"Every Southern Baptist conservative is a New Evangelical."
“This year Kevin Bauder of Central Baptist has used his blog to praise ‘conservative evangelicals’ such as Southern Baptist Seminary head Al Mohler, John MacArthur, John Piper, D.A. Carson, and R. C. Sproul. Central recently invited Bill Edmonson, a graduate of the New Evangelical Gordon Conwell Seminary, to lead a workshop in February 2011. Central graduate David Sorenson observes: ‘Dr. Clearwaters, the founder of Central, would roll over in his grave if he knew this. They are becoming new-evangelicals in fundamentalist clothing.’” David Cloud, Conservative Evangelicals
- 38 views
Brother Matt, I would fight the battle together with you any day, just not with Mr. Cloud, because I would be concerned anytime that we were in the trenches together, that he would just pull the gun on me or whack me over the head. And I just don’t need that in my ongoing battle for God’s truth. :)
or whack me over the headTodd, Todd, Todd, they don’t start with the head. There is an order they have to follow:
1. Dirty looks
2. Question your allegiance to the family head
3. Remind you to stay in line before something bad happens
4. Take out the kneecap
5. Whack on head
It is pretty much an order that gets followed unless desperation requires them to go straight to number 5. These are desperate times though I guess…
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[Don Johnson] [And with respect to the SBC, Dave Doran cites the fact that Mark Dever’s Capitol Hill Baptist Church is SBC as the sole or primary reason why he refused an invitation to speak there. (He doesn’t see Dever’s heavy involvement in the SBC as sufficient reason to refuse to appear on a platform with him, but his ‘separation’ from the church is because it is SBC.)I think Dr. Doran actually said that reason casued him to think speaking at CHBC wouldn’t be wise. He explicitly differentiated that from it being wrong and further stated it would not be wrong for him to speak there.
[Dr. Doran] I doubt think it is wrong (i.e., contrary to Scripture) to speak for or with Dever, but I have made choices based on what I think is a wise course of action (and my choices in this case are parallel to other choices I’ve made in what I consider similar circumstances).(quoted from http://oxgoad.ca/2011/01/24/something-i-dont-understand/#comments] this source )
IMO, one of the problems with Cloud is that he has his own definition of new evangelical and that he often uses the term as an epithet instead of a definitive label.
Then there’s stuff like this:
Then there’s stuff like this:
If you think I am wrong on this, send me a book or a preaching series by a “conservative evangelical” on separation. In reality, the only thing they have to say about separation is ridicule for those who try to practice it.I’d ask him (if we were on speaking terms) to produce proof that Dever or MacArthur have ever ridiculed separation.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
There appears to be a big problem in arguing the case made by Cloud. He is not himself a real Fundamentalist and holds to a dangerous doctrinal error.
First, the definition and concept of Fundamentalism must be defined by giving priority to its original meaning and intent. The phrase came from the “Watchman Examiner” in the 1920s with the intent of describing those who had left or were leaving denominations over issues of doctrine related to the gospel, Christ, and salvation. It became applied to all who held to a doctrine of separation that caused them to leave and / or avoid both the liberals and also some who were conservative but remained indifferent to the issues.
Second, it is undeniable fact that the doctrines of the concepts of KJVO and TRO did not rise up until 1970 with David Otis Fuller. Therefore, these doctrines were not part of the historic meaning of the term “Fundamentalism.”
Third, the doctrine of KJVO and TRO cannot be found in scripture. It is a derived doctrine based on external evidence offered by its proponents. It also presupposes a post Apostolic Divine intervention which gives exclusive Divine authority to a translation and/or a group of manuscripts. It therefore moves authority for these designation of the Divine oracles of God to post Apostolic activity and authority. This is not unlike such designated activity as claimed by Joseph Smith and some other cult founders. These doctrines are clearly founded on truth outside scripture itself and upon an epistemological foundation not unlike Romanism and some cults. These are therefor extremely dangerous, to be avoided, and exposed for what they are. Persons, churches, and institutions that advocate such doctrines are to be avoided and separated from. They are not wholly orthodox in doctrine, generally unbalanced in their world view and doctrine of sanctification, and often are overly contentious and divisive.
Fourth, the criticism here comes from David Cloud, an avid advocate of the TRO and KJVO doctrines. He cannot be considered a true Fundamentalist in the normal historic sense. From the standpoint of doctrine and spiritual outlook a Fundamentalist may have more in common Biblically with some (not All) that Kevin Bauder has named as conservative Evangelical. In the manner of separation and Fundamentalism, David Cloud, and those like him are not really Fundamentalists. From the 1920s through the 1970s they would not have been accepted by any as representative of them of those with such a label. They eventually had enough converts and enough new churches that accepted their unorthodox doctrines to gain a voice and they claimed the name Fundamentalist for themselves. They then eventually started attacking those who differed in any way with their own view of spirituality, conduct, and application of the doctrine of separation. Today we have these “Hyper Fundamentalists” seeking to attack others who differ. They often base their criticism
upon their own newly contrived standards. We see this in several blogs and open letters form individuals which sets forth these KJVO Hyper Fundamentalism standards, which are not all part of historic Fundamentalism at all.
In a recent SI thread I was one who was critical of the President and Chancellor of NIU for what had occurred there. However, my main concern was with the nature of the letters written to explain the occurrences as merely public relations and not giving clear answers. I asked for answers. If honest and open answers had been given the issues of the occurrences may have been diminished. However, some Hyper Fundamentalists have taken this criticism and attempted to fan it into a broad and more deep compromise. This is the nature of their carnal contentious spirit.
Those of us who are older and have had a great deal of exposure to the issues of New Evangelicalism, Conservative Evangelicalism, and the issues of separation application often associated therewith, often have concerns about the over all discernment used with regard to some speakers and associations. However, we must do so within the context of specific concerns and not always see things a being major signs of institutional downgrade. We must certainly do so while separating ourselves from the criticism coming from those within the aforementioned Hyper Fundamentalist movement. I would agree with some that a genuine and sincere Fundamentalist may often have more in common with some (not all) Conservative Evangelicals than some Fundamentalists, who may be really Hyper Fundamentalists.
For example, as some may know I have no agreement with the Reformed doctrine of the “Lordship Gospel.” I especially disagree with the MacArthur version Lord ship gospel that is more extreme than the majority and often gives the wrong impression. However, when the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ are declared and its application for our salvation from sin and its penalty, men may believe and be saved. Therefore, though I view the Mac LS gospel as major error in emphasis it is not a false Gospel and men hearing it may be saved. However, those who hold to the doctrines regarding KJVO and TRO hold to that which is a false foundation for all Christian truth. They too declare a sufficiently true Gospel. But they hold a doctrine of Bibliology which is beyond reason, wholly false, and can have fatal consequence. KJVO Paul Chappel, Lancaster Baptist Church, and West Coast Baptist College are a 1/2 hour drive from my house. John MacArthur, Grace Community Church and Masters Seminary are a 1 hour drive by freeway. Masters College is a 45 minute drive.
Chappel, LBC, and WCBC consider themselves Fundamentalists. Mac, Masters Seminary and college do not consider themselves Fundamentalists in any way. They reject and avoid that term like the plague. However, I have more in common whit the Mac group than with the Chappel group. In my opinion I have a clear duty to separate from the Chappel group. IMO I have more in common with Masters and Mac than WCBC and Chappel and all KJVO in this area.
Bottom line: We should not even listen to the Hyper Fundies. David Cloud, KJVO Pastors, and Hyper Fundy blogs should be ignored and left to stew in their the divisive and contentious brew. They are all extremists to be avoided.
First, the definition and concept of Fundamentalism must be defined by giving priority to its original meaning and intent. The phrase came from the “Watchman Examiner” in the 1920s with the intent of describing those who had left or were leaving denominations over issues of doctrine related to the gospel, Christ, and salvation. It became applied to all who held to a doctrine of separation that caused them to leave and / or avoid both the liberals and also some who were conservative but remained indifferent to the issues.
Second, it is undeniable fact that the doctrines of the concepts of KJVO and TRO did not rise up until 1970 with David Otis Fuller. Therefore, these doctrines were not part of the historic meaning of the term “Fundamentalism.”
Third, the doctrine of KJVO and TRO cannot be found in scripture. It is a derived doctrine based on external evidence offered by its proponents. It also presupposes a post Apostolic Divine intervention which gives exclusive Divine authority to a translation and/or a group of manuscripts. It therefore moves authority for these designation of the Divine oracles of God to post Apostolic activity and authority. This is not unlike such designated activity as claimed by Joseph Smith and some other cult founders. These doctrines are clearly founded on truth outside scripture itself and upon an epistemological foundation not unlike Romanism and some cults. These are therefor extremely dangerous, to be avoided, and exposed for what they are. Persons, churches, and institutions that advocate such doctrines are to be avoided and separated from. They are not wholly orthodox in doctrine, generally unbalanced in their world view and doctrine of sanctification, and often are overly contentious and divisive.
Fourth, the criticism here comes from David Cloud, an avid advocate of the TRO and KJVO doctrines. He cannot be considered a true Fundamentalist in the normal historic sense. From the standpoint of doctrine and spiritual outlook a Fundamentalist may have more in common Biblically with some (not All) that Kevin Bauder has named as conservative Evangelical. In the manner of separation and Fundamentalism, David Cloud, and those like him are not really Fundamentalists. From the 1920s through the 1970s they would not have been accepted by any as representative of them of those with such a label. They eventually had enough converts and enough new churches that accepted their unorthodox doctrines to gain a voice and they claimed the name Fundamentalist for themselves. They then eventually started attacking those who differed in any way with their own view of spirituality, conduct, and application of the doctrine of separation. Today we have these “Hyper Fundamentalists” seeking to attack others who differ. They often base their criticism
upon their own newly contrived standards. We see this in several blogs and open letters form individuals which sets forth these KJVO Hyper Fundamentalism standards, which are not all part of historic Fundamentalism at all.
In a recent SI thread I was one who was critical of the President and Chancellor of NIU for what had occurred there. However, my main concern was with the nature of the letters written to explain the occurrences as merely public relations and not giving clear answers. I asked for answers. If honest and open answers had been given the issues of the occurrences may have been diminished. However, some Hyper Fundamentalists have taken this criticism and attempted to fan it into a broad and more deep compromise. This is the nature of their carnal contentious spirit.
Those of us who are older and have had a great deal of exposure to the issues of New Evangelicalism, Conservative Evangelicalism, and the issues of separation application often associated therewith, often have concerns about the over all discernment used with regard to some speakers and associations. However, we must do so within the context of specific concerns and not always see things a being major signs of institutional downgrade. We must certainly do so while separating ourselves from the criticism coming from those within the aforementioned Hyper Fundamentalist movement. I would agree with some that a genuine and sincere Fundamentalist may often have more in common with some (not all) Conservative Evangelicals than some Fundamentalists, who may be really Hyper Fundamentalists.
For example, as some may know I have no agreement with the Reformed doctrine of the “Lordship Gospel.” I especially disagree with the MacArthur version Lord ship gospel that is more extreme than the majority and often gives the wrong impression. However, when the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ are declared and its application for our salvation from sin and its penalty, men may believe and be saved. Therefore, though I view the Mac LS gospel as major error in emphasis it is not a false Gospel and men hearing it may be saved. However, those who hold to the doctrines regarding KJVO and TRO hold to that which is a false foundation for all Christian truth. They too declare a sufficiently true Gospel. But they hold a doctrine of Bibliology which is beyond reason, wholly false, and can have fatal consequence. KJVO Paul Chappel, Lancaster Baptist Church, and West Coast Baptist College are a 1/2 hour drive from my house. John MacArthur, Grace Community Church and Masters Seminary are a 1 hour drive by freeway. Masters College is a 45 minute drive.
Chappel, LBC, and WCBC consider themselves Fundamentalists. Mac, Masters Seminary and college do not consider themselves Fundamentalists in any way. They reject and avoid that term like the plague. However, I have more in common whit the Mac group than with the Chappel group. In my opinion I have a clear duty to separate from the Chappel group. IMO I have more in common with Masters and Mac than WCBC and Chappel and all KJVO in this area.
Bottom line: We should not even listen to the Hyper Fundies. David Cloud, KJVO Pastors, and Hyper Fundy blogs should be ignored and left to stew in their the divisive and contentious brew. They are all extremists to be avoided.
My question in this discussion is by whose or what standard is David Cloud a credible voice, critic or scholar on this topic in the first place? Cloud’s two claims to fame seem to be that he owns a typewriter (now computer) and has an opinion. In the era of the internet, anyone can make any statement he wants and somehow, seem “credible”. Cloud is one of the most shadowy “Christian (pseudo) journalists” out there and his notoriety seems to be linked to a muckraking style of “expose” wherein he get people all twisted over his inflammatory accusations. To me, to have the credibility to raise this issue, there needs to be more intellectual or theological “heft” than what Cloud provides. Apart from his “Way of Life” stuff, why should we pay him any attention at all?
Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com
[DavidO]Hi David[Don Johnson] [And with respect to the SBC, Dave Doran cites the fact that Mark Dever’s Capitol Hill Baptist Church is SBC as the sole or primary reason why he refused an invitation to speak there. (He doesn’t see Dever’s heavy involvement in the SBC as sufficient reason to refuse to appear on a platform with him, but his ‘separation’ from the church is because it is SBC.)I think Dr. Doran actually said that reason casued him to think speaking at CHBC wouldn’t be wise. He explicitly differentiated that from it being wrong and further stated it would not be wrong for him to speak there.
I don’t think that I said that Dave thought it would be wrong to speak there, perhaps you are getting that from my words “refused an invitation”. I don’t mean to imply by that anything different from what Dave said, but he did refuse the invitation nonetheless.
My point is that I don’t see how it is unwise to speak at CHBC but wise to speak at Lansdale with Dever. Dever is as inextricably tied to the SBC as CHBC, the church he pastors, is.
Last, the source you cite is my blog. The way you cite it makes me think you aren’t aware of that fact.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Matt,
Your ignorance of the way Southern Baptist life works is incredible. John Brian explained it very well, although you choose to ignore it. I would venture a guess, although I don’t know the exact churches you have in mind, that not only would they no longer consider themselves Southern Baptist, but if you spent 5 seconds to check their website, they would be affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, not the SBC. Most truly liberal churches that were Southern Baptist have moved on to other denominations or associations. Whether or not everyone knows they are no longer Southern Baptist doesn’t matter, in fact they are not. There are people in Greenville SC who think that First Baptist Greenville is still Southern Baptist when in fact it hasn’t been Southern Baptist for probably a decade or more now.
As far as the college thing goes, the SBC does not fund colleges, only seminaries. The state conventions who choose to affiliate with the National Southern Baptist Convention may fund colleges and some do fund colleges that do not reflect the doctrinal convictions of the SBC; but that reflects on the state convention which is not controlled in any way by the SBC. As far as Southeastern goes, it is my alma mater, and you have no clue what you are talking about. Personally, I’m glad its not fundamentalist; but it is strongly conservative evangelical. Dr. Neuhaus was not there as a chapel speaker, he was there if I remember correctly to be a part of a forum on Christian worldviews. You may not be in agreement with his Catholic theology, but Dr. Neuhaus is one of the foremost conservative thinkers who writes constantly on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. How is that any different than BJU, my other alma mater, that I am less happy about attending, who constantly brought in speakers from the political right and then forced us to attend their “rallies”
That’s all I can write without really being caustic and angry - I really wish you could get a vision for just how large Christ’s body truly is.
Ben Howard
Your ignorance of the way Southern Baptist life works is incredible. John Brian explained it very well, although you choose to ignore it. I would venture a guess, although I don’t know the exact churches you have in mind, that not only would they no longer consider themselves Southern Baptist, but if you spent 5 seconds to check their website, they would be affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, not the SBC. Most truly liberal churches that were Southern Baptist have moved on to other denominations or associations. Whether or not everyone knows they are no longer Southern Baptist doesn’t matter, in fact they are not. There are people in Greenville SC who think that First Baptist Greenville is still Southern Baptist when in fact it hasn’t been Southern Baptist for probably a decade or more now.
As far as the college thing goes, the SBC does not fund colleges, only seminaries. The state conventions who choose to affiliate with the National Southern Baptist Convention may fund colleges and some do fund colleges that do not reflect the doctrinal convictions of the SBC; but that reflects on the state convention which is not controlled in any way by the SBC. As far as Southeastern goes, it is my alma mater, and you have no clue what you are talking about. Personally, I’m glad its not fundamentalist; but it is strongly conservative evangelical. Dr. Neuhaus was not there as a chapel speaker, he was there if I remember correctly to be a part of a forum on Christian worldviews. You may not be in agreement with his Catholic theology, but Dr. Neuhaus is one of the foremost conservative thinkers who writes constantly on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. How is that any different than BJU, my other alma mater, that I am less happy about attending, who constantly brought in speakers from the political right and then forced us to attend their “rallies”
That’s all I can write without really being caustic and angry - I really wish you could get a vision for just how large Christ’s body truly is.
Ben Howard
Later, these churches left the SBC and became the core of the Independent Baptist movement in the South, which comprised the bulk and driving force behind Fundamentalism in the later half of the twentieth century.I think that is why there is such disagreement about what and who carries the banner for historic fundamentalism and why there is such push back among certain groups towards Dr. Bauder and Dr. Doran’s application of separation. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems that certain groups believe their group have comprised the bulk and driving force behind fundamentalism, when there have been just as many or even more fundamental churches in other groups, but have not historically applied the doctrine of separation in the exact manner. Therefore, anything different than what the’ve experienced seems like compromise.
On another note, how much influence did Dr. Fuller have among the independent baptists of the south? I know those who happened to be KJVO in the GARBC were influenced by him….I am intrigued by the history of the KJVO movement and how it morphed into what it is today………
Hello Ben,
I would hate to meet you when you WERE caustic and angry. :)
I will admit to not understanding the SBC as much as I should. That’s something I’m going to correct right away. Perhaps you can give me some pointers as to how to go about doing that. I’m wide open on anything you have to offer.
As for Neuhaus…
I disagree that a Catholic theologian can offer anything beneficial in regards to a Christian worldview. How can someone offer an opinion on a Christian worldview and not, in fact, be a Christian? Surely you can see the problem with that.
As for BJU and their political “rallies”….
That’s a somewhat strange argument you’re making. You must be assuming that (1) I’m in favor of them but (2) not in favor of the Neuhaus event at SEBTS. The difference though, is that the BJU meetings were political in nature, not religious. Pat Buchanan, who is probably the closest in theology to Neuhaus that I ever remember speaking at BJU, was not at BJU to speak about religion or anything having to do with Christ. He was there to speak about politics and America—that’s the difference and it’s a biggie! Surely you can see the difference with that too.
Again, I mean no ill will toward the SBC. I am just somewhat concerned by their willingness to fellowship with unbelievers at times.
Matt
I would hate to meet you when you WERE caustic and angry. :)
I will admit to not understanding the SBC as much as I should. That’s something I’m going to correct right away. Perhaps you can give me some pointers as to how to go about doing that. I’m wide open on anything you have to offer.
As for Neuhaus…
I disagree that a Catholic theologian can offer anything beneficial in regards to a Christian worldview. How can someone offer an opinion on a Christian worldview and not, in fact, be a Christian? Surely you can see the problem with that.
As for BJU and their political “rallies”….
That’s a somewhat strange argument you’re making. You must be assuming that (1) I’m in favor of them but (2) not in favor of the Neuhaus event at SEBTS. The difference though, is that the BJU meetings were political in nature, not religious. Pat Buchanan, who is probably the closest in theology to Neuhaus that I ever remember speaking at BJU, was not at BJU to speak about religion or anything having to do with Christ. He was there to speak about politics and America—that’s the difference and it’s a biggie! Surely you can see the difference with that too.
Again, I mean no ill will toward the SBC. I am just somewhat concerned by their willingness to fellowship with unbelievers at times.
Matt
I didn’t think you meant to imply, but I think the implication may have been there.
Yes, I know you are the proprietor of AO,E?. Just didn’t want an un-sourced quote.
Yes, I know you are the proprietor of AO,E?. Just didn’t want an un-sourced quote.
[Don Johnson]… the source you cite is my blog. The way you cite it makes me think you aren’t aware of that fact.
[Matt Walker] Hello Ben,Look, tons of Muslims - most of them in fact - oppose abortion and homosexuality also. Why don’t we invite them to our political rallies and to speak at our universities the way that we do Mormons (Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney et al), Jews and Catholics? What is the reason for this blatant double standard? It clearly cannot be supported by the gospel, the Bible.
As for Neuhaus…
I disagree that a Catholic theologian can offer anything beneficial in regards to a Christian worldview. How can someone offer an opinion on a Christian worldview and not, in fact, be a Christian? Surely you can see the problem with that.
Matt
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
I’ve never been particularly fond of any of the political stuff that goes on in the Christian colleges…for what it’s worth.
Matt
Matt
Matt,
Just an FYI….i live in a town of 10,000 people in illinois. The town across the river is 15,000. Within these two towns are 5 SBC churches and one of them is right by me - we are seperated by the dumpster and an alley. The pastor there is a Southern Grad and very conservative, both theologically and personally. i have teased him that he is more of a Bojo than i am because he still wears a coat and tie on Wednesday nights. :) That being said, I loved our education at BJ. I think it was accurate for the time. But what i have learned in the last several years about the SBC is quite different. The churches are very independant. In fact, some of them are more independant than some of our IFB churches that are tied to state fellowships. Just some food for thought.
Just an FYI….i live in a town of 10,000 people in illinois. The town across the river is 15,000. Within these two towns are 5 SBC churches and one of them is right by me - we are seperated by the dumpster and an alley. The pastor there is a Southern Grad and very conservative, both theologically and personally. i have teased him that he is more of a Bojo than i am because he still wears a coat and tie on Wednesday nights. :) That being said, I loved our education at BJ. I think it was accurate for the time. But what i have learned in the last several years about the SBC is quite different. The churches are very independant. In fact, some of them are more independant than some of our IFB churches that are tied to state fellowships. Just some food for thought.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Wow, this thread’s all over the place. FWIW, a Bible-believing protestant does not really have a different “worldview” from a traditional Roman Catholic. Just thought I’d point that out. We differ on the gospel because Romanism holds that grace comes to us incrementally as we work and we are not justified until all the necessary works have been performed. Of course we differ on a pile of other things, too, but we don’t differ on the fact that Gad made the world, that He is the author of the moral order of the world and has handed it down to humanity, that He is the Judge of all the Earth, etc.
To Dan Burrell’s earlier question… why does Cloud even matter? I had to consider whether or not he does and I think movement fundamentalism is at the point where, sadly, he does. I mean, of course, just as a voice he matters, but more to Dan’s point, the movement no longer has any stand-out leader. It never had a single leader, but it has had a small handful for some periods. Now… it’s really up for grabs. And people are listening to voices they didn’t before. So “a guy with a typewriter” who goes to the trouble to put his thoughts before the world now has real influence (though I’d suggest a guy w/a typewriter who mails a “newsletter” out to thousands has always had influence. The Web makes it cheaper, faster and broader influence)
To Dan Burrell’s earlier question… why does Cloud even matter? I had to consider whether or not he does and I think movement fundamentalism is at the point where, sadly, he does. I mean, of course, just as a voice he matters, but more to Dan’s point, the movement no longer has any stand-out leader. It never had a single leader, but it has had a small handful for some periods. Now… it’s really up for grabs. And people are listening to voices they didn’t before. So “a guy with a typewriter” who goes to the trouble to put his thoughts before the world now has real influence (though I’d suggest a guy w/a typewriter who mails a “newsletter” out to thousands has always had influence. The Web makes it cheaper, faster and broader influence)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion