Together for the Gospel: Jack Schaap & John Vaughn ??
- 57 views
Wow - this is mind blowing.
If the staff evangelist for BJU AND the President of the FBF are going to be there, I’m hoping that it’s because of Schaap and Trieber are moving towards orthodoxy. But I doubt that, and I really have to wonder about the overall direction of those speaking; and esp. the FBF and BJU. Any questions I ever had about doing business with the FBF are now resolved - there’s no way I can do anything with them.
Ben could not be more right when he says:
If the staff evangelist for BJU AND the President of the FBF are going to be there, I’m hoping that it’s because of Schaap and Trieber are moving towards orthodoxy. But I doubt that, and I really have to wonder about the overall direction of those speaking; and esp. the FBF and BJU. Any questions I ever had about doing business with the FBF are now resolved - there’s no way I can do anything with them.
Ben could not be more right when he says:
The affiliation of a theologically and exegetically bankrupt swath of pseudo-fundamentalism with the leader of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship should not merely be surprising. It should have been unthinkable. I don’t mean to suggest that the FBF hasn’t demonstrated doctrinal indifferences of its own in the past. (Remember the Danny Sweatt fiasco?) I do mean that this constitutes a significant and undeniable step towards a choice fundamentalists need to make.
The FBF is no fringe association. Check out the leadership of the organization and you’ll see the names of men whom many would consider the mainstream of thoughtful, balanced fundamentalism. Names like Jones, Phelps, Harding, Burggraff. Names like Minnick, who recently identified Conservative Evangelicals as a growing threat to his church and fundamentalism.
Their president’s choice to put the name of their organization in affiliation with a plethora of doctrinal aberrancy has created the same sort of scenario some of them have used as occasion to criticize Conservative Evangelicals. This is not the sort of fellowship that strikes me as likely to bear the fruit of credibility.
No one thinks these choices will be easy for men who have long-standing relationships. This sort of thing just makes them easier.
"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
As I remember, after the Danny Sweatt incident the FBF came out and said that they have long had men in the fellowship who were Calvinistic and those who were not. I know I remember Mark Minnick address the incident saying that it was wrong for that speaker (he didn’t name pastor Sweatt) to speak negatively to the issue of Calvinism in that forum since the fellowship was open to the fellowship of men who were Calvinistic. So, I think the author of the above quoted article is out of line for saying that the FBF has been doctrinally indifferent.
Why are the Hyles types inviting 2 men to speak at a conference who clearly aren’t where they are on issues like bible translation? I don’t know for sure, but maybe while still holding their errant beliefs, they feel a need to be more charitable to other brethren than they have been in the past. Perhaps this is an olive branch on their part. And maybe this is why speakers like Vaughan are taking part. Perhaps they feel by taking part they may bring about rapprochement between them and us. Maybe, maybe, maybe.
Why are the Hyles types inviting 2 men to speak at a conference who clearly aren’t where they are on issues like bible translation? I don’t know for sure, but maybe while still holding their errant beliefs, they feel a need to be more charitable to other brethren than they have been in the past. Perhaps this is an olive branch on their part. And maybe this is why speakers like Vaughan are taking part. Perhaps they feel by taking part they may bring about rapprochement between them and us. Maybe, maybe, maybe.
Sometimes I wonder if I would rather not be called “Fundamentalish” than “Fundamentalist.” I remain a conservative, independent baptist who believes in the doctrines of salvation by grace alone through Christ alone, the inspiration of Scripture, the need to separate from apostasy, etc. But with so many fundamentalists claiming that OTHER fundamentalists are NOT for various reasons, I am growing weary of the title. I don’t know everyone who will be at this conference, but I do know many of them. They are truly good and godly men! It has been my privilege to meet face to face with many of the leaders in the various “families” of fundamentalism. Of course I don’t agree with everything they say, do, or believe; but I think we need to treat those we have differences with more like quirky relatives rather than demons to ostracize. Sure, we have differences; but they’re still family! When we get to Heaven, we’re all going to find out where our hidden warts are. None of us have it totally figured out. The biggest problem we have today is that we have too many opportunities to observe and criticize one another via impersonal technologies like the Internet. It’s not unlike being a sports fan who “hates” or “loves” a team - without ever really knowing any of the players on that team. It’s so easy to sit at a keyboard, watching and critiquing these things from afar. It’s expensive, time consuming, and (really and practically) impossible to sit down face to face with every one of these guys to learn their true heartbeat for God. If we could do that, I’m sure that some of this cybercriticism would diminish. I’m so glad that Paul and Barnabas didn’t have to deal with this hyper-critical fundamentalism that we live with these days! Thank God for some of these men who are willing to get close enough to get to know one another in person before throwing darts at one another! I praise the effort of those involved in Independent Baptist Friends International Conference! Go for it!
Dan Pelletier Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past
No way.
This just reinforces Phil’s argument [URL=http://www.docstoc.com/docs/26235196/Continuing-Dialogue-Phil-Johnson-a…] from a couple weeks back[/URL]:
This just reinforces Phil’s argument [URL=http://www.docstoc.com/docs/26235196/Continuing-Dialogue-Phil-Johnson-a…] from a couple weeks back[/URL]:
Still, it disturbs me when fundamentalists respond to criticisms about the doctrinal poverty of the wider fundamentalist movement by deflecting the criticism and pointing to others who (they are convinced) are worse off. It’s true enough that American religion in general has tended to be anti-intellectual, atheological, devoid of propositional truth and objective content, and hostile to the very idea of doctrine since the beginning of the 20th century.The trumpet is blowing an uncertain sound…is it any shocker that people are confused about the battle?
But for the fundamentalist movement, such doctrinal apathy and anti-intellectualism is absolutely inexcusable. Neo-evangelicals practically admitted from the get-go that they didn’t care much about doctrine. By contrast, fundamentalists are supposed to love sound doctrine, and they are supposed to be prepared to do battle for the fundamentals. Deliberate neglect of doctrine is therefore a worse sin for fundamentalists, because it also involves gross hypocrisy. This is not one of the flaws of fundamentalism that serious fundamentalists ought to be downplaying or discounting just because everyone else is doing it, too…
Meanwhile, even some of the best fundamentalist leaders and schools clearly aren’t putting the same kind of energy into warning their people about the influences of their own movement’s lunatic fringe as they spend critiquing John MacArthur. That is tragic. Thoughtful, conscientious fundamentalists ought to acknowledge the seriousness of this problem and not get indignant when it is pointed out. I remain basically unmoved by the complaints of those who insist that my portrayal of fundamentalism is unfair because I haven’t painted the best fundamentalists as the mainstream of today’s fundamentalist movement. Granted, a pastor like Mark Minnick is a true historic fundamentalist, and the average Jack Hyles clone is not, but that doesn’t make Pastor Minnick more representative of the mainstream in the movement—any more than the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals’ commitment to the historic Protestant creeds automatically places them in the “mainstream” of the modern evangelical movement…
It was actually a question about fundamentalism’s policy on separation when it comes to the kind of “disobedient brethren” who blatantly thumb their noses at what Scripture plainly teaches about morality, personal character, church leadership, or ministry philosophy—yet remain loyal separatists and want to remain “in” the fundamentalist movement. Why does it seem like separation from men like that is never done as quickly or talked about as profusely as separation from the kind of “disobedient brethren” who happen to be Southern Baptists? Or presidents of different colleges?
"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
[Jay C.] No way.Who’s trumpet?
The trumpet is blowing an uncertain sound…is it any shocker that people are confused about the battle?
Dan Pelletier Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past
Dan,
I don’t completely disagree with you. BUT I think you are missing something. For quite sometime, the Younger Fundamentalists have been decried for listening and even fellowshiping on some leve with the CE’s. Yet, here we have two examples of “mainstream” Fundies speaking with guys who are either on the fringe or close to herecy. Fugate has used some Ruckanish like language (after private conversations with some who know him,I don’t think he is a Ruckmanite, but I am he does not have a firm grasp of inspiration). He has never publically clarified the statements in the public way that he made them. The same would be true of Dr. Schaap. But what I dont’ understand, is why go after younger men for sitting under but not preaching with those who are problematic but then sharing the platform with men who are just as problematic. And then when the question is raised, the younger guys are just trouble makers. It makes no sense to me. Please tell me where I am wrong.
I don’t completely disagree with you. BUT I think you are missing something. For quite sometime, the Younger Fundamentalists have been decried for listening and even fellowshiping on some leve with the CE’s. Yet, here we have two examples of “mainstream” Fundies speaking with guys who are either on the fringe or close to herecy. Fugate has used some Ruckanish like language (after private conversations with some who know him,I don’t think he is a Ruckmanite, but I am he does not have a firm grasp of inspiration). He has never publically clarified the statements in the public way that he made them. The same would be true of Dr. Schaap. But what I dont’ understand, is why go after younger men for sitting under but not preaching with those who are problematic but then sharing the platform with men who are just as problematic. And then when the question is raised, the younger guys are just trouble makers. It makes no sense to me. Please tell me where I am wrong.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
[rogercarlson] Dan,I’m not “going after” anyone…unless it is those who are constantly “going after” men that God is using to reach the lost, disciple believers, and making an impact on this world for Christ. I’d rather be an encourager than a critic. In Mark 9:38-50 it seems to me that Christ was making the point that He would rather we cheer one another on than exert so much time trying to be “watchdogs” looking for each others’ faults.
…Why go after younger men for sitting under but not preaching with those who are problematic but then sharing the platform with men who are just as problematic. And then when the question is raised, the younger guys are just trouble makers. It makes no sense to me. Please tell me where I am wrong.
When I come to Sharper Iron, other blogs, many of the newsletters, etc. I am constantly amazed at how nosey we have become. Frankly, I have so much to do in my local church that I don’t take the time to engage in this forum. I am amazed at how much time it has taken me even this morning - and yet how intriguing it is to continue. This could be addicting - and I am afraid that it has become just that to too many people.
There must be thousands of people who occasionally peek at this forum, shake their heads, and walk away…as I intend to do now.
Maybe I’ll post something again in another 6 months or so…
In the mean time, I’d love to sit over a cup of coffee with you at Peet’s Coffee in San Francisco for fellowship. :)
Dan Pelletier Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past
Dan,
I am not saying that you are doing that. But this has been done publically by the FBF leadership. I agree that some YF have done some crazy things. But I really don’t understand the inconsistancy on these issues. It makes us seem like a good ole boy network. I have no problem staying out of others business. But that is a two way street and many of our bretheren only want it one way. They want to caution the young men (which is good) but they are unwilling to listen to their own inconsistancies. Or to put it another way, if we don’t deal with the beam in our own eye before we deal with the spec in the YF/CE eyes we will have problems.
As long as the coffee shop has some type of iced coffee frape type thing I am there. Or even a soda…. not a big coffee guy. :)
I am not saying that you are doing that. But this has been done publically by the FBF leadership. I agree that some YF have done some crazy things. But I really don’t understand the inconsistancy on these issues. It makes us seem like a good ole boy network. I have no problem staying out of others business. But that is a two way street and many of our bretheren only want it one way. They want to caution the young men (which is good) but they are unwilling to listen to their own inconsistancies. Or to put it another way, if we don’t deal with the beam in our own eye before we deal with the spec in the YF/CE eyes we will have problems.
As long as the coffee shop has some type of iced coffee frape type thing I am there. Or even a soda…. not a big coffee guy. :)
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
[rogercarlson] Dan,You buy the ticket. I’ll buy the ice coffee! :)
As long as the coffee shop has some type of iced coffee frape type thing I am there. Or even a soda…. not a big coffee guy. :)
Thank the Lord, my battery is just about gone on my laptop. Gotta go!
Dan Pelletier Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past
The fundamental difference between myself, Schaap, and Trieber is the matter of Biblical preservation / inerrancy. I cannot go along with the position that they hold to on the KJV, so I will not attend. The fundamental difference that I now have with the FBF and BJU is yet another separation issue. Both organizations have carefully staked out a position of Romans 14 on the KJV issue, and they are [apparently] not discerning the major difference in their preservation and inerrancy doctrinal positions. It’s either believe that or decide that they believe the “fellowship” with Schaap et al is more important than the significant differences in their Bibliology. Personally, I hope it’s the former!
The problem, Dan, is this that the people who are teaching separation from “unbelievers” and “apostates” [their terms from their texts] to their students [having earned my MA from BJU] are not practicing separation as rigorously as they themselves teach. That’s a MAJOR problem. It’s not being nosey when you discover that your teacher is a hypocrite, esp. if they continue to lecture on the topic while practicing other wise. What makes it worse is that BJU, in particular, has thrown MacArthur under the bus when he [appears] a lot closer to them doctrinally than Schaap is/was/will be.
So for everyone who argues that YF’s don’t practice secondary separation - I think I’ve just provided a handy illustration that yes, we YF’s DO practice it ;)
When I come to Sharper Iron, other blogs, many of the newsletters, etc. I am constantly amazed at how nosey we have become. Frankly, I have so much to do in my local church that I don’t take the time to engage in this forum. I am amazed at how much time it has taken me even this morning - and yet how intriguing it is to continue. This could be addicting - and I am afraid that it has become just that to too many people.
The problem, Dan, is this that the people who are teaching separation from “unbelievers” and “apostates” [their terms from their texts] to their students [having earned my MA from BJU] are not practicing separation as rigorously as they themselves teach. That’s a MAJOR problem. It’s not being nosey when you discover that your teacher is a hypocrite, esp. if they continue to lecture on the topic while practicing other wise. What makes it worse is that BJU, in particular, has thrown MacArthur under the bus when he [appears] a lot closer to them doctrinally than Schaap is/was/will be.
So for everyone who argues that YF’s don’t practice secondary separation - I think I’ve just provided a handy illustration that yes, we YF’s DO practice it ;)
"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
[Jay C.]Thanks for clarifying, Jay. Have you talked to your teachers? Do they know of your concerns? …I’ve never seen “the bus.” …and the gurus can do what they want to do. I’m happy in my own little world.
The problem, Dan, is this that the people who are teaching separation from “unbelievers” and “apostates” [their terms from their texts] are not practicing separation as rigorously as they themselves teach. That’s a MAJOR problem. It’s not being nosey when you discover that your teacher is a hypocrite, esp. if they continue to lecture on the topic while practicing other wise. What makes it worse is that BJU, in particular, has thrown MacArthur under the bus when he [appears] a lot closer to them doctrinally than Schaap is/was.
Dan Pelletier Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past
[Dan Pelletier][Jay C.]Thanks for clarifying, Jay. Have you talked to your teachers? Do they know of your concerns? …I’ve never seen “the bus.” …and the gurus can do what they want to do. I’m happy in my own little world.
The problem, Dan, is this that the people who are teaching separation from “unbelievers” and “apostates” [their terms from their texts] are not practicing separation as rigorously as they themselves teach. That’s a MAJOR problem. It’s not being nosey when you discover that your teacher is a hypocrite, esp. if they continue to lecture on the topic while practicing other wise. What makes it worse is that BJU, in particular, has thrown MacArthur under the bus when he [appears] a lot closer to them doctrinally than Schaap is/was.
I’m aware of my teacher’s positions since I sat under them for over 6 years combined…but thanks for asking. Yes, I’ll probably be penning a note to them as well.
"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
[Jay C.][Dan Pelletier][Jay C.]Good, Jay. Keep the communication lines open. I won’t throw you under the bus for disagreeing with them…and I won’t be driving or riding on any busses, either. :) Have a great day!
I’m aware of my teacher’s positions since I sat under them for over 6 years combined…but thanks for asking. Yes, I’ll probably be penning a note to them as well.
Dan Pelletier Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past
Well…maybe a school bus.
Dan Pelletier Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past
[RPittman] Wow! Many have missed some important and obvious points here but Jay C hit the nail squarely.OK, that is just creepy, and it is creepy that Jim Binney would recommend such a book.[Jay C] So for everyone who argues that YF’s don’t practice secondary separation - I think I’ve just provided a handy illustration that yes, we YF’s DO practice it Wink
The most ironic thing is that I’m hearing a lot of people who are supposedly opposed to “secondary separation” advocating “secondary separation.” Well, this thing works both ways. If you can justify separation from the likes of John Vaughn over this speaking engagement at Crown, then don’t even bother to argue the case of separation from Bros. John Piper (e.g. Piper & Mark Driscoll), Al Mohler (e.g. Manhattan Declaration), & co. Their entanglement is too wide and tangled to even sort out.
BTW, no one has noted that Jim Binney, a speaker at BJU Bible Conference this week, has been a featured speaker along with Frank Garlock and Ron Hamliton at Schaap’s own Pastors School. I have read all the excuses for Binney going there but it all boils down to whether you like the guy or not. Furthermore, Dr. Binney’s secretary confirms that he recommends Schaap’s book, Marriage the Divine Intimacy. In the book, Schaap writes, “The person who deeply loves Christ understands that when He receives Christ as Saviour, it is a spiritual intercourse. A person receives the body of Christ. A Christian is the female gender in the spiritual realm, and God is the male gender of the spiritual realm. When a person receives Christ as Saviour, he is receiving Christ as a lover (p. 42).” He further compares partaking of the Lord’s Table with sexual intimacy. Need I say this is heresy?
When all is said and done, if Jim can associate with Jack, then why can’t John?
Discussion