Let's Get Clear On This

NickOfTime

A variety of electronic periodicals reach my inbox regularly. One that arrives nearly every day is published by a retired seminary professor. Most days I derive a great deal of pleasure and often profit from glancing through his cogitations.

Today’s number, however, evoked a bit of concern. The dear fellow was reprinting some criticisms that he had received. Here is what they said.

The oft-repeated mantra coming out of Dr. Piper and Dr. Storms is that it is impossible for human beings to enjoy too much pleasure. We are made for pleasure, but it’s the pleasure of enjoying God. These guys are full-bore new evangelicals and Piper is a hard line Calvinist…. Why are you promoting this sort of thing?

While I can appreciate many things coming out of Dr. Piper’s ministry, are you endorsing such a leading New Evangelical with no disclaimer?…I am sure you do not endorse the New Evangelicalism that is Dr. Piper’s ministry, but when we simply laud a New Evangelical by attending his conference and praising it, that is the result at the practical level.

These responses are typical of the way that some Fundamentalists view conservative evangelicals in general. These men apparently divide all American Christians into only two categories: Fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals. If a Christian leader is not recognized as a Fundamentalist, then he is considered to be a new evangelical, with all the opprobrium that follows.

This binary system of classification is far too simplistic. American Christianity never has been neatly divided between new evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Other groups have always existed, and one of them is the group that we now designate as conservative evangelicals.

Conservative evangelicalism encompasses a diverse spectrum of Christian leaders. Representatives include John Piper, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, Bruce Ware, Bryan Chapell, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, John D. Hannah, Ed Welch, Ligon Duncan, Tom Nettles, C. J. Mahaney, Norman Geisler, and R. C. Sproul. Conservative evangelical organizations include Together for the Gospel (T4G), the Gospel Coalition, the Master’s Seminary, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (at least in its better moments), and Ligonier Ministries. These individuals and organizations exhibit a remarkable range of differences, but they can be classed together because of their vigorous commitment to and defense of the gospel.

Both mainstream ecumenicals and Left-leaning evangelicals would like to classify these individuals as Fundamentalists. Conservative evangelicals, however, do not perceive themselves as Fundamentalists. Most Fundamentalists also recognize some differences. While there are similarities between them, enough differences remain that Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals ought to be distinguished from each other.

What are those differences? Anti-dispensationalism seems to be more widely characteristic of conservative evangelicalism than it is of Fundamentalism, though it is less vitriolic than the anti-Calvinism of some Fundamentalists. Toleration of Third-Wave charismatic theology is widely accepted among conservative evangelicals but universally rejected among Fundamentalists. Conservative evangelicals are willing to accommodate the more contemporary versions of popular culture, while Fundamentalists restrict themselves to older manifestations. Most importantly, Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals still do not agree about what to do with Christian leaders who make common cause with apostates.

Conservative evangelicals are different from Fundamentalists, but they are not new evangelicals. New evangelicals were committed to a policy of re-infiltrating ecclesiastical organizations that had been captured by apostates. They wanted to live in peaceful coexistence with apostasy. They were willing to recognize certain apostates as fellow-Christians and to cooperate with them in the Lord’s work. These are attitudes that conservative evangelicals explicitly reject. To apply this label to a conservative evangelical is completely unwarranted.

Frankly, conservative evangelicals do seem to take doctrine more seriously today than many Fundamentalists do. Not that the Fundamentalists are unwilling to discuss doctrine! Many of them are at this moment arguing for a “biblical” doctrine of the perfect preservation of the King James Version or of the Textus Receptus. Others have speculated that the work of redemption was not completed until Christ carried His material blood into the heavenly tabernacle, there to abide as a perpetual memorial before the presence of the Father. Still others have engaged in shrill campaigns of anti-Calvinism while defending theories of human nature that almost beg to be described as Pelagian. Such Fundamentalists are too numerous to be dismissed as aberrations—indeed, their tribe seems to be increasing.

Conservative evangelicals have oriented themselves by fixed points of doctrine. They have scoured apostasy from the world’s largest seminary. They have debunked Open Theism. They have articulated and defended a Complementarian position against evangelical feminism. They have rebutted the opponents of inerrancy. They have exposed and refuted the New Perspective on Paul. They have challenged the Emergent Church and laid bare its bankruptcy.

In other words, because many Fundamentalists appear to have lost their doctrinal sobriety, the initiative for defending the gospel has shifted from Fundamentalism to conservative evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. Rather than centering themselves upon theological novelties and idiosyncrasies, they have given themselves to a defense of the Faith.

Nevertheless, some Fundamentalists have managed to convince themselves that conservative evangelicals are the enemy. They insist that John Piper is a neo-evangelical. They actually hope to limit his influence—and the influence of other conservative evangelicals—in their churches and among their younger generation.

The apostle Paul insisted that he was “set for the defense of the gospel.” Fifty years ago, that phrase appeared on nearly every Fundamentalist ordination certificate. Today, however, Fundamentalists simply allow others to defend the gospel for them. The sad truth is that the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp.

To be sure, significant differences continue to exist between Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Those differences, however, are less serious than the ones that exist between the various camps within Fundamentalism. For example, many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?

Of course, many Fundamentalists reject these errors as well. Nevertheless, the errors that are tolerated within Fundamentalism are every bit as great as the errors that were committed by the new evangelicalism. They are certainly greater than the differences that exist between mainstream, historic Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.

Upcoming young leaders are uncertain about the future of Fundamentalism and about their future with it. And no wonder. One Fundamentalist college recently advertized that it does not teach Greek to theology majors. Why? Because the school has an “absolute conviction that the King James Bible is God’s perfect, preserved Word for the English Speaking World.” Contrast that school’s approach with D. A. Carson’s essays in his upcoming book, Collected Writings on Scripture. If young leaders are forced to choose between these two approaches, I have no doubt which choice they will make.

More and more Fundamentalists are coming to the same conclusion. They are not entering into full cooperation with conservative evangelicals, but they are working together in certain targeted areas. Quiet conversations have been occurring between some Fundamentalist leaders and some conservative evangelical leaders for several years. One seminary recently hosted John D. Hannah for a lecture series, and another hosted Ed Welch. A Fundamentalist mission agency brought in John Piper to challenge its missionaries. A leader who is a Fundamentalist pastor and seminary president has written for a conservative evangelical periodical. A very straight-laced Bible college sent its students to T4G. One elder statesman of Fundamentalism chose to preach in the chapel of a conservative evangelical seminary. Other Fundamentalist schools are slated to host Michael Vlach from Master’s Seminary and Mark Dever from Capital Hill Baptist Church. These steps are being taken, not by disaffected young Fundamentalists, but by the older generation of leadership within the mainstream of the Fundamentalist movement.

These leaders are neither abandoning Fundamentalism nor embracing conservative evangelicalism. They are simply recognizing that the Fundamentalist label is no guarantee of doctrinal fidelity. They are aware that historic, mainstream Fundamentalism has more in common with conservative evangelicals than it does with many who wear the Fundamentalist label.

Even such mild and narrow recognition, however, provokes panic from the Fundamentalist opponents of conservative evangelicals. Like the two critics at the beginning of this essay, these opponents express concern that any level of involvement with conservative evangelicals will constitute a blanket endorsement of their errors. These Fundamentalist critics, however, are seldom willing to express these same concerns over the excesses of the hyper-fundamentalist Right.

We Fundamentalists may not wish to identify with everything that conservative evangelicals say and do. To name these men as neo-evangelicals, nonetheless, is entirely unwarranted. To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today. We do not have to agree in every detail to recognize the value of what they do.

If we did not have conservative evangelicals to guard the borders, the real enemy would have invaded our camp long ago. Fundamentalism has exhibited a remarkable freedom from Open Theism, evangelical feminism, New Perspective theology, and other present-day threats to the gospel. The reason is not that Fundamentalists have kept the enemy at bay. The reason is that other thinkers—mainly conservative evangelicals—have carried the battle to the enemy. Conservative evangelicals are the heavy artillery, under the shelter of whose barrage Fundamentalists have been able to find some measure of theological safety.

So let’s get clear on this.

Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.

If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.

If we believe that we must respond to conservative evangelicalism, then let us begin by addressing the areas in which they have exposed our weakness. Let us refocus our attention upon the exaltation of God. Let us exalt, apply, and defend the gospel in all its fullness. If we were more like what we ought to be, perhaps we would feel less threatened by those whose exploits attract the attention of our followers.

Whatever our differences, I thank God for John Piper. I thank God for Mark Dever. I thank God for John MacArthur. I thank God for D. A. Carson. I thank God for a coalition of Christian leaders who have directed our focus to the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. May their defense of the biblical faith prosper.

Penitentiall Hymns. II.

Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667)

Great God, and just! how canst thou see,
Dear God, our miserie,
And not in mercy set us free?
Poor miserable man! how wert thou born,
Weak as the dewy jewels of the Morn,
Rapt up in tender dust,
Guarded with sins and lust,
Who like Court flatterers waite
To serve themselves in thy unhappy fate.
Wealth is a snare, and poverty brings in
Inlets for theft, paving the way for sin:
Each perfum’d vanity doth gently breath
Sin in thy Soul, and whispers it to Death.
Our faults like ulcerated sores do go
O’re the sound flesh, and do corrupt that too.
Lord, we are sick, spotted with sin,
Thick as a crusty Lepers skin,
Like Naaman, bid us wash, yet let it be
In streams of blood that flow from thee:
Then will we sing,
Touch’d by the heavenly Doves bright wing,
Hallelujahs, Psalms and Praise
To God the Lord of night and dayes;
Ever good, and ever just,
Ever high, who ever must
Thus be sung; is still the same;
Eternal praises crown his Name. Amen.


This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Discussion

I appreciate Dr. Bauder’s willingness to expose the fact that Fundamentalists have not typically practiced what they’ve preached and to reinforce the fact that MacArthur et al aren’t really that far from where we are, and in some ways are far more sober-minded than we have been. I’d never heard of church discipline [for example] until I’d seen it done by an IFCA-Int’l church or heard about it from…Dr. MacArthur.

I guess for me, it’s not a matter of “us” vs. “them” as a matter of “who is heading in the right direction theologically and eccelesiastically?”. We’ve been hearing warnings from Fundy leaders for at least 4 years now that the movement was (to put it kindly) adrift, and even Phil Johnson got into the act at a Shepherd’s Conference in 2005. Yet we haven’t really seen any real semblance of change or desire for theolgical seriousness, as last summer’s Sweatt kerfuddle proved. Is it really all that surprising that young fundamentalists are abandoning the Fundy culture in droves for something that seems to be more Biblically grounded and Christ focused as a result?

I guess only those with the eyes to see will see after all.

"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

[Bob T.] The Baptist General Conference (now Converge Worldwide) has refused to rebuke or censure the doctrine of open theism. They accept the ordination of women, the possible errancy of scripture, and several other practices and doctrines contrary to scripture.
I’m not thoroughly familiar with the BGC but:

Re: The Scriptures. The organization’s doctrinal statement (http://www.scene3.org/content/view/2144/162/#three) states:
We believe that the Bible is the Word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that it has supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.
The BGC isn’t a denomination (with any hierarchy or denominational structure). It’s simply a free & voluntary association of locally-autonomous churches. The BGC doesn’t “speak for” or on behalf of any of the churches which choose to associate with it.

I understand that Jerry Sheveland, the current president of the BGC, adamantly rejects open theism, is wholly complementarian, and absolutely believes in inerrancy.

Greatly appreciated the article. Thanks, Dr. Bauder.

It’s another example why labeling can be dangerous. Though these labels identify SOME of the characteristics of these men, no label does anyone full justice. In addition, there is no consensus on what these labels mean. Fundamental means one thing to one person and something different to another…of course the same is true of Conservative Evangelical. We too quickly disregard someone’s ministry because someone else labeled them. I, for one, am not content with most labels. I would prefer to listen, read, and evaluate a person’s ministry than trust a label someone else gave them.

[Don Johnson]…But I urge that people read Dave’s response and compare it to Bauder’s article. Dave points out that several of the men Bauder names do exhibit several characteristics that are typical of new evangelical philosophy. (At least, I think that is what Dave is saying. Dave disagrees with me agreeing with him, so please take that into consideration.)
I would also encourage folks to read Doran’s post (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GloryGrace/~3/sRahfsZ2JgE/). Saw it in the blogroll.

He’s got some good information there, but his observations partly motivated my post earlier in this thread: it’s not terribly important what we call these guys and given the changed and still shifting landscape, the historical term “neo evangelical” is fast losing its usefulness (probably is past having usefulness).

But I appreciate the way Doran lays out some important facts regarding what some of them have been involved in of late.

Don’s observation that the CEs may be something like neo-neo-evangelicals sounds kind of goofy, but there’s merit to the idea… as in modified neo-evangelicalism.

I’m a bit distracted at the moment, so sorry if my post is a bit incoherent.

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.

Fundamentalists have an obsession with labels and taxonomies.

The old canards of “He’s a neo … ” should be eschewed!

Do the hard work and understand that the world is not black and white.

Fundamentalists have historically given “their side” a pass for their side’s peccadillos and infractions; but if someone who does not name the name (self declare) and wave the banner, ever flaw is magnified.

[David Doran] I guess I find myself back at a spot where most of these discussions end for me these days. I think they are all handicapped by the use of labels from the 20th century which no longer fit and, therefore, don’t serve the discussion well. By thinking of three circles—new evangelicalism, conservative evangelicalism, and fundamentalism—all of the energy of the discussion goes into who’s in and who’s out. The unavoidable problem, though, is that nobody can define in and out at this stage of the game. So, where I differ with Bauder is that I don’t think that we can say anything definitive about a group. We need to look at individual men and ministries, find out what they believe and how they apply those beliefs, and then draw our conclusions.
Good stuff!

[Jim Peet]
[Bob T.] The Baptist General Conference (now Converge Worldwide) has refused to rebuke or censure the doctrine of open theism. They accept the ordination of women, the possible errancy of scripture, and several other practices and doctrines contrary to scripture.
I’m not thoroughly familiar with the BGC but:

Re: The Scriptures. The organization’s doctrinal statement (http://www.scene3.org/content/view/2144/162/#three) states:
We believe that the Bible is the Word of God, fully inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that it has supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.
The BGC isn’t a denomination (with any hierarchy or denominational structure). It’s simply a free & voluntary association of locally-autonomous churches. The BGC doesn’t “speak for” or on behalf of any of the churches which choose to associate with it.

I understand that Jerry Sheveland, the current president of the BGC, adamantly rejects open theism, is wholly complementarian, and absolutely believes in inerrancy.
Jim,

The doctrinal statement is simply not reflective of many of the Pastors in churches of “Converge Worldwide” (the old BGC). The old name indicates it was a conference. This is a tighter, more centrally controlled, form of Baptist organization of churches rather than an association. It is a denomination by the common definition. It does have denominational executives (directors) and offices. It is tightly controlled.

It is filled with numerous Bethel Seminary and Fuller Seminary graduates who do not hold to the full inerrancy of scripture and who compromise on other doctrines. It has been so for decades. As you are aware Bethel University just had a conference of sorts where they had invited Buddhists monks to discuss common ground and meditation techniques. The denomination has had those with doubtful doctrine for decades. I discussed the inerrancy of scripture with one of their Pastors of a church in Federal Way, Washington in 1967. My wife and I were visiting churches looking for a church home. He was under the auspices of the denomination planting a new church and a Bethel seminary graduate. He was what was then a typical New Evangelical. John Piper continues an association with “Converge Worldwide” and Bethel University. I personally could never be involved with a “Converge Worldwide” church.

[Pastor Joe Roof]
[David Doran] I guess I find myself back at a spot where most of these discussions end for me these days. I think they are all handicapped by the use of labels from the 20th century which no longer fit and, therefore, don’t serve the discussion well. By thinking of three circles—new evangelicalism, conservative evangelicalism, and fundamentalism—all of the energy of the discussion goes into who’s in and who’s out. The unavoidable problem, though, is that nobody can define in and out at this stage of the game. So, where I differ with Bauder is that I don’t think that we can say anything definitive about a group. We need to look at individual men and ministries, find out what they believe and how they apply those beliefs, and then draw our conclusions.
Good stuff!
Amen and amen.

Both Piper and MacArthur promote doctrines regarding Soteriology that are contrary to the Reformers and mainstream Reformed faith today while claiming to be appealing to the Reformed faith. The best analysis of this subject is presented in the book “Christ The Lord,” edited by Michael Horton and with chapters written by all Reformed Calvinist Theologians. They take apart MacArthur’s Gospel and claim that it is [not] that of the Reformers or most contemporary Reformed theologians.

In my post #12 above I left out the “not” in this paragraph. Seemed important to correct.

Let us refocus our attention upon the exaltation of God. Let us exalt, apply, and defend the gospel in all its fullness. If we were more like what we ought to be, perhaps we would feel less threatened by those whose exploits attract the attention of our followers.
I agree with this statement from Dr. Bauder. However, I’m afraid that he does not apply it towards those within “the hyper-Fundamentalist right.”

There are many godly people who would hold to what he would define as the King James Only position. Yet, Dr. Bauder constantly derides them.

Dr. Bauder belittles a stand on the blood of Christ which the World Congress of Funamentalists took in 1986 when they unanimously affirmed: “The precious Blood is indestructible. It cannot be anything else because of its permanence. The Blood is eternally preserved in heaven. Hebrews 12:24.”

Dr. Bauder believes that those who question five-point Calvinism engage in “shrill campaigns” and “defend theories of human nature that almost beg to be described as Pelagian.” Isn’t that too broad of a characterization?

Does Dr. Bauder need to use such abrasive rhetoric? Does he feel “threatened by those whose exploits attract the attention of [his] followers?”

I do not view Conservative Evangelicals as the enemy. However, I also do not believe “the hyper-Fundamentalist right” is the enemy either. In fact, I would probably be classified by Dr. Bauder as a part of the later group.

IMO, If Dr. Bauder got to personally know some of the folks in “the hyper-Fundamentalist right” (especially those nameless soldiers of the Lord serving in the trenches), he would realize that we both love and serve the same Savior.

[Bob T.] The Baptist General Conference (now Converge Worldwide) has refused to rebuke or censure the doctrine of open theism
Bob, you are just plan wrong here!

http://www.scene3.org/content/view/1589/64/
From the Edgren Fellowship to the 2000 Annual Meeting(introduced by Larry Adams)Passed by a large majority on 6/28/2000

Whereas the Bible reveals and affirms that God knows all of the past, present and future exhaustively, and

Whereas both Presidents Ricker of the BGC and Brushaber of Bethel College and Seminary have made it clear that the BGC and Bethel are no “safe havens” for open theism and that no new professors espousing such a view would be hired, and

Whereas an increasing number of districts and churches have taken action to affirm God’s exhaustive foreknowledge and rejection of open theism, and

Whereas Dr. Ricker and the entire BGC Executive Ministry Team (Jerry Sheveland, Ron Larson, Ray Swatkowski, Lou Petrie and Steve Schultz) have already unanimously stated that open theism is not consistent with the BGC’s biblical or historical understanding of God’s omniscience, and

Whereas the Bible teaches there can be no real unity apart from the unity of the truth of God’s person.

I therefore move that the following resolution be adopted by the delegates of the BGC annual meeting.

Be it resolved that we, the delegates of the Baptist General Conference (who are also the delegates of Bethel College and Seminary)* affirm that God’s knowledge of all past, present and future events is exhaustive; and, we also believe that the “openness” view of God’s foreknowledge is contrary to our fellowship’s historic understanding of God’s omniscience.

Kevin has been quite explicit in his criticism of “some fundamentalists” for incorrectly stereotyping conservative evangelicals as neo-evangelicals. However, two areas, I believe, need to be addressed. First of all, if it is improper to call conservative evangelicals neo-evangelicals, is it not also improper to refer to KJV-Only types as fundamentalists? By embracing the heresy of KJV-Onlyism (which usually carries with it the baggage of anti-Calvinism), do they not discredit themselves from being considered legitimate historic fundamentalists, even though they continue to claim the title? Furthermore, do we not have biblical grounds for separating from them? Indeed, many of us have.

Second, Kevin has been quite lavish in his praise of conservative evangelicals while castigating so-called fundamentalists. Yet he has spent very little time warning us about the pitfalls and problems of conservative evangelicalism. Dave Doran does a good job with this on his blog. Kevin commends fundamentalist institutions for welcoming conservative evangelical speakers, but offers no warning regarding the baggage some bring with them that could endanger our movement. While on the one hand “the Fundamentalist label is no guarantee of doctrinal fidelity,” neither is the conservative evangelical label a guarantee either. Indeed, this supposed fidelity to the gospel in their various associations is undermined by their lack of separation from that which compromises the gospel. Al Mohler, for example, is considered one of the darlings among conservative evangelicals, yet he has caused great harm to the gospel by his endorsement of men and movements that have confused and corrupted it (e.g., Billy Graham, Duke McCall, and most recently the Manhattan Declaration). Fundamentalists should rightly separate from him as a disobedient brother. And although MacArthur, Sproul, and others have courageously criticized such endorsements, they still invite Mohler to their platform, because, they say, he speaks for the gospel, even after he has endorsed the social gospel. (If the Manhattan Declaration does advocate another gospel is this not a heresy from which we should separate and likewise from those who endorse it?). And I might add that there are plenty of conservative evangelicals that promote some form of the social gospel, which, as we well know, was a major plank in the neo-evangelical agenda. Furthermore, has sufficient warning been sounded regarding what is at stake in welcoming men who are non-cessationists? Does permitting the continuation of revelation in the form of sign gifts not do harm to the gospel? Turning to still another example, is it really conducive to the health of fundamentalism by inviting John Piper to one of its meetings after he welcomed to his Desiring God conference the foul-mouthed Mark Driscoll? (not to mention the other problems with Piper that Doran cites). Does this not send a mixed signal of just what “desiring God” means? Do these things not matter any more, as it did to our fundamentalist forbears, who vigorously attacked them? And should we overlook the almost rabid contempt many conservative evangelicals express toward dispensationalism (which, as Kraus and Sandeen have noted, was born “from within the womb of orthodox Calvinism”)?

What I fear is that we may be allowing a Trojan horse into the fundamentalist camp. And after a while, if we keep going down this track, any significant difference between conservative evangelical and the fundamentalist institutions may disappear. Fundamentalists will become even “nicer” to the conservative evangelicals and they in turn will appear more “respectable” to the fundamentalists. It may be that some fundamentalists desire this. But then, would they not also have to forfeit the label?

Like Kevin, I would give credit to the conservative evangelicals where credit is due. I say “Amen” to everything they have done well in defense of the gospel of Christ. But not at the expense of discrediting fundamentalism for the valiant battles it has fought against some of the very things many conservative evangelicals are espousing which compromise the gospel, yet which many of the current generation do not seem to take very seriously.

Gerald Priest

Greg Boyd is no more representative of the BGC as a whole than Ruckman is of the IFB movement. Has Bethlehem Baptist ever invited Boyd to speak? (Answer = no!)

I’m not trying to be BGC defender here, but is it ethical to paint the BGC as some hotbed of Open-Theist apostasy.

Dr. Priest,

I ask myself …

1) What is fundamentalism clearly known for in Idaho? What is the flagship “independent, fundamental” church promoting?

2) What is fundamentalism clearly known for in the Intermountain West?

3) What is fundamentalism clearly known for in the West? What are the flagship churches in California promoting?

And then I ask myself what sources in the last five years have provided me the strongest encouragement and support that I desperately need for doing royal battle for scriptural inerrancy, for the distinctiveness and essense of the Triune God, for penal-substitutionary atonement, etc. and etc.

It has been one wild battle out here in the I-15 corridor. I take very seriously the battles that have been fought in the past. But at the same time I value those brothers today who build me up, who edify me in the fundamentals, while there is smoke and blood all around me in my trench.

thinking of heart issues,

et