Preserving the Truth: An Interview with Mike Harding about the January Conference
A Fresh Look at Biblical Separation
Q: My impression is that the Preserving the Truth conference is a brand new event. Am I right about that?
A: Yes!
Q: Where did the idea for a “Preserving the Truth” conference come from and why that particular emphasis?
A: The idea for this conference originated with myself and a group of pastors that I have worked with over the years. We are concerned that the next generation of young ministers appreciate the principles and applications of biblical separatism without falling prey to the doctrinal error that exists in some quarters of fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Every other year Dr. Doran has an excellent missions conference for young people entitled SGI (Students for Global Impact) which we strongly support. We thought this conference could provide a complementary emphasis for our college students, singles, and ministerial students during the off years.
Q: There are already lots of conferences going on. What’s different about this one (in addition to differences you may have already mentioned)?
A: We are attempting to provide an avenue to teach biblical separation in the context of a sound, biblically accurate, theologically astute environment. We have invited some very bright and articulate separatists who have years of ministerial experience such as Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Mark Minnick, and Bruce Compton as well as younger separatists such as Matthew Postiff, Scott Aniol, Mike Riley, and Chris Anderson.
Q: I noticed that the subtopic/theme of the conference is “A symposium on biblical separation.” Why that particular topic as a starting point and what can you tell us about the “symposium” format?
A: All the speakers will be invited to participate in a discussion time regarding the specific topics addressed during the conference. Furthermore, the topic of biblical separation will be applied to specific areas including the gospel, personal holiness, non-cessationism, the translation debate, the disobedient brother, and worship.
Q: I expect to hear this criticism eventually: would it be accurate to say this is a conference by and for Calvinists? What would you say to those who cite that as a problem with the event?
A: The theological framework for the conference is baptistic, dispensational, and Calvinistic. At the same time all of our speakers are strongly opposed to any form of hyper-Calvinism.
Q: Some of this information is at the website, but for those who don’t find their way to it, what are some of the subtopics that will be addressed under the “biblical separation” heading?
A: Dr. Matthew Postiff will address the importance of young earth creationism. I anticipate that a literal interpretation of the Genesis account will be “re-interpreted” by those in religious circles once known for their conservative, separatist principles. The subject of worship will be addressed by Chris Anderson and Scott Aniol from a conservative framework. Though we don’t believe in traditionalism, we are concerned that an overt pragmatism and experience-oriented worship will do great damage to the Christian church. Regarding apologetics, most believers have bought into some form of evidentialism and have unwittingly forgotten the most fundamental presupposition of our faith—that the one true and living God has self-attestingly revealed himself through the sixty-six inscripturated books of the Bible. Mike Riley, who is finishing his doctorate on this very subject, will address the separatist implications of both positions.
True separatists are also concerned about identifying a genuine disobedient brother. This is a difficult topic with far-reaching implications. Dr. Bruce Compton has done excellent exegetical work on this subject and will present his findings. In addition, he will speak on the significant dangers inherent in non-cessationism. Additionally, Dr. Doran is very concerned that some separatists have ignored the doctrinal aberrations involved in the translation debate. He will address where the lines should be drawn and how we should react to those who have clearly stepped over the lines.
I have asked Dr. Minnick to address the issue of the gospel itself. I am convinced that the biblical concepts of belief, repentance and the person and work of Christ have been compromised today. We can’t have gospel-driven separation unless we can define the gospel carefully and completely. Finally, Dr. Bauder will address the issue of a fundamentalism worth saving in two general sessions. The obvious implication is that there is a type of “fundamentalism” not worth saving.
Q: At the conference website, I noticed some perks for young guys—discounted registration, free housing—and I see at least one “younger” guy on the speaker schedule (Chris Anderson). Has there been an intentional effort to bring younger and older together at this event? How important is that in your view?
A: We have purposely invited four younger men to speak in order to encourage our younger men in college, seminary, and ministry. I have a heart for these men and appreciate them very much. We are presenting young men who love God, love truth, and work hard in their ministerial preparation. May their tribe increase!
Q: Do you think the conference has much potential to draw folks who don’t necessarily consider themselves “fundamentalists” and stimulate their thinking about biblical separation?
A: I certainly hope so. The doctrine of biblical separation has been greatly neglected. My desire is to expose men even from different circles in order to encourage them to become biblical separatists.
Q: I see that Kevin Bauder is scheduled to do two sessions on “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving.” Do you believe fundamentalism is still disintegrating and degenerating or has it finally “hit bottom” and begun to develop in a more positive direction—or what? What’s your estimation of its condition and future?
A: I am a fundamentalist. However, I agree that the “movement” has lost definition and purpose. Nevertheless, I personally believe that fundamentalism both as a movement and an idea is worth saving. Most important, however, is that the ideas championed by historical, biblical fundamentalism continue to be proclaimed with a spirit of godly aggressiveness and also be protected with a passion for biblical separatism.
Q: There has been some controversy about Calvary Seminary’s decision to invite Mark Dever to speak at their Advancing the Church conference. What are your thoughts on that?
A: My opinion is that Mark Dever has written some excellent material regarding the local church, is known as a serious expositor of God’s Word, has a conservative approach to worship in his church, and has taken some difficult stands within the SBC. On the other hand, I was very disappointed with his interview on Christian “rap” and his bizarre comment regarding the sinfulness of including millennial views in one’s church constitution. Mark represents some of the best men in the SBC; however, there are too many problems with the SBC for me to invite one of its pastors to my pulpit.
I have read Dave Doran’s explanation of why he is speaking at Tim’s conference, and I accept it. I believe Dave is a man of discernment. My greater concern, however, is the growing acceptance of the missional church model for church planting. I believe it will lead to the social gospel. Dr. Doran and the DBTS professors are addressing this issue at the Mid-America Conference on Preaching this October. This conference is a must for pastors.
Q: One of my concerns is how to reach fundamentalist believers and leaders that are, shall we say, “to our right,” and influence them toward a better biblical balance. Do you have any thoughts on that?
A: My greatest concern for our fundamental brethren is that they become careful students of Scripture, better expositional preachers, take systematic and exegetical theology very seriously, and be more fair minded toward good theologians who are not in our circles. Biblical separatism has its foundation in exegetical, biblical, and systematic theology. Without that foundation one has no idea what violations are worthy of separation. Thus, some to our right are very sincere in their separatist stand; nevertheless, in some cases they are taking their stand on very tenuous ground.
Q: Whom do you mainly hope to reach with the conference? Can you give me a brief profile?
A: The conference is for everyone. We would be thrilled if those who have attended SGI would also attend PTC. I think our conference will contribute to an excellent balance emphasizing both truth and mission.
Q: Any final words you’d like to aim at folks considering attending to persuade them to come?
A: The men speaking at our conference have the ability to help us understand the nuances in the fundamental and evangelical world. Impulsive and uninformed responses to the current ecclesiastical landscape produce compromise on the one hand or extremism on the other hand. We hope to avoid both. Our speakers are the kind of men who will encourage us to be separatist theologians and mission-minded servants, believing that biblical truth is our ultimate guide.
Mike Harding Bio
Mike Harding (MA, MDiv) has served as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Troy, Michigan since 1985. He holds BA and MA degrees from Bob Jones Univ. and MDiv and ThM degrees from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. He and his wife, Jennifer, have four children.
- 73 views
Preserving The Truth: Answering Popular Questions of the 1930’s
Peripheral Truths: Highlighting the Non-Essentials of the Faith
Preserving Your Pulpit: Using Theology to Limit the Size and Influence of Your Church
Missing the Truth: How to Subjugate the Core Teachings of Scripture to Separatism
Corner on Truth: A Gathering for those with Elijah’s “I’m the Only One Left” Syndrome
There is much discussion on this site as to why historic conservative fundamentalism consistently loses men and women to a conservative evangelical worldview. This conference highlights some of the reasoning. Why do we promote things Jesus didn’t promote? Why do we lead with things Paul taught to hold as a last resort? Why does fundamentalism continue to be reactionary? “T4G and Gospel Coalition and SBC are ok, but not pure like us. Let’s have our own conference to highlight our doctrinal purity.”
The once powerful bite of historic fundamentalism now soaks in a Polident-filled glass brought out occasionally to speak to the challenges of yesteryear with little regard for culture’s current issues or mainstream Christianity’s current direction.
[Mike Harding]…the topic of biblical separation will be applied to specific areas including the gospel, personal holiness, non-cessationism, the translation debate, the disobedient brother, and worship.I will be looking forward to this, and hope to attend. The case for separation on one of these is written in stone. What could be more central to the faith, for instance, than the gospel?
The case for a few becomes a bit more muddy, does it not? On several of them (non-cessationism, translations, worship), the reasons and principles by which another group of believers arrive at their conclusions are almost more important than what they conclude, in my opinion. “Is there a Biblical thought process going on here?”, with a description of what it is, is far more important than “Are their conclusions the same as ours?”
The disobedient brother is another than fascinates me. Where does it stop becoming “disagreement” and begin becoming “disobedience”? Given autonomy of the local church, what are the “notification” obligations, if any, to a brother pastor or evangelist or college president that he has become disobedient? How is the confrontation managed? If there is no such confrontation, a la Matthew 18:15-17, why not?
I hope that these questions will be answered, along with many others.
2) “Q: Do you think the conference has much potential to draw folks who don’t necessarily consider themselves “fundamentalists” and stimulate their thinking about biblical separation?
A: I certainly hope so. The doctrine of biblical separation has been greatly neglected. My desire is to expose men even from different circles in order to encourage them to become biblical separatists”.
I hope this is true. But in order for it to be so, the conference would have to be targeted and marketed in a very specific way. Also, when “Pastor Joe” from the EFCA, IFCA, CMA, PCA, SBC, ABC, CRC, UMC or community church, etc., shows up, are they going to call him by his title, honor his ministry and truly seek to establish him in his pastoral ministry? (I saw that done recently at AiG’s Answers for Pastors conference, and it made for a very interesting dynamic!) Now if that were really done in this context, things could get REALLY interesting!
3) Micah — wow!! Coffee a little strong this morning?? 8-)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
That being said, it should be asked if a certain millennial view is required for church membership. It does not mean a church or pastor cannot have a view (Dever does) but whether a church requires uniformity in that area of doctrine. I would not say it is sin to have a millennial view but in our church a particular view is not a requirement for church membership. Do we ask new converts to agree to a doctrinal statement in detail that they cannot yet understand in order to join? I think not. Most guys I know planting churches don’t have a millennial view in their statement of faith. Many pastors wish they didn’t.
Concerning the topics, I wonder if “young earth creationism” is or is going to be made a separation issue. Has that been the case with historic fundamentalism? I can’t answer that. Maybe they can. I understand Mike’s point “that a literal interpretation of the Genesis account will be “re-interpreted” by those in religious circles once known for their conservative, separatist principles” but am not sure where that is happening. Of course this assumes that all other positions besides YEC are not literal. I can see making the argument for the six 24 hour day interpretation but fail to see how that demands YEC. Does a belief in a 6-10,000 year old earth have unambiguous scriptural support? I don’t’ see that. Anyway, I look forward to the hearing these presentations.
Mike expresses great concern about “the growing acceptance of the missional church model for church planting.” I don’t know if that is a subject that will be treated. If so, hopefully there will be church planters’ perspectives. I am not aware of “the” missional model for church planting since the term is as broad as “fundamentalism.” There may be some forms of missional which, in Mike’s words, “will lead to the social gospel.” There are societal implications but I remain skeptical that missional leads to the social gospel. Here’s an excerpt from a blog I recently posted on http://www.urbanmissional.com/2010/10/03/5k-on-sunday/#more-21
The theological framework for the conference is baptistic, dispensational, and Calvinistic.Since this is not so much about what fundamentalism was but what it maybe should be or will be, I wonder if these baptist men will actually and finally call for separation from those who practice infant baptism, since they are disobedient brethren.
It will be interesting to see if they actually apply their theology across the board or if they will shrink back. I am a hopeful person, so I hope they advance their application to actual NT standards as well.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[Steve Davis] As God sent His Son into the world, as Father and Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world, so Father, Son, and Holy Spirit send the Church into the world. The church is on mission daily and not only when gathered on Sunday. God’s people are in the world, in their communities, in the lives of unbelievers – for the gospel’s sake, to make Christ known, to be a visible expression of God’s power and proclamation.Steve,
What Scripture do you base this on? While it is well-written and sounds logical, I see numerous problems with it Biblically.
I think the concern Harding is addressing is the fact that many of the “younger guys” within fundamentalism — enamored with Piper and Dever, but without adequate theological grounding to evaluate their perspectives and arguments — buy into things like the use of the word “missional” because it sounds good and is something different than the frumpy fundamentalism of the past.
(I would rather they open their eyes to the exciting worlds of creationism, dispensationalism, Bible prophecy, Biblical worldview, etc., and accept those alternatives to the froth of the past.H:))
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
We have to ask ourselves why, in your word, younger guys are “enamored” with men like Piper and Dever. I wouldn’t describe it that way and it’s not only younger guys who have found something refreshing. You seem to assume that with adequate theological grounding guys would not buy into things like “missional.” I affirm that “missional” not only sounds good but is good when rightly understood. And missional does not neglect the other “worlds” you mention. But these “worlds” are often views - prophecy for example - which have their place but are the subject of far too much speculation, posturing, and positions that go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture. Attaching “biblical” to prophecy doesn’t make it so.
In my opinion a conference like this may keep some in but won’t bring any back and may send others on their way to be enamored elsewhere.
I do not believe that the church has an incarnational ministry in the world which mimics the incarnation of Christ as God in human flesh. Phil. 3:20, 21 and many other passages would seem to offer a different slant to the entire issue. To me, the “missional” (incarnational) approach ties directly to Covenant Theology, Theonomy and postmillennialism. I am sure the subject is bigger than we can solve here in short order. “Mission,” like prophecy, is also a view with a variety of interpretations.
[Steve Davis] We have to ask ourselves why, in your word, younger guys are “enamored” with men like Piper and Dever.Because much of what they have seen in fundamentalism in the past is inadequate — sub-standard preaching by men untrained in exposition and theology; unbiblical, altar call-heavy, evangelism-centered ministry; preaching on extra-biblical standards and theological oddities; mind-bending legalism, etc. We probably agree on many of the ailments, but disagree on the cure.
[Steve Davis] You seem to assume that with adequate theological grounding guys would not buy into things like “missional.”Yes. My thing is — if you want to be Reformed, be Reformed! We will still be friends :D. But don’t tell me about a 22-year-old young fundamentalist, who may or may not have had adequate teaching in Bible college even to the point he is at, who has tried dispensationalism and found it wanting — and is now heading off to the land of Piper and Dever. He may be rejecting the froth of the past (see above), but he is either untaught or ill-prepared to make the decision to reject other things (like creationism or dispensationalism) that he thinks are intrinsic to said froth, and that makes me sad :cry:.
IOW, have they really accepted Piper and his Reformed Theology Biblically, or because it is popular? And where will they go next? And I should listen to their reasoning — for what reason again? :tired:
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
A question, if you don’t mind.
You talk about the issues being addressed at this conference as being “challenges of yesteryear” rather than “current issues” or a “current direction.”
Here is the list of issues Harding gives: “the gospel, personal holiness, non-cessationism, the translation debate, the disobedient brother, and worship.” He later includes the missional movement.
In your view, which of those issues is not an issue of current debate in evangelicalism?
[dmicah] I have some suggestions for names for this conference:I think you’ve misread these guys. Do you know them? I’d just say go and see. You may be very surprised. This is not the obsess-on-the-past corner of fundamentalism.
Preserving The Truth: Answering Popular Questions of the 1930’s
Peripheral Truths: Highlighting the Non-Essentials of the Faith
Preserving Your Pulpit: Using Theology to Limit the Size and Influence of Your Church
Missing the Truth: How to Subjugate the Core Teachings of Scripture to Separatism
Corner on Truth: A Gathering for those with Elijah’s “I’m the Only One Left” Syndrome
Missing the Truth: How to Subjugate the Core Teachings of Scripture to Separatism
Corner on Truth: A Gathering for those with Elijah’s “I’m the Only One Left” Syndrome
There is much discussion on this site as to why historic conservative fundamentalism consistently loses men and women to a conservative evangelical worldview. This conference highlights some of the reasoning. Why do we promote things Jesus didn’t promote? Why do we lead with things Paul taught to hold as a last resort? Why does fundamentalism continue to be reactionary? “T4G and Gospel Coalition and SBC are ok, but not pure like us. Let’s have our own conference to highlight our doctrinal purity.”
The once powerful bite of historic fundamentalism now soaks in a Polident-filled glass brought out occasionally to speak to the challenges of yesteryear with little regard for culture’s current issues or mainstream Christianity’s current direction.
As for promoting things Jesus did not promote and leading with things Paul taught as a last resort, I think this partly misjudges Jesus and Paul but mostly misjudges these fundamentalists. What they lead with is what they’re doing the other 363 days of the year. This conference is aimed at particular problems and approaches them differently than they’ve been approached a good of the time in the past. It’s aimed at the future.
“To highlight our doctrinal purity”… do you think that might be a slightly cynical way to characterize their motives?
Preserving Your Pulpit: Using Theology to Limit the Size and Influence of Your ChurchI’m not sure what you mean by this one. The theology is erroneous? The delivery is boring? Barring that, how can theology limit the influence of a church? Size.. alas, yes. It can limit that! But influence and size don’t correlate because “influence” occurs when ideas are dismissed and rejected as well as when they are welcomed and embraced. The task is to expose folks to “all things that I have commanded you,” and the results are not really our department.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Paul J. Scharf]At least at the early stages of a movement’s growth, it isn’t possible to accept because it is popular. ‘Popular’ is a word we use to denote something that is currently being accepted by many people. Perhaps the Reformed resurgence has gained enough momentum to draw in people based on its perceived growth, but that would just put the question back a few years. From where did this popularity spring?
IOW, have they really accepted Piper and his Reformed Theology Biblically, or because it is popular? And where will they go next? And I should listen to their reasoning — for what reason again? :tired:
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] Perhaps the Reformed resurgence has gained enough momentum to draw in people based on its perceived growth, but that would just put the question back a few years. From where did this popularity spring?Charlie,
I am not sure I have the answer to your profound question. Is it possible that initially the fundamentalists were trying to beat something with nothing and the Reformed resurgence was there to fill the void? This thing has been building for quite a while.
I look at the guys I went to Bible college with who were ministerial/Bible-type students, and it would not take me long to go down the list of names of those who are still within the orbit they started in. The rest have moved on to either Reformed, Seeker, Emergent, Purpose-Driven or some other realm.
In some cases, they either never attended seminary, or made their jump before going to a seminary of a different stripe. Thus, they may not have truly understood what they were leaving behind.
What turned them off was not six-day creationism or the church being separate from Israel, but in most cases it was growing up in a church/school where they had to wear a tie six days a week, use the KJV, spend 300 hours per year in church and avoid theaters.
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Paul J. Scharf] Steve,Hi Paul:
I do not believe that the church has an incarnational ministry in the world which mimics the incarnation of Christ as God in human flesh. Phil. 3:20, 21 and many other passages would seem to offer a different slant to the entire issue. To me, the “missional” (incarnational) approach ties directly to Covenant Theology, Theonomy and postmillennialism. I am sure the subject is bigger than we can solve here in short order. “Mission,” like prophecy, is also a view with a variety of interpretations.
“Incarnational” is another word that some like to beat up on. We use it in urban church planting, for example, to explain why church planters should live in the community where they minister rather than living in the suburbs and traveling into the city for church services. Incarnational Christians desire to be visible in their community, involved in their community for the gospel’s sake. I often challenge pastors to ask their people how many contacts or relationships are being made or built with the unsaved. To whom are they speaking the words of life on a regular basis? When was the last time they sat down for a meal or conversation with a lost person? I’ve had pastors tell me that they can go for weeks without witnessing to an unbeliever. If people don’t like the term incarnational, that’s fine. What is important is what they are doing to engage the lost with the good news. When I hear criticism of “missional” or “incarnational” it sounds like critics are speaking a different language and/or are certainly in a different context.
Of course we can’t mimic the incarnation of Jesus Christ, God in human flesh. But I fail to see how heavenly citizenship (Phil. 3:20, 21) absolves us of earthly responsibilities. We are not destined for eternity in heaven as disembodied spirits but destined in resurrection bodies for a new heaven and a new earth.
At our church we use TRIM to help people understand our core values undergirded by our commitment to the gospel.
Transformational - Prayerfully depending on the power of God’s Word and the Holy Spirit to transform any life.
Relational - Joyfully offering love and grace to everyone regardless of where they are on their spiritual journey.
Incarnational - Practically living out the gospel of grace within the culture.
Missional - Intentionally committed to engage those who do not know or misunderstand Jesus.
Steve
Separation is such and important doctrine, but it is not the only doctrine. I think one of the problems in fundamentalism is that this doctrine is raised to a level and given more attention than other teachings. When this happens, you get the extremes. You also get this problem of everybody trying to dictate to everyone else exactly how separatism ought to be implemented and division when everybody does not follow the ones trying to do the dictating.
[Charlie]I found this to be a great question, and I can at least answer for myself concerning the issue of “why enamored.” A few years ago (getting close to ten), I came into contact with Piper’s writing. It was an absolute breath of fresh air. Of course, when one becomes acquainted with Piper, he will then become acquainted with quite a few other individuals as well. One of those individuals was Jonathan Edwards. I began to read sermon after sermon from Jonathan Edwards, and I was utterly amazed at the level in which he delved in his sermons. I had only heard sermons like that from, maybe, seminary presidents or theology professors. I was shocked that a congregation could actually handle such teaching week after week. Edwards, though certainly embodying a difficult style to read, pushed me mentally. He made me think through various issues to a degree that none had ever done. In short I enjoyed, and still do to a great extent (only time prohibits now), the stretching I received from him. It was not difficult to see where Piper got a good chunk of his material from.[Paul J. Scharf]At least at the early stages of a movement’s growth, it isn’t possible to accept because it is popular. ‘Popular’ is a word we use to denote something that is currently being accepted by many people. Perhaps the Reformed resurgence has gained enough momentum to draw in people based on its perceived growth, but that would just put the question back a few years. From where did this popularity spring?
IOW, have they really accepted Piper and his Reformed Theology Biblically, or because it is popular? And where will they go next? And I should listen to their reasoning — for what reason again? :tired:
While Edwards stretched me, he and Piper did something much more. This is the point that I find the most significant! I repeat, the following is most significant!! Edwards and Piper not only shoved me, but they flung me headlong into a desire to get to know God more. Piper’s emphasis is “joy”, and so long as you interpret “joy” along the lines of loving God with all your being, then I think that you are getting Piper’s point. Edwards emphasizes (not that Piper does not) the affections being in play. A person is to have both the heat of affections and the light of a biblical understanding of God. In Iain (sp?) Murray’s book on Jonathan Edwards, I found a comment very profound. It was that Johnathan Edwards could have pursued almost any topic, discipline, or vocation that he wanted, and he could have been exceedingly proficient at it. However, he chose to study God because of His love for God. His relationship with “the Divine being” was the paramount relationship of his existence. Knowing God was his greatest pleasure.
One could go to Deuteronomy 6 and Matthew 22 and find that the main thing is to love God with all your being. These two men pointed me in a way, like no other, toward a passionate pursuit of God. No doubt, the men were clearly in conjunction with Scripture. God asks the question in Isaiah 40 (Holman), “ ‘Who will you compare Me to, or who is My equal?’ asks the Holy One.” In context, the question is the most rhetorical question that can possibly be asked. Of course, none can compare to the incomparably great God! None is His equal!
A huge detour is about to be made. A while back I was utterly blown away by a thread or front page article that basically called “Dispensationalism” the ultimate theology. Now, I’ve studied it, read the books; but NEVER would I ever call dispensationalism the chief theology. When I saw that thread it struck me at utterly wrong headed (sorry to whoever wrote it). It got the emphasis on the wrong thing in a huge way. Of course, the doctrine of God is dealt with to some degree in dispensationalism, but this doctrine is obviously not the main thing in the theology. Hours and hours, page after page is put into demonstrating that Israel is not the church, or that a literal hermeneutic (whatever that is) is the way to go. The sine qua nons are the main thing, not God. Perhaps, this just means that I’ve misunderstood dispensationalism, or I’ve been miss-taught it. If you are reading this as an argument against dispensationalism, then you are not reading it correctly. This is a statement on misplaced emphasis. Covenant, New Covenant, Progressive Disp, Revised Disp, Classical Disp, or Proto Disp does not matter if your doctrine of God is off. And then again, you can have a great doctrine of God (mentally), and have a knowledge of dispensationalism that would make Ryrie step back and pause, but if your heart is not aflame with a love for God and joy in His person, then all that knowledge is for naught.
Presently, I have not had hardly any interaction with Piper and Edwards for the past year or perhaps more.
People that know me would probably not say that I’m enamored with Piper or JE; they are men just like any other, to be taken with discernment (stating the exceedingly obvious). The point of this example is to provide one angle on an answer on why some are so enamored. This is not so much a response to anyone in particular, but it is a response to the question of “why enamored?” Charlie’s question, “From where did this popularity spring?” provided me the occasion to suggest this answer. I am trying to present the great contrast I see between flawed men who correctly present the Main One as the main thing, and other flawed men who elevate “perhaps good matters” to a status they should never every be in. If there is one issue where I 100% agree with Piper and Edwards on, God is to be loved, adored, cherished, and regarded as the incomparably great One that He is. None else compares, and this highlights my often utterly stupid idolatrous heart, and it also highlights His mind-blowing grace.
Discussion