Together for the Gospel: Jack Schaap & John Vaughn ??
- 57 views
RPittman,
Before you joined SI, when Binney first went to pastor’s school, that was brought out as a BIG concern. Not only does Binney speak at BJ, he also does @ Northland. The same was true when it was announced that Hamilton was there. Again, in both instnaces many here @ SI raised concerns. I think there is a difference here. Garlock and Hamilton (and to a lesser extent Binney) are not theologians. Dr. Phelps is very astute as well as Dr. Vaughn.
I am really on the sidelines on this issue. I have gone to CE and IFB conferences. Again, I don’t understand why me going to a CE/NE conference is worse than IFB men sharing the pulpit with men like Schaap and Fugate. I also don’t understand how @ teh FBF national conference, men like me were encouraged to be more discerning. Yet one of the speakers (Dr. Robert Cogdon) shared the platform the next week with someone who worked for Word of Life for years. I am not necessarily calling for secondary seperation (although, I would never allow Schaap or Fugate in my pulpit) but I am asking for the discepncy to be cleared up.
Before you joined SI, when Binney first went to pastor’s school, that was brought out as a BIG concern. Not only does Binney speak at BJ, he also does @ Northland. The same was true when it was announced that Hamilton was there. Again, in both instnaces many here @ SI raised concerns. I think there is a difference here. Garlock and Hamilton (and to a lesser extent Binney) are not theologians. Dr. Phelps is very astute as well as Dr. Vaughn.
I am really on the sidelines on this issue. I have gone to CE and IFB conferences. Again, I don’t understand why me going to a CE/NE conference is worse than IFB men sharing the pulpit with men like Schaap and Fugate. I also don’t understand how @ teh FBF national conference, men like me were encouraged to be more discerning. Yet one of the speakers (Dr. Robert Cogdon) shared the platform the next week with someone who worked for Word of Life for years. I am not necessarily calling for secondary seperation (although, I would never allow Schaap or Fugate in my pulpit) but I am asking for the discepncy to be cleared up.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Couple of things:
1. Much has been said about Jim Binney, Ron Hamilton, and Frank Garlock going to FBC Hammond. That has been going on for several years, and it was well discussed several years ago. Schaap’s book was also discussed here, I believe. RPittman says, When all is said and done, if Jim can associate with Jack, then why can’t John? Exactly the point. And a great many would say neither Jim nor John should associate with Jack. But it seems pretty quiet about that. Yet if we were to change “Jack” for “John MacArthur” imagine the fur that would be flying. Why the difference? John MacArthur, for all his overstatement and confusing rhetoric (though he fully affirms Christ alone for salvation and preservation of the believer) is much closer to the biblical gospel than Jack Schaap. MacArthur’s bibliology is much closer to the Bible’s own bibliology than Jack Schaap. The Master’s College is far more orthodox than HAC. But some will give Jim and John a free pass for speaking for/with Jack, but would run him out of fundamentalism for preaching with John. Now here’s the question: Is John MacArthur having C. J. Mahaney or John Piper preach really that much worse than preaching with/for Jack Schaap. I think that would be a pretty torturous argument to try to make. Those watching would probably feel the pain of the one trying to make it while simultaneously keeping a straight face.
Now, for those who might make an error in reading and understanding, I am not encouraging fellowship with or condoning MacArthur, Piper, or Mahaney, or anyone else. I am not even claiming these views are mine necessarily. I am stating what I understand the issues of many people to be, namely, that there is the perception that a fairly large inconsistency exists and is not being adequately addressed.
2. To Dan’s comment, I don’t think that many believe the problem is with “truly good and godly men” of whom there are some at this conference. Most fundamentalists, young or old, don’t object to that. Nor do they object to a group of people getting together and having a conference.
3. I think the issue for many is the appearance of inconsistency. Here you have a collection of people for whom some fundamental doctrines (like the Bible and the gospel, which all agree are pretty important) appear to take a back seat because of the agreement on matters of separation, or at least possession of the same “card” (the fundamentalist card). To repeat my earlier point, doctrinally, these men should be pretty far apart. The biblical gospel is much closer to what Piper, Mohler, and MacArthur preach than it is to what Schaap and FBC Hammond preaches. The biblical doctrine of Scripture is much closer to what Piper, Mohler, and MacArthur teach than it is to what some who are speaking at this conference teach. So the argument goes that if fundamentalists are really concerned about doctrine, then we should be exposing this stuff, not preaching along side of it as if it is okay. And if preaching alongside of it doesn’t indicate agreement with it, then what has been the big deal all along with secondary separation? Do we really believe that teaching a faulty gospel is more acceptable than preaching with a charismatic who affirms the final authority of Scripture? Do we really believe that teaching a faulty doctrine of the Bible is more acceptable than having drums on the stage at a church? Again, I would hate to see someone try to make that argument with a straight face.
What Jeff Fugate and Jack Schaap have done in the name of church and the gospel should be repudiated by everyone. Yet it’s not. That these guys can get a speaking invitation anywhere is beyond belief and is a testament to just how much some struggle with basic biblical doctrines. We are addicted to success and big names, not to biblical fidelity. And that’s problematic, IMO.
Summarizing this thought, this speaking engagement shows what many (both young and old) have objected to for a long time: That fundamentalists give a wide berth for doctrine on the one side so long as the person agrees on separation, and a very narrow berth on the other side because they don’t agree on separation. That, to many, is troubling.
4. If Dan’s point is that we should stay out of people’s business and tend to our own, then a lot would agree. If he means by this that we ought to leave this “fundamentalists” alone at their conference but we ought to speak out loudly against T4G or TGC, then a lot are going to object. If Dan means we should leave both alone and go about our business in our local churches and calling, then I imagine that will be more accepted. Perhaps Dan can clarify.
1. Much has been said about Jim Binney, Ron Hamilton, and Frank Garlock going to FBC Hammond. That has been going on for several years, and it was well discussed several years ago. Schaap’s book was also discussed here, I believe. RPittman says, When all is said and done, if Jim can associate with Jack, then why can’t John? Exactly the point. And a great many would say neither Jim nor John should associate with Jack. But it seems pretty quiet about that. Yet if we were to change “Jack” for “John MacArthur” imagine the fur that would be flying. Why the difference? John MacArthur, for all his overstatement and confusing rhetoric (though he fully affirms Christ alone for salvation and preservation of the believer) is much closer to the biblical gospel than Jack Schaap. MacArthur’s bibliology is much closer to the Bible’s own bibliology than Jack Schaap. The Master’s College is far more orthodox than HAC. But some will give Jim and John a free pass for speaking for/with Jack, but would run him out of fundamentalism for preaching with John. Now here’s the question: Is John MacArthur having C. J. Mahaney or John Piper preach really that much worse than preaching with/for Jack Schaap. I think that would be a pretty torturous argument to try to make. Those watching would probably feel the pain of the one trying to make it while simultaneously keeping a straight face.
Now, for those who might make an error in reading and understanding, I am not encouraging fellowship with or condoning MacArthur, Piper, or Mahaney, or anyone else. I am not even claiming these views are mine necessarily. I am stating what I understand the issues of many people to be, namely, that there is the perception that a fairly large inconsistency exists and is not being adequately addressed.
2. To Dan’s comment, I don’t think that many believe the problem is with “truly good and godly men” of whom there are some at this conference. Most fundamentalists, young or old, don’t object to that. Nor do they object to a group of people getting together and having a conference.
3. I think the issue for many is the appearance of inconsistency. Here you have a collection of people for whom some fundamental doctrines (like the Bible and the gospel, which all agree are pretty important) appear to take a back seat because of the agreement on matters of separation, or at least possession of the same “card” (the fundamentalist card). To repeat my earlier point, doctrinally, these men should be pretty far apart. The biblical gospel is much closer to what Piper, Mohler, and MacArthur preach than it is to what Schaap and FBC Hammond preaches. The biblical doctrine of Scripture is much closer to what Piper, Mohler, and MacArthur teach than it is to what some who are speaking at this conference teach. So the argument goes that if fundamentalists are really concerned about doctrine, then we should be exposing this stuff, not preaching along side of it as if it is okay. And if preaching alongside of it doesn’t indicate agreement with it, then what has been the big deal all along with secondary separation? Do we really believe that teaching a faulty gospel is more acceptable than preaching with a charismatic who affirms the final authority of Scripture? Do we really believe that teaching a faulty doctrine of the Bible is more acceptable than having drums on the stage at a church? Again, I would hate to see someone try to make that argument with a straight face.
What Jeff Fugate and Jack Schaap have done in the name of church and the gospel should be repudiated by everyone. Yet it’s not. That these guys can get a speaking invitation anywhere is beyond belief and is a testament to just how much some struggle with basic biblical doctrines. We are addicted to success and big names, not to biblical fidelity. And that’s problematic, IMO.
Summarizing this thought, this speaking engagement shows what many (both young and old) have objected to for a long time: That fundamentalists give a wide berth for doctrine on the one side so long as the person agrees on separation, and a very narrow berth on the other side because they don’t agree on separation. That, to many, is troubling.
4. If Dan’s point is that we should stay out of people’s business and tend to our own, then a lot would agree. If he means by this that we ought to leave this “fundamentalists” alone at their conference but we ought to speak out loudly against T4G or TGC, then a lot are going to object. If Dan means we should leave both alone and go about our business in our local churches and calling, then I imagine that will be more accepted. Perhaps Dan can clarify.
Great post Larry! You said so much better what I was trying to say.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
[Larry] Couple of things:Bottom line…I love the local church. I believe that the greatest sphere of influence I can have is through the local church. I believe that like-minded men should get together and encourage one another. This critiquing from afar stuff bugs me. Paul and Barnabas were both good men - who had a big disagreement over John Mark. So…they went their own ways and continued spreading the Gospel and making disciples and starting churches. I don’t see any record of either man trying to gain a following against the other guy. So, if you don’t want to associate with MacArthur, Binney, T4G, TGC (whatever those are), Schaap, Fugate, Vaughn, Piper, etc….then DON’T! But why do I have to hear about someone’s complaints. I can agree with MacArthur, Binney, et.al. (and I do) on one issue and disagree with them on another issue (and I do). But I don’t have to hit them with a hammer or throw them under a bus because of that issue. These are my brethren - and your brethren. I’m going to do what I have been called to do. You do what God has called you to do. Let me pray for you and encourage you. I’d like for you to do the same for me…and for Binney, MacArthur, Piper, Schaap, Fugate, Vaughn, Mohler, Bob Jones, Jack Trieber, Clarence Sexton……………… I’m not the fundamentalist policeman. Did we ever vote for one? …and who should have the right to vote?
2. To Dan’s comment, I don’t think the problem is with “truly good and godly men” of whom there are some at this conference. Most fundamentalists, young or old, don’t object to that. Nor do they object to a group of people getting together and having a conference.
4. If Dan’s point is that we should stay out of people’s business and tend to our own, then a lot would agree. If he means by this that we ought to leave this “fundamentalists” alone at their conference but we ought to speak out loudly against T4G or TGC, then a lot are going to object. If Dan means we should leave both alone and go about our business in our local churches and calling, then I imagine that will be more accepted. Perhaps Dan can clarify.
Dan Pelletier Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past
I am glad that you are not one, Dan.
I think that fundamentalist policemen among fundamentalists and other conservative Christians in America have a very rough job, especially considering this day and age.
I think that fundamentalist policemen among fundamentalists and other conservative Christians in America have a very rough job, especially considering this day and age.
Thanks, Dan.
I agree to a large extent. I am willing to grant liberty to people to do according to their conscience in their local church. But that doesn’t mean that what they do won’t have an affect on my relationship to them. It may or may not depending on the issue. Again, I think the issue for many is the appearance of consistency. If you are going to condemn Al Mohler for signing the MD or John MacArthur for having C. J. Mahaney to preach, it’s going to be hard to convince people why it’s okay to speak with Fugate, Schaap, or some others who have many clear doctrinal and methodological problems.
But in the midst of “live and let live,” we also must call people to biblical fidelity and obedience, particularly when they name the name of Christ. I am not sure that means a random free-for-all on the blogosphere as some seem wont to do. In Paul’s day, it was certainly a local context, and probably has today the extension to people of influence. IOW, where our people are endangered by some person or some teaching, we should address it accurately and graciously. I don’t need to spend time in my congregation calling out some guy they have never heard of and probably won’t hear of. But I am not sure that “polemics” or “vitriol” is a spiritual gift or calling in the NT. The work of exposing error in the NT seems to take place in the context of making disciples in the local church ministry, not in the context of making a name for oneself in the cyber-world (or anywhere else). I think there are some who, under the guise of standing for the truth, don’t get all the facts right; they don’t read carefully and understand what is actually being said. They just rare back and let-er-go. And that’s not helpful to anyone.
For young men, when someone stands up and condemns one side and not the other, those young men looking for men to follow will see the problems and will look elsewhere. I think this is where Bauder hit the nail on the head. When someone sees the careful handling of Scripture by some conservative evangelicals (not all) and the atrocious handling of Scripture by some fundamentalists (not all), that will be an easy choice for them. They won’t focus on the fact that Doran does it right, or Osteen does it wrong; that Minnick does it right, and Warren does it wrong. If the choice is between MacArthur’s soteriology and Schaap’s, that will likewise be an easy choice. And they will likely start to “hang with” people who agree with them. IOW, they will leave fundamentalism over the gospel issue or the Bible issue because fundamentalism is not giving them another option. Of course, I have long said that many who are “leaving fundamentalism” never shared its commitments. Fine. Let them go. I think the truth is that fundamentalism is giving people an option in soteriology and bibliology, in expository models of preaching and ministry, and many other areas, but I don’t feel the need to be a “movement fundamentalist.” I am what I am. I don’t intend to be anything different. I am a fundamentalist separatist. I am hesitant to use the name today because of the baggage. But as someone said to me privately recently, I am glad to keep the name because it lets me separate from some people.
When this discussion arises, I am reminded of something Jeff Foxworthy (who I hesitate to quote and don’t listen to or recommend anyone else listen to; I don’t endorse his conferences, who anyone who speaks at his conferences; I don’t recommend his books or audio files; I don’t recommend you share an airplane with him or stay in the same hotel; and if I missed anything, I don’t recommend that either) … Anyway, back to the issue, Foxworthy said once about southerners (of whom I am one): “The problem with southerners is that we can’t get the dumbest of us to keep their mouths shut.” (Let the reader understand how that applies here.) (Let the Foxworthy experts correct the quote, because I am sure there are some here.)
If this group wants to get together and preach, have at it. Preach Jesus and the Bible. And when Mohler/MacArthur/Dever/et al get together, have at it. Preach Jesus and the Bible. If you don’t like it, then don’t go. Go somewhere else, or stay home like I am.
I agree to a large extent. I am willing to grant liberty to people to do according to their conscience in their local church. But that doesn’t mean that what they do won’t have an affect on my relationship to them. It may or may not depending on the issue. Again, I think the issue for many is the appearance of consistency. If you are going to condemn Al Mohler for signing the MD or John MacArthur for having C. J. Mahaney to preach, it’s going to be hard to convince people why it’s okay to speak with Fugate, Schaap, or some others who have many clear doctrinal and methodological problems.
But in the midst of “live and let live,” we also must call people to biblical fidelity and obedience, particularly when they name the name of Christ. I am not sure that means a random free-for-all on the blogosphere as some seem wont to do. In Paul’s day, it was certainly a local context, and probably has today the extension to people of influence. IOW, where our people are endangered by some person or some teaching, we should address it accurately and graciously. I don’t need to spend time in my congregation calling out some guy they have never heard of and probably won’t hear of. But I am not sure that “polemics” or “vitriol” is a spiritual gift or calling in the NT. The work of exposing error in the NT seems to take place in the context of making disciples in the local church ministry, not in the context of making a name for oneself in the cyber-world (or anywhere else). I think there are some who, under the guise of standing for the truth, don’t get all the facts right; they don’t read carefully and understand what is actually being said. They just rare back and let-er-go. And that’s not helpful to anyone.
For young men, when someone stands up and condemns one side and not the other, those young men looking for men to follow will see the problems and will look elsewhere. I think this is where Bauder hit the nail on the head. When someone sees the careful handling of Scripture by some conservative evangelicals (not all) and the atrocious handling of Scripture by some fundamentalists (not all), that will be an easy choice for them. They won’t focus on the fact that Doran does it right, or Osteen does it wrong; that Minnick does it right, and Warren does it wrong. If the choice is between MacArthur’s soteriology and Schaap’s, that will likewise be an easy choice. And they will likely start to “hang with” people who agree with them. IOW, they will leave fundamentalism over the gospel issue or the Bible issue because fundamentalism is not giving them another option. Of course, I have long said that many who are “leaving fundamentalism” never shared its commitments. Fine. Let them go. I think the truth is that fundamentalism is giving people an option in soteriology and bibliology, in expository models of preaching and ministry, and many other areas, but I don’t feel the need to be a “movement fundamentalist.” I am what I am. I don’t intend to be anything different. I am a fundamentalist separatist. I am hesitant to use the name today because of the baggage. But as someone said to me privately recently, I am glad to keep the name because it lets me separate from some people.
When this discussion arises, I am reminded of something Jeff Foxworthy (who I hesitate to quote and don’t listen to or recommend anyone else listen to; I don’t endorse his conferences, who anyone who speaks at his conferences; I don’t recommend his books or audio files; I don’t recommend you share an airplane with him or stay in the same hotel; and if I missed anything, I don’t recommend that either) … Anyway, back to the issue, Foxworthy said once about southerners (of whom I am one): “The problem with southerners is that we can’t get the dumbest of us to keep their mouths shut.” (Let the reader understand how that applies here.) (Let the Foxworthy experts correct the quote, because I am sure there are some here.)
If this group wants to get together and preach, have at it. Preach Jesus and the Bible. And when Mohler/MacArthur/Dever/et al get together, have at it. Preach Jesus and the Bible. If you don’t like it, then don’t go. Go somewhere else, or stay home like I am.
So, I don’t think your assumption is accurate but I really don’t see why it matters unless you’re using a pseudo-argument of “johnny-come-lately.” Perhaps you can explain why this is worth mentioning.I think the point is that your earlier comment seemed to imply that no one was addressing Binney or Hamilton preaching at FBC Hammond. (And BTW, I think they are all going to be at Chappell’s/West Coasts’ spiritual leadership conference this year too.)
You said, 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.
We were pointing out that, in fact, it was noted, many times in the past. In fact, this may be the first year it wasn’t noted. And the response was fairly negative towards Binney/Hamilton/Garlock being at FBC Hammond. I don’t remember anyone defending it, but perhaps there were. The fact is that it was discussed, and even people who seemed to like Binney and Majesty Music thought it was a bad idea and should not be done. Early on, the first time, there were some (I think such as Mike Harding) who were willing to give him a break once on it. I don’t know about now for those people.
Bottom line, none of them should do it.
:bigsmile: :bigsmile:
[Larry] Thanks, Dan.Larry, I love it! Guess we can’t go anywhere and be good Christians. …I can’t write anymore, because I’m laughing so hard!…. :D
…Jeff Foxworthy (who I hesitate to quote and don’t listen to or recommend anyone else listen to; I don’t endorse his conferences, who anyone who speaks at his conferences; I don’t recommend his books or audio files; I don’t recommend you share an airplane with him or stay in the same hotel; and if I missed anything, I don’t recommend that either) … Anyway, back to the issue, Foxworthy said once about southerners (of whom I am one): “The problem with southerners is that we can’t get the dumbest of us to keep their mouths shut.” (Let the reader understand how that applies here.) (Let the Foxworthy experts correct the quote, because I am sure there are some here.)
If this group wants to get together and preach, have at it. Preach Jesus and the Bible. And when Mohler/MacArthur/Dever/et al get together, have at it. Preach Jesus and the Bible. If you don’t like it, then don’t go. Go somewhere else, or stay home like I am.
Dan Pelletier Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past
Surely, things are changing politically in America - good grief, the state of Idaho is currently suing our federal government. Wow.
And the “Independent Baptist Movement” in America is changing, becoming much more fluid (thankfully not suing one another). Baptists are fellowshipping with Paul Chappell and Clarence Sexton. And Baptists are fellowshipping with Al Mohler and Mark Dever. Hey, I enjoyed Al’s article, “Does the Church Need Change?” in the latest PCC UPDATE, Spring 2010. :)
And the “Independent Baptist Movement” in America is changing, becoming much more fluid (thankfully not suing one another). Baptists are fellowshipping with Paul Chappell and Clarence Sexton. And Baptists are fellowshipping with Al Mohler and Mark Dever. Hey, I enjoyed Al’s article, “Does the Church Need Change?” in the latest PCC UPDATE, Spring 2010. :)
[Dan Pelletier]Let’s be clear, though, that Paul & Barnabas went their separate ways without criticizing each other because the issue was not doctrinal but methodological. From all indications Paul & Barnabas remained friends while they differed on this methodological point. On the other hand, however, Paul was scathing in his criticism (& rightly so) of Alexander & Hymenaeus [1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 4:14]. The differences many of us have with Schaap & Fugate are not over whether we should uses buses to pick up kids; they center on doctrinal, theological aberrations. I understand the “critiquing from afar” being bothersome. Sometimes folks can carp about relatively petty stuff, in violation, I believe, of Titus 3:9. But we pastors of local churches also have a responsibility to guard the flock, and our sheep have all the technology available to them that we have. All too easily can they end up on an FBC-Hammond’s mailing list. Shoot, our church has never had anything to do with Crown College or FBC Hammond or HAC, but all the publicity stuff comes pouring in for all their events. People in my church are connected to people who’ve graduated from HAC. And on we can go with the fundamentalist web. I say all that to say it’s too simplistic to ignore the doctrinal aberrations—even of well-meaning, sincere “fundamentalists.” “Throw them under the bus”? That rhetoric is a little too strong. But cut off any chance their craziness will infect my sheep? I’ll do all I can.[Larry] Couple of things:Bottom line…I love the local church. I believe that the greatest sphere of influence I can have is through the local church. I believe that like-minded men should get together and encourage one another. This critiquing from afar stuff bugs me. Paul and Barnabas were both good men - who had a big disagreement over John Mark. So…they went their own ways and continued spreading the Gospel and making disciples and starting churches. I don’t see any record of either man trying to gain a following against the other guy. So, if you don’t want to associate with MacArthur, Binney, T4G, TGC (whatever those are), Schaap, Fugate, Vaughn, Piper, etc….then DON’T! But why do I have to hear about someone’s complaints. I can agree with MacArthur, Binney, et.al. (and I do) on one issue and disagree with them on another issue (and I do). But I don’t have to hit them with a hammer or throw them under a bus because of that issue. These are my brethren - and your brethren. I’m going to do what I have been called to do. You do what God has called you to do. Let me pray for you and encourage you. I’d like for you to do the same for me…and for Binney, MacArthur, Piper, Schaap, Fugate, Vaughn, Mohler, Bob Jones, Jack Trieber, Clarence Sexton……………… I’m not the fundamentalist policeman. Did we ever vote for one? …and who should have the right to vote?
2. To Dan’s comment, I don’t think the problem is with “truly good and godly men” of whom there are some at this conference. Most fundamentalists, young or old, don’t object to that. Nor do they object to a group of people getting together and having a conference.
4. If Dan’s point is that we should stay out of people’s business and tend to our own, then a lot would agree. If he means by this that we ought to leave this “fundamentalists” alone at their conference but we ought to speak out loudly against T4G or TGC, then a lot are going to object. If Dan means we should leave both alone and go about our business in our local churches and calling, then I imagine that will be more accepted. Perhaps Dan can clarify.
I am sure there are nuances between Crown and Hyles, etc.
And Sexton is probably good iron-sharpening-iron for Schaap. Just like Chappell is probably good iron-sharpening-iron for Trieber. Just like Vaughn is good iron-sharpening-iron for Sexton.
Just like Mohler and Dever (and the others at times) are good iron-sharpening-iron for me.
And Sexton is probably good iron-sharpening-iron for Schaap. Just like Chappell is probably good iron-sharpening-iron for Trieber. Just like Vaughn is good iron-sharpening-iron for Sexton.
Just like Mohler and Dever (and the others at times) are good iron-sharpening-iron for me.
[BryanBice][Dan Pelletier][Larry] Couple of things:I agree with you, Brian. We do have to protect our flocks. But if we preach truth from the pulpit, teach our people to think for themselves, etc., those we CAN protect will be protected. (It’s impossible to keep every sheep away from every wolf. Some sheep just refuse to stay in the fold, no matter how biblical it is.) If they have to read someone else’s blog or newsletter because they are starving for spiritual nourishment, then that’s our fault. But, if we keep them full and satisfied with truth, they may eat a stray doctrinal weed once in a while, but they’ll know the difference. The greatest spiritual policing system is a Christian who knows the Word of God and walks in the Spirit of God Who will guide us into all truth.
.. we pastors of local churches also have a responsibility to guard the flock, and our sheep have all the technology available to them that we have. All too easily can they end up on an FBC-Hammond’s mailing list. Shoot, our church has never had anything to do with Crown College or FBC Hammond or HAC, but all the publicity stuff comes pouring in for all their events. People in my church are connected to people who’ve graduated from HAC. And on we can go with the fundamentalist web. I say all that to say it’s too simplistic to ignore the doctrinal aberrations—even of well-meaning, sincere “fundamentalists.” “Throw them under the bus”? That rhetoric is a little too strong. But cut off any chance their craziness will infect my sheep? I’ll do all I can.
Again…I am amazed at how much fire my comments seem to generate? …and how much time this takes!
Dan Pelletier Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past
The Holy Spirit’s words in the Book of Hebrews guide my church family on these Wednesday nights during the changing days in America in 2010. We must not leave, fall back, or slip away from the living God.
[Todd Wood]Thanks for pointing out that article. It was good. Who is Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.? Should I be associated with him?
I enjoyed Al’s article, “Does the Church Need Change?” in the latest PCC UPDATE, Spring 2010. :)
Along this same line is a recent book by Ken Ham - Already Gone! We’re making that a book of the month at our church.
Dan Pelletier Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past
[Larry] Do we really believe that teaching a faulty gospel is more acceptable than preaching with a charismatic who affirms the final authority of Scripture? Do we really believe that teaching a faulty doctrine of the Bible is more acceptable than having drums on the stage at a church? Again, I would hate to see someone try to make that argument with a straight face.
You nailed it with this.
Although many would not admit it (or try to make that argument if they *did* admit it), this is exactly what they believe, and why they will share pulpits with those who differ doctrinally, but not if they differ in areas like music.
Dave Barnhart
Discussion