Together for the Gospel: Jack Schaap & John Vaughn ??

Oh, no! Now, we have to separate from Al Mohler because PCC, which published his article, is KJVO!

(Oh, BTW, please clarify this: I thought Paul and Clarence were Baptists!)My, what a convoluted mess this thing has become! Thank you for maintaining some levity here. We need more fun in fundamentalism at times. I think Jesus and the little children would agree. ;)

However, we pick and choose our fights.

I agree with that. But what’s the option? We have to pick and choose, and make our decision based on our understanding of Scripture, our conscience, our context, and the information at hand. I don’t think anyone will ever be perfectly consistent, and I am not sure that is a good pursuit anyway.

If we’re going to “second-degree” separation, as we undoubtedly are by condemning the FBF via the John connection, why not complete the circle and point out that Jim, who is very cozy with Jack, was speaking at BJU Bible Conference this week. The language here and in the original article is pretty passionate about the FBF but I really don’t recall much passion about Ron, Frank, and Jim at the Pastors School. Am I wrong?

Yes, I think you’re wrong (nicely said).This was a very big issue the first time or two it happened. Now, I think it is pretty much over and the consensus was that “Ron, Frank, and Jim” are all in the wrong. I don’t think it has anything to do with “animus over the Danny thing.” I think it’s all been said several times and there is nothing really left to say. Their attendance there is inexplicable and, IMO, inexcusable.

And I don’t think anyone here is “condemning the FBF via the John connection.” I haven’t seen that (though perhaps I missed it). I think some were expressing some issues with it, but “condemnation” is perhaps a bit strong. I wouldn’t condemn them, but it certainly is troubling to me.

The flap seems to be more about Calvinism and the KJV than any real issue worthy of Biblical separation.

Not really, although soteriology and bibliology are two big issues, both of which could be matters of separation. The issue with Schaap and others is about far more than merely Calvinism vs. Arminianism. It is about the gospel itself and faith and salvation. Most would consider me a Calvinist, soteriologically, but it’s not a huge deal to me in a lot of ways. I am not separating from someone who sees it a little different than I do. I am not going to call them out over it though I may discuss it with them. But there is a line that is crossed, and while I am not exactly sure where that line is, Schaap/FBC Hammond are nowhere near it. The Bible issue is about the doctrine of bibliology, but some have narrowed it to the KJV. That’s outside the scope of this discussion, but these can be issues worthy of separation, though probably on the Bible issue the separation comes from the KJV side. Again, it’s not a huge deal to me. We do what we do in our local church, and if some other local church decides differently, then fine. But again, there’s a line, and this KJV Only position is nowhere near it. So it’s not really about Calvinism and the KJV. It’s about philosophy of ministry and methodology; it’s about doctrine and faith.

With that, I think I am done here unless something irresistible draws me in. Thanks to all; carry on.

[RPittman]

[BryanBice] 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.

1. Well, it’s not clear that Paul and Barnabas went their separate ways without criticizing. The force of the language in Acts 15:39 indicates a sharp conflict ( εγενετο ουν παροξυσμος ωστε αποχωρισθηναι αυτους απ αλληλων τον τε βαρναβαν παραλαβοντα τον μαρκον εκπλευσαι εις κυπρον). Paul was certainly capable of pointed barbs (e.g. Acts 23:3-5, Galatians 2:11) and he may have had some sharp words for Barnabas and John Mark. All we know for certain is that Paul, Barnabas, and John Mark were friends afterwards; we cannot say immediately after the departure because we aren’t told and don’t know. Speculative thinking based on our profiling is not productive. We simply don’t know enough to say.
2. A very broad brush is being used to paint this picture. I hardly group Crown with HAC. Although they do not separate from one another, the ministries bear an entirely different character. However, one thing bothers me. Your post implies “[y] our church has never had anything to do with Crown College” because of things that “center on doctrinal, theological aberrations.” Can you name some of the “doctrinal, theological aberrations” of Crown or Dr. Sexton? Perhaps you just made too broad of a brush stroke and need to refine and separate the details.

Here’s a fine example of the “relatively petty” in which we can get mired. Nevertheless, to clarify, 1) “Paul & Barnabas went their separate ways with no record of personal criticism expressed the one toward the other” in contrast to the clear record of Paul’s scathing criticism of Alexander & Hymenaeus.

And, 2) “our church has never had anything to do with Crown College” means simply that our church has never had anything to do with Crown College. Crown, FBC Hammond, & HAC were grouped together because our church has never had anything to do with any of those ministries (not necessarily for the same reasons), yet we get oodles of their publicity materials unsolicited. I was simply illustrating how easily my people can be exposed to the Schaap/HAC aberrations and Crown’s tacit acceptance—or at least tolerance—of those aberrations (not to mention the further confusion of throwing Vaughn & Schrock into the mix).

RPittman,
I am sorry for the delay, but I just got in from church about 1/2 hour ago. Larry addressed the Binney, Hamilton, Garlock thing. On the old SI it was discussed. I was personally disappointed that they go and still go to HAC. I had forgotten that Bineey was at Bible Conference at BJ. I am disappointed about that. Here is the reason I posted. I doubt I would have said much had things not transpired the way they did last summer. Not everyone in IFB has to be Calvinists and they certainly can be KJV preferred. But I don’t understand how any one could share the platform with a man that likens the Lord’s supper to some type of spiritual intercourse (Schaap). I find it odd that some in our movement are willing to be charitble with that but not with say Dever.

Todd is right that what things are becoming more fluid. I have no problem with people doing what the Lord has for them. That is what I do. I think the tent can be big enough but we do need to stand for truth even if it means gently and bodly correcting error within our own ranks. I think often the errors withing fundamentalism are well intentioned but they are still errors. And if we are not honest about these inconsistancies, young guys will continue to bolt.

Dan, Mohler is a SBC seminary leader whom I respect for his theological breadth and clarity and at the same time his charity to fellow Americans. He is always worth reading.

And yes, RPittman, you are right. Paul and Clarence would be two Independent Baptist leaders in America whom I respect for their zeal in national leadership and outreach.

____

As just a small fellow within the the big, big tent of Independent Baptists in America, here is where I am at. Maybe I am an inconsistent Independent Baptist?

1. I (and my church family) can enjoy and be edified by music CDs (we do have Patch the Pirate club) and magazines from Paul Chappell and Clarence Sexton. I just wouldn’t invite them to speak at a conference in my church. Is that separation? We don’t see eye to eye on some things theologically that matter very deeply to me.

Of course, I am curious about reading anything that carries the label “independent Baptist” in America, but nothing by Trieber or Schaap would sit on a church coffee table.

2. I can enjoy and be edified by both the preaching and teaching of Al Mohler and Mark Dever. I would even invite them to my church to speak, that is, if they could tolerate my inconsistent Calvinism. I just wouldn’t allow Al to pitch the Manhattan Declaration or the ol’ Billy Graham evangelistic center or Mark to preach his eschatology (chuckling).

____

Concerning Ben’s original options for Baptist fundamentalism in America: fracture or theological reductionism, does it have to be only one of these two? I choose neither. And young Baptist men in America do have an incredible adventure ahead of them.

Guys, thanks for letting me ramble in and out of this conversational thread. For John Vaughn to speak at a Sexton invitation - it really is old news. :)

That PCC Update was very confusing to me…article by Al Mohler on pg 2 and advertisement for Marc Monte’s D.Min class on pg 17. These seem to be two very opposite voices. Can anyone tell me where PCC fits in these things? Are they still strictly KJVO?

Jason,

AiG can appreciate Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Pensacola Christian College, though AiG will publish Mohler’s articles and problably not Monte’s articles. And who among fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals would not be in appreciation for the latest national AiG campaign - “I am not ashamed!”

Pensacola Christian College can appreciate Mohler and Monte, though PCC will have Monte preaching and probably not Mohler preaching. And yes, PCC is strictly KJVO. I read the latest abbreviated handbook.

And I can appreciate Monte preaching through the KJV Jeremiah (p. 19), for I spent a year and a half preaching through the KJV Jeremiah in my church. It is the book for the day. I can appreciate what Monte is doing; I would be interested in what he has to say, though I necessary wouldn’t ask him to preach through KJV passages of Jeremiah in my church.

Fundamental ideas that passionately get ahold of one’s soul join brothers together in all kinds of various venues despite their other differences.

My secular evolutionist friend would tell (1) me, and (2) the brother in my church family who enjoys reading PCC Upates, and also (3) the other brother in my church family who enjoys reading Al Mohler - “You guys all believe fundamentallly some of the same things!” So would my Mormon friend tell me this, so would even my friend in a liberal church.

And I don’t disagree with my unsaved friends. Unnecessary fracture that hinders oneness for effective evangelism of the world is a blight. We can’t afford this in America. But not being Word-centered and theologically accurate is a problem, too. We can’t afford this either.

As disciples of Jesus Christ, we should love those inside and outside of our respective camps. As Bereans, we test everything we read and hear, searching inside and outside of our respective camps for purifying streams that sanctify our souls with the Word.

thinking of heart issues,

et

John 17 is a keynote prayer for our topic of conversation, “Together for the Gospel”.

[RPittman] Wow! Many have missed some important and obvious points here but Jay C hit the nail squarely.

[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 ;)

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?

Jim and John shouldn’t be associating with Jack - that’s the thrust of my complaint. :)

I don’t think that I’ve ever said that we (speaking for YF’s) shouldn’t practice secondary separation. What I see here is the unholy commingling of a Bibliology that is wrong [Schaap] with a place/institution that has a correct Bibliology [FBF / BJU]. The fact of the matter is that the latter institutions are then warning people of the KJV position taken by Schaap et al while joining hands with them. After all, Schrock and Vaughn were both invited to attend and speak at the conference. I’m just as concerned about Binney, Garlock, and Hamilton’s associations as well with Schaap, but that’s outside of the discussion on this thread. If someone wants to look it up, I’ll bet the comments on that thread are very similar to what I’ve said on this one.

If Schrock and Vaughn do believe what their organizations teach, then they shouldn’t be attending. That would be consistent. It’s either that or change their position on Bibliology, which they could also do.

Sometimes I think we confuse Fundamentalism (the idea) with Fundamentalist Culture, and that’s why things are the way they are. And yes, that book that Schaap’s book is creepy to say the least. [URL=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blasphemy] Blasphemous[/URL] might be a better adjective.

(chuckling)

Jay, you can ask my wife. There is one area that I show consistency. She told me last night that I show continual consistency in my inconsistency [with organizations].

FBF, BJU, you name it.

But hopefully, this is a complete contrast to my love and loyalty to the living organism. Things are not structured organizationally today as they once were in America.

[Todd Wood] My secular evolutionist friend would tell (1) me, and (2) the brother in my church family who enjoys reading PCC Upates, and also (3) the other brother in my church family who enjoys reading Al Mohler - “You guys all believe fundamentallly some of the same things!” So would my Mormon friend tell me this, so would even my friend in a liberal church.

And I don’t disagree with my unsaved friends. Unnecessary fracture that hinders oneness for effective evangelism of the world is a blight. We can’t afford this in America.

Todd, your argument sounds exactly like the new evangelical argument of the 1950s.

Let me ask you this: should we be united with Mohler and make no distinctions at all?

If Yes, then how would this make much of an impact on lost America (or anywhere else)? How has evangelical unity as promoted and fostered by the new evangelicals and their successors succeeded? Is America (or the world) more or less Christian after this show of unity?

How would unity between fundamentalists and evangelicals today make any better impact on the world?

Don, how does “unity” (so-called) with Fundamentalists who can’t even agree on the doctrine of the Bible help the Church?

Todd, I’m not perfectly consistent either. But I demand more from teachers, who are to be held to a higher standard.

@All - So I got curious and made sure that I wanted to be positive that Bibliology is the issue here and that I understand everything correctly. This is what I found from [URL=http://www.fbchammond.com/dr-jack-schaap-speaks-on-inspiration-and-the-… FBCHammond[/URL]:

I want to declare what I believe concerning the Word of God. I would prefer to be my own spokesman and to speak for myself and to not have others casually or carelessly presume to speak on my behalf.

I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, meaning that every word was chosen by the Holy Ghost, every word the Holy Ghost chose is in the Scriptures, and not one word is omitted. The Bible is complete and accurate.

I believe the King James Version of the Bible is the divinely preserved translation of the inspired Word of God for English-speaking peoples.

Note the emphasis on the article in that last sentence - THE divinely preserved translation.
Now let’s look at BJU, from their website:

[URL=http://www.bju.edu/welcome/who-we-are/translation-position.php] Statement about Bible Translations[/URL]

Although Bob Jones University does not hold to a King James Only position, we continue to hold the widely-used King James Version (KJV) as the campus standard in the classroom and in the chapel pulpit. The position of the University on the translation issue has not changed since the founding of the school in 1927.

We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible in the original manuscripts, and we believe that God has supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today. However, from the founder to the present administration, we have never taken the position that there can be only one good translation in the English language.

Finally, there’s the statement [URL=http://www.fbfi.org/content/view/74/108/ published in Frontline magazine[/URL] (I couldn’t find the FBF resolution on the KJV issue, or I’d reproduce that here):

The Bible testifies to the fact of its own preservation but makes no particular statement about the method of its preservation. The Bible claims that its contents will not be lost but makes no claim concerning the transcription of Scripture itself. It gives no guidelines for transcription. There are no Scriptural promises concerning any future method of approval that would eliminate all questions concerning variations between copies. Opinions will vary on how God chooses to preserve His Word. In our zeal to defend or promote a particular text or translation, we must remember that we do not have a right to raise our opinion to the level of Bible doctrine.

The practice of translation is clearly intended in Scripture. The idea that the Word of God should be in the generally spoken language of the people is affirmed by Christ’s quoting from a Greek translation of the Old Testament. The inspiration and inscription of the New Testament in koine (common) Greek rather than classical Greek, Hebrew, or another language clearly indicates God’s intent to put the Scriptures within the reach and understanding of the most possible people. We believe and commend the practice of the translation of Scripture into as many world languages as possible as a noble and Biblical part of the Great Commission.

However, the Bible itself makes no claim and gives no specific instructions concerning the method of translation or the nature of future translations. The Bible makes no claim concerning the transfer of the gift of inspiration to future translators. If it had done so, we should believe it. But it did not make such a claim. For us to claim inspiration for translators would be error and could be categorized as a violation of Revelation 22:18, 19, changing the words of the Book as given under divine inspiration and bringing with it the accompanying Scriptural condemnations.

So as I’ve said before, either the doctrine of Bibliology is important, or it’s not. I guess it’s not…according to the men who taught me that. :cry:

[Jay C.] Don, how does “unity” (so-called) with Fundamentalists who can’t even agree on the doctrine of the Bible help the Church?

Where did I say it did?

Don,

Maybe you can answer this question for me. I would never have Piper in my pulpit, even though I had been to conferences where he has preached. The subject of this thread is Schaap and Vaughn. Let me say I think the world of Dr. Vaughn. When I was a student, i went to his church before I was had an assistant pastor position in another Greenville area church. If it is concerning for young guys like me to go to conferences where the CE’s are why is it not wrong for the FBFI president to preach with someone like Schaap who preaches blasphemy reguarding the Lord’s Supper? I am really trying to understand the disconnect. I just don’t get it so please tell me where I am wrong.

[RPittman] From its inception, Fundamentalism has been an ecumenical movement of orthodoxy although this has changed in recent years. Baptists have come to dominate the movement in both leadership and numbers but this has not always been so, even in my lifetime. In the beginning, there was a healthy mix of Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Evangelical Free Church, Grace Brethren and Brethren of every sort as well as a smattering of Pentecostal Holiness and Church of God,

This describes my lifetime as well. I think many of us in the “historical” branches of fundamentalism have understood that. I come from a fundamental methodist background myself, so I well understand that fundamentalism hasn’t only been baptists, and still isn’t, even if some baptists don’t recognize that. Unfortunately, the more shrill “hyperfundamentalist” branches (and I don’t know if all of these are baptist, but it seems that a fairly large majority are) have been more or less declaring the rest of us neo or compromising, if not apostate, for some time now. The question is, whose position has actually moved?

Furthermore, preservation is a controversial and highly speculative area of contention with good Bible-believing men on both sides of the issue.

Emphasis mine. That is definitely true. The difference is that it is largely the groups on the KJVO side (and not all of them Ruckmanites) who are the ones declaring essentially that those who do not hold to the KJVO position are false teachers because we are not using the true word of God, but a corrupt perversion. It is certainly true that there have been those who have declared the text behind the KJV to be corrupt, but that is not at all representative of historical fundamentalism. I’m actually more surprised that people from the more hyper branches of fundamentalism would have people like Ron Hamilton or Jim Binney speak, than I am that those men are willing to speak there, given what those types of KJVOs say (in public at least) about those who do not take their position. Still if a group is being extremely divisive over an issue such as preservation (and I’m not talking about those on the KJVO side who agree that “there are good men on both sides”), we should be marking and avoiding them, not joining with them.

Well, should I withdraw from BJU because they invited Jim to Bible Conference who also filled a similar role at Jack’s Pastors School repeatedly? Are you shredding your BJU Alumni card in protest of Jim’s speaking? Jay, it’s easy to tell someone else how to handle their associations but it really is different when it comes one’s own cherished relationships.

If one believes “secondary separation” works (or should work) like that (i.e. it’s all primary separation), then yes, BJU *should* be avoided by that person, since it is obvious that by allowing this relationship, BJU is “clearly” not separating from sin as that person understands it.