are no good this year. That new QB just doesn't have the talent of a Brett Favre." And they turn out to be wrong all the time as well. So where's everybody pointing the finger and crying slander! Dishonesty! False witness!

I personally think it's unlikely that there are no PCA pastors who are jumping on the emergent bandwagon. BJ3, in his message, cites a first hand eye witness. He didn't see it himself, no, but how much better info can you get than someone who was there? Is it "hearsay" etc. when a reporter says "Bill Smith reports that he saw John Doe shoot the mailman"? Is it bearing false witness if I report to the Police, "Bill Smith says he saw John Doe shoot the mailman and I believe him"? Kind of depends on who Bill is and how well I know him, don't you think? Maybe I have no reason to doubt him and his firsthand observation is--in my eyes--just as good as seeing it myself.

So take all that and add in the fact that "emergent" is a term many use without 100% clear understanding of what it means (if a 100% clear understanding of such a constantly shifting thing is even possible!).
At worst, BJ3 is doing here what the BJU pulpit did for many years with the term "new evangelical." There tends to be a term du jour for "what we see as compromise"--and usually some things that resemble what the term really means.
It's a regrettable lack of precision perhaps, and I may disagree with the conclusion, but this is well within the bounds of the kind of judgment a college pres./chancellor should be expected to express to his student body.

It might be good not to put it on SermonAudio, though! You tend to run into "intended audience" problems like a certain pastor in Indiana did a few weeks ago.

It's easy to fault leaders when you haven't been in a position where you had an organization you felt deeply responsible to warn and teach... as a pres., chancellor, pastor or something similar.

Edit: Charlie-- didn't notice your latest post before. It's not clear to me that the specific case he mentions is intended to argue that the PCA is going emergent or is intended to illustrate "the kind of church you should avoid" which is more the point of his message. But he does talk about a "growing" movement toward emergent and that some pastors are wrestling about staying in as a result. Seems to me he stops short of saying it's a large number. But I get the impression he's heard from a few PCA pastors who have exactly the impression he's referring to.
But I think it's quite likely that "emergent" is not quite the right term.
I'm pretty sure BJ3 is a good bit more averse to things resembling "social gospel" than even I am--and that's saying alot. So he's probably thinking "looks like social gospel = looks like emergent." There is overlap.

Are we supposed to take his comment about the emergent church seriously? I mean the whole emergent/emerging movement is considered dead by most evangelicals (check out this amusing obituary on the emergent church http://djword.blogspot.com/2010/01/obituary-for-emerging-church.html)
except for in the minds of the tabloid bloggers such as Ken Silva (who needs them as his adversary so that he can continue his discernment "ministry") and self-professed emergents such as Tony Jones that don't want to admit that it has run its course.

I guess I find it slightly amusing when fundamentalist leaders try to warn their people of current trends that are not current, which in this case could be the result as Aaron observes, "its quite likely that emergent is not quite the right term."

Joel,

I think the emerging ideas are far from over though any sort of "organization" is, for the most part, over. In fact, as the years progress, they will probably gain more attention because of the kind of ideas they are. The emerging church is, to a large degree, the resurgence of old liberalism with a sort of mystical slant to it. I doubt these issues will go away. So even if we do not label it "emergent," we will still have to deal with ideas like the definition of the gospel, the nature of the church, bibliology, etc.

Of course, I also think that people use "emerging" and "emergent" without any actual idea of what it is.