Minnick Reviews 2009 FBFI Fellowship
http://www.mountcalvarybaptist.org/pages/audio/062109p.mp3?download=true
The above link allows you to download the message rather than having to listen to it at your PC [it’s in the original blog post]. I’m unsure if they are giving it away for free; If you follow the link in the OP you need to buy the message for $1.00 from the MCBC store.
The above link allows you to download the message rather than having to listen to it at your PC [it’s in the original blog post]. I’m unsure if they are giving it away for free; If you follow the link in the OP you need to buy the message for $1.00 from the MCBC store.
"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
Apparently the only way to get the full message is to pay the buck. Makes me appreciate the ministry mentality of DesiringGod and TruthforLife where you can download messages for free :). I guess I’m just a cheapskate. You are able to get enough of the opening to hear about Bethel’s “impressive” new 8-10 million dollar gymnasium complex complete with cafeteria, cafe, weight rooms, 3 gym floors, 1/4 mile indoor track….
[BryanBice] Apparently the only way to get the full message is to pay the buck. Makes me appreciate the ministry mentality of DesiringGod and TruthforLife where you can download messages for free :). I guess I’m just a cheapskate. You are able to get enough of the opening to hear about Bethel’s “impressive” new 8-10 million dollar gymnasium complex complete with cafeteria, cafe, weight rooms, 3 gym floors, 1/4 mile indoor track….No charge on this one. Just follow the link that Jay provided.
Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.
OK, thanks…but wonder how he got the workaround.
[BryanBice] OK, thanks…but wonder how he got the workaround.It’s not underhanded. Following the blog entry (the HT), I clicked the word “available,” which took me to a page of recent sermons where I can listen or download for free. Or (back in the original blog entry) click the word “sermon,” which will automatically download it for free.
I’ve notified Greg that maybe he should change the original link on this post.
Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.
I’m listening to it for free here: http://www.mountcalvarybaptist.org/pages/recent.aspx
[Matthew Olmstead]Sorry if I implied an underhanded workaround. I wasn’t assuming that. I simply assumed there was another way to get the message known to an “insider.”[BryanBice] OK, thanks…but wonder how he got the workaround.It’s not underhanded. Following the blog entry (the HT), I clicked the word “available,” which takes you to a page of recent sermons where you can listen or download for free. I’ve notified Greg that maybe he should change the original link on this post.
I’ve flagged my earlier post [for review by admin/mods] and also asked the SI mods [in their forum] to look into whether or not we have to pay the buck for the message.
"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
Last night I talked to Pastor Vincent who oversees the sermon distribution ministry and he said that it would be offered for free. If you download the .m3u file from the front page, this is the file it links to:
http://www.mountcalvarybaptist.org/audio/062109p.mp3
http://www.mountcalvarybaptist.org/audio/062109p.mp3
Thanks for notifying me of this link on SI, Greg!
I payed the $1. I think the sermon will be mailed to me in Idaho.
And then I listened to the whole sermon from the link on MCBC’s front page.
It’s another thoughtful message from Minnick on this Monday afternoon. Some good things to chew on and think over.
It has been a good past month of iron sharpening iron.
But after listening this afternoon, I do come away with a needful prayer for my heart:
Lord, help me to be careful not to turn into a Christian cannibal through the venue of my public blogging, especially toward fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals in the household of faith.
thinking of heart issues,
et
I payed the $1. I think the sermon will be mailed to me in Idaho.
And then I listened to the whole sermon from the link on MCBC’s front page.
It’s another thoughtful message from Minnick on this Monday afternoon. Some good things to chew on and think over.
It has been a good past month of iron sharpening iron.
But after listening this afternoon, I do come away with a needful prayer for my heart:
Lord, help me to be careful not to turn into a Christian cannibal through the venue of my public blogging, especially toward fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals in the household of faith.
thinking of heart issues,
et
Overall, I appreciate Dr. Minnick’s analysis. Some may take his simplification to task, but he does help bring basic principles to the fore.
Near the end of the message, he discreetly addresses the Sweatt message and its fallout (without naming any names). He suggests that the proper way to have handled the offending preacher would be to deal with him privately, and I would concur with his hypothetical scenario; that is, if I were in the room when the offending message was preached, it would be appropriate for me to confront the preacher privately. Furthermore, he rightly condemns the use of disrespectful, malicious speech on the part of those who were offended by the message as they reacted toward Pastor Sweatt. Apparently, many of us in the blogosphere demonstrated hostile, uncharitable behavior in our communication, and, indeed, that’s not right.
What he didn’t really deal with, though, is how to handle biblically this whole situation as it actually played out. In other words, Pastor Sweatt took the audio recording of that message & posted it on both his website and SermonAudio account, in effect broadcasting the message for all the world to hear. Insodoing, he opened himself up to having his sermon publically critiqued. In fact, the SermonAudio site itself provides opportunity for feedback—any preacher who posts a sermon on that site must be willing to accept public response. Then, as the message was disseminated, the errors—“sins”— therein were noted repeatedly by scores of witnesses who heard with their own ears what Pastor Sweatt actually said. At this point, wouldn’t 1 Timothy 5:19-20 come into play? I can’t speak for Kevin Bauder and the thought processes that went into what he wrote and when, but it seems that his response fit into the category of “them that sin rebuke before all that others may fear.”
Again, I want to reaffirm my overall appreciation for Dr. Minnick’s appraisal of the current situation in fundamentalism, especially regarding conservative evangelicalism. He seems to have a sane, balanced, biblical approach to the issues.
Near the end of the message, he discreetly addresses the Sweatt message and its fallout (without naming any names). He suggests that the proper way to have handled the offending preacher would be to deal with him privately, and I would concur with his hypothetical scenario; that is, if I were in the room when the offending message was preached, it would be appropriate for me to confront the preacher privately. Furthermore, he rightly condemns the use of disrespectful, malicious speech on the part of those who were offended by the message as they reacted toward Pastor Sweatt. Apparently, many of us in the blogosphere demonstrated hostile, uncharitable behavior in our communication, and, indeed, that’s not right.
What he didn’t really deal with, though, is how to handle biblically this whole situation as it actually played out. In other words, Pastor Sweatt took the audio recording of that message & posted it on both his website and SermonAudio account, in effect broadcasting the message for all the world to hear. Insodoing, he opened himself up to having his sermon publically critiqued. In fact, the SermonAudio site itself provides opportunity for feedback—any preacher who posts a sermon on that site must be willing to accept public response. Then, as the message was disseminated, the errors—“sins”— therein were noted repeatedly by scores of witnesses who heard with their own ears what Pastor Sweatt actually said. At this point, wouldn’t 1 Timothy 5:19-20 come into play? I can’t speak for Kevin Bauder and the thought processes that went into what he wrote and when, but it seems that his response fit into the category of “them that sin rebuke before all that others may fear.”
Again, I want to reaffirm my overall appreciation for Dr. Minnick’s appraisal of the current situation in fundamentalism, especially regarding conservative evangelicalism. He seems to have a sane, balanced, biblical approach to the issues.
[wdlowry] Last night I talked to Pastor Vincent who oversees the sermon distribution ministry and he said that it would be offered for free. If you download the .m3u file from the front page, this is the file it links to:
http://www.mountcalvarybaptist.org/audio/062109p.mp3
Thank you for clearing that up!
"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
Dr. Minnick is in good company when he encourages Calvinists and Arminians to remain together in one fundamentalism. On the other hand, I’ve been wrestling with this issue for several years and I’m convinced that it is just not possible if we intend to maintain biblical integrity because the disagreement is over such foundational (what should be considered fundamental) doctrines of the faith. This is not over the comparatively trite extra-biblical matter of music. These things go to the heart of Christianity: sovereignty, original sin, redemption, soteriology, anthropology, the meaning of grace.
So for that reason, whether we like it or not, we really have 2 fundamentalisms. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad that fundamentalists are willing to separate over music, movies and modern translations but the heart of what God did? Eh, that’s no big deal. We can tolerate each others’ differences over that. Maybe it is time to admit that these doctrines are too important to compromise over and that we are too different to dwell in unity.
When this controversy first began, the Church leadership dealt with it head on and declared one view, on biblical authority, to be heresy. What changed? If it was heresy then, it is still heresy today. Comparatively speaking, the type of music one listens to is of no consequence over against what doctrine one holds. As separatists, we should do what separatists do and separate over doctrinal error. Maybe that is what the young fundamentalists are really doing.
So for that reason, whether we like it or not, we really have 2 fundamentalisms. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad that fundamentalists are willing to separate over music, movies and modern translations but the heart of what God did? Eh, that’s no big deal. We can tolerate each others’ differences over that. Maybe it is time to admit that these doctrines are too important to compromise over and that we are too different to dwell in unity.
When this controversy first began, the Church leadership dealt with it head on and declared one view, on biblical authority, to be heresy. What changed? If it was heresy then, it is still heresy today. Comparatively speaking, the type of music one listens to is of no consequence over against what doctrine one holds. As separatists, we should do what separatists do and separate over doctrinal error. Maybe that is what the young fundamentalists are really doing.
Dennis The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. ~ Proverbs 18:17
If you read the FBFI doctrinal statement, only 4 point Calvinists can join and be in agreement. Both calling and regeneration precede union with Christ whereby one is Justified. Also, only the elect of God are kept by God. Those who are Arminian cannot join. So there really should not be a problem with unity if those not in agreement with the doctrinal statement will drop their membership. It reads in part:
“Salvation: We believe in the salvation of sinners through Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, Who is the only Savior of men by virtue of His shed blood, i.e., His substitutionary death for sinners. We believe that salvation is completely dependent on the grace of God, is a free gift of God that man cannot earn or merit in any way, and is appropriated by repentance and faith in the person and cross work of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We hold that in salvation the believer is called, regenerated, Spirit baptized into union with Christ, justified, (including the forgiveness of sin and restoration to favor with God through the merit or righteousness of Christ), adopted, sanctified, and glorified. We believe that God secures and guarantees the final salvation of every true believer, and that the genuine believer will continue in his faith and show evidence of his faith in Christ until he meets the Lord. We believe all the elect of God, once saved, are kept by God’s power and are secure in Christ forever (Jn. 14:6; Rom. 3:25; Is. 53:4-6; Eph. 2:9; Jn. 16:8-11; Acts 20:21; Eph. 2:8-10; Jn. 1:13; Rom. 6:3-5; Rom. 5:1; Rom. 8:15; Heb. 10:10, 14; Rom. 8:30; Jn. 6:39; 2 Cor. 5:17; 1 Jn. 2:19; 1 Cor. 15:2; Rom. 8:37-37).”
“Salvation: We believe in the salvation of sinners through Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, Who is the only Savior of men by virtue of His shed blood, i.e., His substitutionary death for sinners. We believe that salvation is completely dependent on the grace of God, is a free gift of God that man cannot earn or merit in any way, and is appropriated by repentance and faith in the person and cross work of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We hold that in salvation the believer is called, regenerated, Spirit baptized into union with Christ, justified, (including the forgiveness of sin and restoration to favor with God through the merit or righteousness of Christ), adopted, sanctified, and glorified. We believe that God secures and guarantees the final salvation of every true believer, and that the genuine believer will continue in his faith and show evidence of his faith in Christ until he meets the Lord. We believe all the elect of God, once saved, are kept by God’s power and are secure in Christ forever (Jn. 14:6; Rom. 3:25; Is. 53:4-6; Eph. 2:9; Jn. 16:8-11; Acts 20:21; Eph. 2:8-10; Jn. 1:13; Rom. 6:3-5; Rom. 5:1; Rom. 8:15; Heb. 10:10, 14; Rom. 8:30; Jn. 6:39; 2 Cor. 5:17; 1 Jn. 2:19; 1 Cor. 15:2; Rom. 8:37-37).”
A Parochial Perspective
Though I have not had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Minnick, I respect his ministry and reputation, and know a great many young men who love him dearly as a personal mentor figure. Dr. Minnick has shown himself to be wise and a gifted teacher of the Word, and for that we should honor him.
That being said, I believe his institutional and provincial bias shows through here. It is most vividly illustrated when he talks about judging a church not by the pulpit alone, but where they send their young people to school (and what mission boards they support). Now, granted, I think those things may still be a factor- but I don’t think they are as useful a criteria as they might have been 15-20 years ago, even. For one, the children of many mature (and separated) believers are more often choosing to attend local colleges and maintain commitments in faithful local churches. I have seen this be quite common here in Minnesota, even among the families of pastors and professors. In Iowa, many young people attended local schools for career training (though many attended Faith for their one-year Bible program first). In the BJU-influenced world, this option is often unthinkable, especially amongst its alumni I have interacted with (though I realize this is not universally true). It is interesting to me that given the institutional setting there in Greenville, the choice of an actual local church/ pastor at this stage of life is at best secondary and at worst disregarded. I’m not saying that this makes Greenville people “less fundamental,” only that differing priorities in this area don’t necessarily make people “less than fundamental,” either.
Another thing that gets overlooked here in the context of the “Conservative Evangelical” conversation is how the FBF relates or compares to other Fundamentalist organizations. Mission boards were raised. I have seen some in BJU circles recoil at a mission agency like Baptist Mid-Missions or Bibles International (at least before Hantz Bernard, a BJU grad, became more prominent). Minnick speaks of the FBF and Fundamentalism almost as if they are one and the same (though he does stop short of that). Still, I do think it is interesting that he seems to equate “leaving” the FBF with deserting Fundamentalism. I’m definite not convinced that is true- or for that matter, that you necessarily need an over-encompassing entity (be it FBF, GARBC, MBA, or AEIOU…) to make “it” cohesive. When you embrace the “idea,” and you find someone else who does, too, you can’t help but share some degree of affinity. The opposite is true, too- even if your institutions line up.
Now, his instruction makes sense if he is speaking to his church alone, I suppose. However, the rest of the world he is targeting over the internet (as he himself acknowledges) does not operate like Greenville. Furthermore, there are a great many true Fundamentalists who (whether they should or not) have a degree of suspicion, distaste, or discomfort for the way BJU handles these matters (beginning the gauging one’s “Fundamentalness” by institutional loyalties), especially when BJU has in its past deemed some in the Fundamentalist orbit as less than Fundamental for what appear to be institutional differences than those of orthodoxy.
Personal Touch
Dr. Minnick, in his ambiguous (hmmm…?) referral to blogosphere banter, also calls for the personal approach when one is wronged. I would be curious to know whether or not he applied that principle when he mentioned WORLD magazine earlier in the message. Did Marvin Olasky and Joel Belz receive phone calls or a personal visit before he expresses criticism for their music and movie reviews? I doubt it- nor do I expect that Minnick should make those efforts. WORLD is publicly-distributed media, and Minnick is wise to warn his people (and other who listen) in a public fashion.
Dr. Dan Sweatt also made a concerted effort to publicly disseminate his ideas when he made his sermon available on the internet. This was further solidified when he distributed materials on his church’s website refuting Calvinism to accompany the sermon. While I can understand the kind of compassion Minnick is endorsing, I am also left wondering if any of the FBFI men (including Minnick himself) made efforts to contact the “young men” who blog personally if they were grieved or offended (which it seems quite apparent that they are). I can say with transparency that as of this moment, no one on the FBFI board has made public contact with me on these issues if they were concerned at what I have said or posted (though I do know that some have subscribed to my sifilings Twitter feed… :-) ). BTW, if anyone does want to contact me, I am open to discussion and correction, and I mean that sincerely. See http://firstbaptistmarshall.com/contact-us/ if you want to get hold of me.
In The End…
After all was said and done, Dr. Minnick observed that there were still men (perhaps even in the FBFI, though perhaps I was reading into that) whom he would not enjoy close fellowship with, though he would enjoy FBFI membership with them. And that, to me, is what remains confusing. Dr. Minnick did an adequate job of describing what the FBFI is. However, he did not do a particularly convincing job of telling people why they should join or what they will get out of it. If what he says about the diversity of positions in the fellowship (and his evident discomfort with some in the membership), what value does being listed in their directory have? It’s still hit or miss, with no guarantees that a good match will be found.
In the end, I see much that is to be admired about Dr. Minnick, even in this address. He is committed to his ideals, committed to his church, committed to his institution(s). That’s something I can respect and admire. However, he did not do a particularly convincing job in helping me see why I (or others outside of the Greenville orbit) should emulate those commitments. If Fundamentalism (and the FBFI) wants to make a case- and I say this as humbly as I can- it will need to be done better than this.
Though I have not had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Minnick, I respect his ministry and reputation, and know a great many young men who love him dearly as a personal mentor figure. Dr. Minnick has shown himself to be wise and a gifted teacher of the Word, and for that we should honor him.
That being said, I believe his institutional and provincial bias shows through here. It is most vividly illustrated when he talks about judging a church not by the pulpit alone, but where they send their young people to school (and what mission boards they support). Now, granted, I think those things may still be a factor- but I don’t think they are as useful a criteria as they might have been 15-20 years ago, even. For one, the children of many mature (and separated) believers are more often choosing to attend local colleges and maintain commitments in faithful local churches. I have seen this be quite common here in Minnesota, even among the families of pastors and professors. In Iowa, many young people attended local schools for career training (though many attended Faith for their one-year Bible program first). In the BJU-influenced world, this option is often unthinkable, especially amongst its alumni I have interacted with (though I realize this is not universally true). It is interesting to me that given the institutional setting there in Greenville, the choice of an actual local church/ pastor at this stage of life is at best secondary and at worst disregarded. I’m not saying that this makes Greenville people “less fundamental,” only that differing priorities in this area don’t necessarily make people “less than fundamental,” either.
Another thing that gets overlooked here in the context of the “Conservative Evangelical” conversation is how the FBF relates or compares to other Fundamentalist organizations. Mission boards were raised. I have seen some in BJU circles recoil at a mission agency like Baptist Mid-Missions or Bibles International (at least before Hantz Bernard, a BJU grad, became more prominent). Minnick speaks of the FBF and Fundamentalism almost as if they are one and the same (though he does stop short of that). Still, I do think it is interesting that he seems to equate “leaving” the FBF with deserting Fundamentalism. I’m definite not convinced that is true- or for that matter, that you necessarily need an over-encompassing entity (be it FBF, GARBC, MBA, or AEIOU…) to make “it” cohesive. When you embrace the “idea,” and you find someone else who does, too, you can’t help but share some degree of affinity. The opposite is true, too- even if your institutions line up.
Now, his instruction makes sense if he is speaking to his church alone, I suppose. However, the rest of the world he is targeting over the internet (as he himself acknowledges) does not operate like Greenville. Furthermore, there are a great many true Fundamentalists who (whether they should or not) have a degree of suspicion, distaste, or discomfort for the way BJU handles these matters (beginning the gauging one’s “Fundamentalness” by institutional loyalties), especially when BJU has in its past deemed some in the Fundamentalist orbit as less than Fundamental for what appear to be institutional differences than those of orthodoxy.
Personal Touch
Dr. Minnick, in his ambiguous (hmmm…?) referral to blogosphere banter, also calls for the personal approach when one is wronged. I would be curious to know whether or not he applied that principle when he mentioned WORLD magazine earlier in the message. Did Marvin Olasky and Joel Belz receive phone calls or a personal visit before he expresses criticism for their music and movie reviews? I doubt it- nor do I expect that Minnick should make those efforts. WORLD is publicly-distributed media, and Minnick is wise to warn his people (and other who listen) in a public fashion.
Dr. Dan Sweatt also made a concerted effort to publicly disseminate his ideas when he made his sermon available on the internet. This was further solidified when he distributed materials on his church’s website refuting Calvinism to accompany the sermon. While I can understand the kind of compassion Minnick is endorsing, I am also left wondering if any of the FBFI men (including Minnick himself) made efforts to contact the “young men” who blog personally if they were grieved or offended (which it seems quite apparent that they are). I can say with transparency that as of this moment, no one on the FBFI board has made public contact with me on these issues if they were concerned at what I have said or posted (though I do know that some have subscribed to my sifilings Twitter feed… :-) ). BTW, if anyone does want to contact me, I am open to discussion and correction, and I mean that sincerely. See http://firstbaptistmarshall.com/contact-us/ if you want to get hold of me.
In The End…
After all was said and done, Dr. Minnick observed that there were still men (perhaps even in the FBFI, though perhaps I was reading into that) whom he would not enjoy close fellowship with, though he would enjoy FBFI membership with them. And that, to me, is what remains confusing. Dr. Minnick did an adequate job of describing what the FBFI is. However, he did not do a particularly convincing job of telling people why they should join or what they will get out of it. If what he says about the diversity of positions in the fellowship (and his evident discomfort with some in the membership), what value does being listed in their directory have? It’s still hit or miss, with no guarantees that a good match will be found.
In the end, I see much that is to be admired about Dr. Minnick, even in this address. He is committed to his ideals, committed to his church, committed to his institution(s). That’s something I can respect and admire. However, he did not do a particularly convincing job in helping me see why I (or others outside of the Greenville orbit) should emulate those commitments. If Fundamentalism (and the FBFI) wants to make a case- and I say this as humbly as I can- it will need to be done better than this.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Discussion