Is the Central statement a new approach to Fundamentalism?
[Paul J. Scharf]Paul,[Jim Peet] By the way I don’t see Central’s ethos statements as “a new approach to Fundamentalism”.I agree. I don’t have a particular problem with anything I have read about Central’s approach to fundamentalism/separation per se. My interest and concern is in their approach to dispensationalism and doctrines that flow directly from it.
The problem I have is that these dispensational issues seem to be the areas where Central makes allowance for a variation of opinion. Yet to me these areas are of far greater importance than a philosophical approach to the development and practice of fundamentalism — which Central in general, and Dr. Bauder in particular, seem to be emphasizing at the moment.
I do appreciate much that Dr. Bauder has written about the fundamentalist movement, and have lauded him for his boldness and for his insights. However, my concern here flows from the fact that I believe firmly that Christ’s Kingdom — the ultimate thing which we await — is NOT YET. That which is ALREADY — even our best attempts at fleshing out some type of fundamental implementation of what He has called us to do — is flawed and sinful at best. I would place my stake on the former.
To some — and indeed, truly in the grand scheme of things — the differences between us may not seem to be that big. However, these are still important issues and points of emphasis.
If I am misreading Central on this, please forgive and correct me.
Currently at Central, only Jonathan Pratt argues for an “already not-yet” kingdom. He makes the case that it is nearly held universally among evangelical New Testament scholarship. However, when teaching students how to think, you allow them to hear both sides of the story. I would argue that you cannot rightly argue against Progressive Dispensationalism unless you can make a fair argument for the position. Also, you must realize that finding a New Testament professor who has an earned doctorate who is not a progressive dispy (or full fledged covanentalist) is nearly impossible.
Small point of reference concerning the Ethos Statements: These statements were not written by Bauder, but were crafted by the full-time faculty as a group.
[CAWatson] Also, you must realize that finding a New Testament professor who has an earned doctorate who is not a progressive dispy (or full fledged covanentalist) is nearly impossible.CA —
That is just a ridiculous assertion, number one.
Number two, even if it were true, expediency does not justify allowance for the violation of one’s doctrine and convictions — not that that is what I am labeling this situation. I am merely responding to your reasoning.
By the standard you set forth, a seminary should have one creationist, one old-earth; one Calvinist, one Arminian, etc., etc.
(Also, I was raised in an ocean of amillennialism. I am quite sure I can make the arguments for and against PD without such an experience as you reference.)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Paul,
I am not a PD proponent - however, I do not think that PD is a denial of fundamental truths. PD still holds a future for Israel. PD still holds a future kingdom. All PD that I have met still hold to pre-mil, pre-trib rapture. Thus, PD can still sign to the doctrinal statement of Central and likely of Faith (although Faith wouldn’t hire one).
Creationism, however, becomes an issue of the gospel when you begin to ask questions of historicity of the text and the nature of revelation - you begin to almost deal with fundamental doctrines. If you deny that Adam existed, you have no real theological reason for physical death being the result of sin. If physical death is not the result of sin, then Christ’s death on the cross cannot actually accomplish anything (thus, a denial of the gospel). If you claim that Scripture and science are of equal revelatory weight (or even that science is greater), you have no real controls over revelation at all (Hugh Ross argues for Science as the 67th book). Science (or rather, scientific conclusions) changes with the whims of the scientists. What is true today about gravity may not be true tomorrow due to String Theory.
Calvinism - I don’t mind working with an learning from a full blown Calvinist. I don’t mind working with and learning from someone with more Arminian leanings (as long as they hold to eternal security).
And for my statement above - note that I said, “nearly.” It isn’t impossible - but finding a fundamentalist who has a credible PhD in NT studies who is not already working elsewhere?
What you have done is to put the error of progressive dispensationalism on the same level as errors in creationism or even the Calvinism/Arminiamism debate. They are, indeed, different things with different levels of import. When teaching students to have freedom of thought - you do it within certain boundaries. You leave certain questions of hermeneutics open - yet you close the door to other questions. You open certain questions in soteriology (the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man) but you close the door in others (NPP, works salvation, etc.).
Listen to the lecture series by Decker on Central’s website - along with Beacham’s response. I’ve been in classes with both Pratt and Beacham at the same time listening to them disagree - yet maintain a cordial relationship and even friendship. Such disagreements are truly iron sharperning iron.
I am not a PD proponent - however, I do not think that PD is a denial of fundamental truths. PD still holds a future for Israel. PD still holds a future kingdom. All PD that I have met still hold to pre-mil, pre-trib rapture. Thus, PD can still sign to the doctrinal statement of Central and likely of Faith (although Faith wouldn’t hire one).
Creationism, however, becomes an issue of the gospel when you begin to ask questions of historicity of the text and the nature of revelation - you begin to almost deal with fundamental doctrines. If you deny that Adam existed, you have no real theological reason for physical death being the result of sin. If physical death is not the result of sin, then Christ’s death on the cross cannot actually accomplish anything (thus, a denial of the gospel). If you claim that Scripture and science are of equal revelatory weight (or even that science is greater), you have no real controls over revelation at all (Hugh Ross argues for Science as the 67th book). Science (or rather, scientific conclusions) changes with the whims of the scientists. What is true today about gravity may not be true tomorrow due to String Theory.
Calvinism - I don’t mind working with an learning from a full blown Calvinist. I don’t mind working with and learning from someone with more Arminian leanings (as long as they hold to eternal security).
And for my statement above - note that I said, “nearly.” It isn’t impossible - but finding a fundamentalist who has a credible PhD in NT studies who is not already working elsewhere?
What you have done is to put the error of progressive dispensationalism on the same level as errors in creationism or even the Calvinism/Arminiamism debate. They are, indeed, different things with different levels of import. When teaching students to have freedom of thought - you do it within certain boundaries. You leave certain questions of hermeneutics open - yet you close the door to other questions. You open certain questions in soteriology (the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man) but you close the door in others (NPP, works salvation, etc.).
Listen to the lecture series by Decker on Central’s website - along with Beacham’s response. I’ve been in classes with both Pratt and Beacham at the same time listening to them disagree - yet maintain a cordial relationship and even friendship. Such disagreements are truly iron sharperning iron.
Discussion