The Future of Fundamentalism: A Forum for Leaders

Rolland McCune on the Blood of Christ

from the Systematic Theology

Matthew indicates that Jesus “yielded up His spirit” on the cross (Matt 27:50). The order is first abandonment by the Father, then physical death. Jesus’ literal blood was shed on the cross (John 19:33–34). Although one is not saved by touching the molecules of the blood of Jesus (if such were even possible), it is not wise or Scriptural to deprecate His literal blood. The literal blood that was poured out was representative or symbolic of His perfect obedience. Blood always deals with the judicial, forensic, or legal aspects of the atonement. It deals with guilt. The physical blood of Jesus (corpuscles, glucose, plasma, etc.) had no sacramental value. In short, the term “blood of Christ” stands for the sacrificial death of Christ, a violent termination of life. In fact, Paul puts “blood” and “death” in parallel in Romans 5:9–10. (2:168)

If saving efficacy is attributed to the literal molecules of Christ’s blood, His true humanity is denied at that point and thus His natures are confounded. The Logos did not deify His red and white corpuscles or any other aspect of His human nature. (2:168)

The shedding of blood in the Bible speaks fundamentally of death. However, this is not the mere act of dying or the simple exit of one’s life principle. A sacrificial death is the extraction, or the yielding up, of a life. “Blood” in sacrifice equals the violent termination of a life that has atoning moral value before God. (2:179)

The theological rationale of the Old Testament sacrificial system is given in Leviticus 17:11—“For the life [nephesh] of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.” The nephesh of the animal was its source of life, the animating or driving principle, and God had “given” (nathan, to appoint, set) this arrangement in approaching Him. The animal was not capable of accountability, personality, or freedom; it was moved by instinct or the necessities of nature. Morally, the sacrificial victim was sinless or guiltless and became the vehicle of the forgiveness of the sin of the offerer. Atonement was “by reason of” (preposition beth) the nephesh, which was the innocent life that was taken in death, and on that basis God, granted an expiation for the sin of the people.

This does not mean that the animal blood itself (the chemical components) secured the atonement; it was the blood “by reason of the life.” Yet there was no atonement until the animal blood was offered, so that the sacrifice was not merely a symbolical charade or theological pantomime. (2:180)

By the efficacy of the atonement of Christ is meant that which enables and causes His blood to produce its divinely intended effects. What does Christ’s blood possess or represent that enables it to satisfy God’s holy demands in the areas of guilt, slavery, wrath, and enmity? What unifying factor is there that can comprehend the four categories? The answer is the obedience of Christ. This is the integrating principle that permeates atonement and makes the blood of Jesus efficacious with respect to sin and the exigencies sin creates because of offended holiness. (2:198)

Kevin,

A golden opportunity? For what? To accomplish exactly nothing.

Let’s just say I wrote some answer denouncing all past attacks on MacA over the blood issue, including the statements of the FBFI. Would that result in any of these pages being taken down? Any less claims being made against MacArthur on the internet?

The page you especially called our attention to isn’t even a live page - it’s an archive of a page abandoned by a former user:

This Page is an outdated, user-generated website brought to you by an archive.It was mirrored from Geocities at the end of October, 2009.

As long as Geocities lasts, the page isn’t going away. And Google likely has it cached as well.

Let’s say the FBFI published some kind of response to all this. Would any change result? Not one.

Furthermore, who are the people who publish these pages? Are they a threat to MacArthur? Do they influence any significant number of people? Hardly. They aren’t worth worrying about. Every public figure in the world must have pages of vitriol on the internet, solely dedicated to them. Perhaps the way to look at such pages is as a badge of honor.

A certain internet pamphleteer once listed my name on his church directory. He has since deleted me (oh, the horror!) but others still have the old list on their sites. It lists me as “very opposed to King James onlyism”. He meant it as a warning, I take it as a compliment.

[Kevin T. Bauder] As a member of the FBFI, I certainly want people to know that these past statements of the fellowship do not reflect my perspective.

Do you approach all organizations you belong to with this zeal to correct the past?

How about Central Seminary? A past president published a pamphlet on the MacArthur blood issue and said that MacArthur was “changing the terms of the gospel”. What have you done about that? That would be Dr. Pickering, a man I highly respect and greatly admire. I don’t think anyone at Central needs to dig up this episode and make any statement of apology or amends, but if you are going to be consistent, surely you should push for something of the sort. Especially since you are much more tightly connected to Central than you are to the FBFI.

Have you scoured the records of Dr. Clearwaters or Dr. Dollar, two men not known as shinking violets, and had Central make apologies for any errors they may have made in their militancy for fundamentalism?

I didn’t think so.

But if we are going to pursue this game, what is fair for the goose is fair for the gander, don’t you think?

Quite frankly, this looks less like a zeal for righteousness and more like a vendetta. Maybe I’m wrong to see it that way, and if so, please correct me.

Pickering made his comment with respect to Lordship Salvation, not the blood issue. Just want to clarify that, otherwise my point still stands, I think.

Don,

You’ve raised several interesting issues, and I can’t respond to them all at once. There are two that are of particular interest to me.

First, as you note, the web page that corresponds to the FBF News Bulletin is an archived page and it’s not going away. In my mind, that only reinforces the point. Isn’t it important to have a permanent, public record that anyone can point to, demonstrating the FBFI’s present rejection of this past sin?

Second, you raise the issue of past sins committed by leaders of Central Seminary. That is indeed a question worthy of addressing. I’ve got a responsibility that’s pulling me away right now, but I respond to this question when I can. It is a worthwhile question.

Kevin

Don,

Here are your statements to which I wish to respond:

Have you scoured the records of Dr. Clearwaters or Dr. Dollar, two men not known as shinking violets, and had Central make apologies for any errors they may have made in their militancy for fundamentalism?

I didn’t think so.

But if we are going to pursue this game, what is fair for the goose is fair for the gander, don’t you think?

You are raising several related issues, so my reply is going to have several parts.

First, you ask whether I (we?) have “scoured the records” for the transgressions of Clearwaters and Dollar. But that misses the point and introduces an element that has not been part of the conversation. I have not asked the FBFI to scour the records looking for past transgressions. I merely hinted at a very public transgression that everybody already knows about and talks about. You yourself recognized the hint immediately, which is further evidence that the episode does not belong to the distant past. No, we have not scoured the records, but when somebody brings up a sin (public or private) from the past, we are willing to deal with it.

Second, there is a difference between the way that public and private sins ought to be addressed. We are to confess our faults to one another, which I understand to mean that we acknowledge our faults within the circle of those who have reason to know them. Supposing Clearwaters or Dollar sinned privately against some student or professor, Central Seminary has an obligation to correct the wrong privately as far as we can. Supposing Clearwaters or Dollar sinned publicly in the same way that the FBFI did, then Central Seminary has an obligation to distance itself publicly from the deed that was done and to try to correct the wrong.

Third, Central Seminary has done lots of distancing and correcting for public faults. Probably the clearest example was the apology to Doug McLachlan and his restoration to the pastorate of Fourth Baptist Church and the presidency of Central Seminary. Everyone knew that a wrong had been done; both church and seminary united in seeking to correct that wrong. Forgiveness was asked and received. Restoration occurred. It was a rare moment in Fundamentalism, and in my opinion it established a beautiful example of the way that such things ought to be handled. If we don’t often bring the episode up now, that’s only because it actually is a closed chapter. It was closed by confession and restoration.

Fourth, we have tried very hard to distance ourselves from past transgressions when they have been brought to our attention. On multiple occasions we have brought men back to our campus as part of the effort to try to repair hurts that were, in some cases, decades old. We have also tried to correct past wrongs to the best of our ability. There are actually people who think we’ve done too much of this.

It is not always easy to judge whether a wrong was done, but we have generally tried to err on the side of possible victims. For example, an alumnus came to us a couple of years ago, alleging that his thesis had been “mislaid” at an administrator’s direction and that he had consequently been denied graduation from a particular program. We did our best to talk to the principals, but too many of them were now dead for us to be able to determine exactly what happened. Nevertheless, we gave this alumnus the option of completing the requirements for the degree and graduating decades late. We had to bend a few academic standards, but we thought that it was important to correct an (possible) injustice.

I could give you a listing of specific events in which we’ve tried to live by the very same standard I’ve articulated for you. Of course, there may still be things that we don’t know about or have not taken seriously enough. That’s why we try to listen carefully when people approach us with concerns. But to answer your question directly, yes, if somebody comes to me with a legitimate concern about some past episode of character assassination or other public transgression, I’ll be happy to advocate that it be addressed. What’s fair for the goose is indeed fair for the gander.

Finally, I’ve tried to make a personal practice of public confession when I’ve become convinced that I’ve committed public sins. I’ve had to do this more than once. Members of the Central Seminary faculty can bear witness. In fact, there should be members of SI who can remember when I’ve acknowledged my faults in public. We’ve seen Mike Harding do something similar as part of this discussion. You yourself have come close to it by distancing yourself from some of your past behavior as a blogger. Well, it’s hardly a vendetta to suggest that what’s fair for the gander certainly ought to be fair for the goose.

Kevin

Don,

Just a few personal reflections here regarding two of the men whose names you mentioned: Clearwaters and Dollar. I did not know either of them well, but it seems to me that some distinction ought to be drawn. Both could be confrontational, but they were not equally careful.

For the most part, Clearwaters was a very careful man. At least in terms of his public actions, he normally avoided stepping over the line. At minimum, he knew how not to leave himself open to obvious accusations. He also could show a charitable side that was nearly absent in Dollar’s demeanor, at least after the Piedmont debacle.

Something seemed to die in Dollar after this crucifixion at Piedmont. He had never been as careful as Clearwaters, and over the years of his public ministry he seemed to grow worse rather than better. That carelessness is exactly what led to his departure from Central Seminary. Clearwaters himself had to deal with some of the public things that Dollar had said and done while here. The very worst, however, at least in terms of public infelicities, came after his years at Central Seminary. Dollar failed in rather spectacular ways that Clearwaters did not.

This is not the final word for either man, though. During his later years, Clearwaters did his best to reconcile with at least some of his erstwhile opponents—and in at least some cases, was successful. Dollar, though broken by the compounded tragedy of his personal failures, was still trying to serve the Lord at the time of his death, filling pulpits whenever he could. As he said to one friend of mine, “You can almost always do something for Jesus.”

Personally, I doubt that I’ll ever accomplish half the good that either of these men did.

I am so grateful for a Lord who never gives up on us. I am so grateful that He is able to work in us and through us, in spite of our intransigence.

First of all, let me commend you on the actions taken by you and/or Central for righting wrongs. No disagreement there.

Second, I don’t think anything would be gained by dredging up the MacArthur blood issue once again. All of the links you selected as evidence of the pressing need for dealing with it once again are from obscure, non-influential, and even ‘dead’ sites (in the internet sense). I presume you selected the better examples of what you could find? If that is all there is, it would seem to indicate that the only people continuing to raise it are not worth dealing with.

Now, I do note that you didn’t address the comment by Pickering regarding MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation - “changing the terms of the gospel”. According to a paper published by Jeff Straub the pamphlet was originally published by Central Seminary. That’s a pretty serious charge - was it right or wrong? If wrong, has Central done anything about it?

But I don’t want to attempt to go back and forth trading stories about how one institution did this and another did that. We could cite examples of errors and misjudgements as well as examples of handling ethical misdeeds in a godly way, both by Central and the FBFI. I am not sure what we would gain by rehearsing more of these.

However, the bottom line of this discussion, it seems to me, is this:

If we are to promote the fundamentalist idea, what is the best way to do it?

• Should we rally men to the fundamentalist idea, as the FBFI attempts to do through its publications and fellowships?
• Or should we discourage men from promoting the fundamentalist idea by regularly rehearsing the errors of the past?

The path forward seems pretty clear to me.

Don,

Back in the early 1950s, Robert Clausen and Martin Marty were students at Concordia Seminary. They made up a fictitious theologian, Franz Bibfeldt, and began to reference his equally fictitious works. Eventually a whole history grew up around the Bibfeldt persona. He was supposed to be the great theologian of reconciliation who labored to bring conflicting theologies into concord. He was alleged to have responded to Kierkegaard’s Either/Or with a work of his own entitled Both/And. Then, concerned that perhaps he had emphasized the antithesis too strongly, he published a second work, Both/And And/Or Either/Or.

What you have set forth as an adversative, I see as a conjunctive. We must both make the positive case for Fundamentalist ideals, and deal with the past abuses of Fundamentalism. Why? First, because this is a simple matter of honesty—it is the right thing to do. Second, because the past is not genuinely dead, but often lives on in the present. Third, the effort to sweep these things under the rug (to avoid talking about the elephant in the room) inevitably leads to dysfunctional organizations and movements. Fourth, the way to get past scandals off the table is simply to address them once for all. Put them to rest, not by ignoring them, but by dealing with them.

A very good example is BJU’s dealing with past racial policies. By acknowledging the wrong and apologizing, they simply took the issue off the table for reasonable people. The topic may come up as a matter of history, but most of us are not sitting out here blaming BJU. In fact, we celebrate the good that has taken place and are willing to defend the university against unjust critics. BJU is currently doing the same thing with its complete transparency over an episode of alleged sexual abuse. There’s no cover-up, no alibi, no blame-shifting. As nearly as I can tell, the attitude is simply, “let’s deal with the problem.”

That attitude is what we need to see throughout Fundamentalism. I’m not for a moment suggesting that we need to dredge up every fault of every past leader. When it comes to major scandals or evils, however, they are better faced and acknowledged than buried. This is especially true when they affect the present. An attitude of, “You know, we really blew it there,” can go a long way toward reassuring followers that issues will be dealt with rightly in the future.

I actually do think that we need to “get over it” in terms of some of Fundamentalism’s past ugliness. In at least some cases, however, the best way to get over it is to deal with it.

It appears to me that you and I simply have different understandings of how public sins—and especially the sins of the past—ought to be handled. We can address that difference at the level of principle, and there it appears that we disagree about what is the right thing to do. We can also address it at the pragmatic level. At the pragmatic level, I have to tell you—completely apart from the question of whether I bring these things up, they are not going away. Until you (e.g., the FBFI leadership) take them off the table, they are going to continue to plague you.

At some point, this becomes a separation issue. Young men must ask whether their conscience will permit them to enter, and older men have to ask whether their conscience will permit them to remain in, an institution or movement that will not rightly address its own sins. At some point, you are likely to see godly men being forced to separate from the FBFI because of its moral compromise. In fact, my guess is that a good many already have.

It seems that we have said about all that is useful to say on this topic. I’m prepared to leave it and to discuss your other counsel to me. If anything, that discussion promises to be even more interesting than this.

Through Sunday, I have almost nonstop responsibilities. It’ll take me a while to get another serious post up.

Kevin

Kevin,

I have been away from my computer preaching at a Christian college. I would like to make a few comments about the MacArthur issue. The author of those FBF bulletins you cited was wrong. McCune states the issue on the blood accurately. The Divine Blood theory is heterodoxy because it denies the true humanity of Christ which by implication nullifies the true nature of the substitutionary, various sacrifice of Christ. If the humanity of Christ is not truly human, then his humanity is a hybrid of sorts (i.e. not 100% man). Whoever wrote those articles in the bulletin decades ago was terribly mistaken. If I remember correctly, I recall that Dave Doran addressed this issue publicly (blood and the humanity of Christ) about a dozen or more years ago at the National FBFI meeting in a message he delivered at Faith Baptist in Taylors, SC. I thought that message put the issue to rest. JM made some confusing statements and in my opinion, some poorly worded, unwise statements, upon which some with an agenda took advantage in order to discredit him. Others who were theologically ignorant or confused simply misunderstood JM and jumped to a wrong conclusion. For the most part the same people who misunderstood the blood issue are the people who misunderstand the translation issue.

In defense of the FBFI we avoided the error of the divine blood theory in our own re-written doctrinal statement and we defined the meaning of the blood of Christ shed on the cross as his his substitutionary, sacrificial death. We agree with McCune who agrees with the Bible. McCune was also correct when stating that we have to be very careful in our wording to not give the impression that we are deprecating the blood of Christ. Christ’s blood is precious because it is the real human blood of the God-man; nevertheless, his blood is part of his humanity not his deity. God is Spirit and we who worship him worship him in spirit and in truth. God incarnate, however, has blood by virtue of his virgin birth and genuine humanity and therefore could actually die and be raised again. The Sacramental view of the blood, on the other hand, is Romish and must be rejected by all Bible-believing protestants.

A letter to JM on this issue is not out of line. I am for it and would be glad to write it, if that will help settle the issue. However, I have also read Pickering’s booklet on Lordship Salvation where he accuses JM of changing the gospel. That booklet is still available. I highly respect Pickering, but some of the non-sense in free grace theology out of Dallas via Hodges and to some degree Ryrie, may have influenced Pickering when he wrote that booklet. Again, JM makes some over-the-top statements in his polemics about the nature of saving faith, but in principle I think he is right. Saving faith implicitly involves submission and explicitly involves repentance. I think Pickering would actually agree with this concept regarding the true condition for being declared righteous on the merits of Christ. Nevertheless, he misunderstood and thereby misrepresented JM on this issue which was just as serious as the FBF bulletin’s misrepresentation of JM on the blood.

We do not regard JM as heretical or heterodox on the gospel or the blood. I dare say that JM has moved to the right over the last 30 years on many issues and has been quite militant on many doctrinal issues. I disagree with JM on church polity, music to some degree (i.e. Holland), his view of legalism, an occasional speaker, and some associations he maintains. Other than that I think he has made many helpful contributions via his books and messages.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

(to avoid talking about the elephant in the room)

First, I can’t believe you’re talking about elephant rooms! Don’t you know that elephant rooms are separation issues???? (Ok, lame, lame joke)

[Kevin T. Bauder]

It appears to me that you and I simply have different understandings of how public sins—and especially the sins of the past—ought to be handled.

I wonder if this is really the crux of the difference between us. Part of the problem in considering the question lies in the specific instance that has become a bone of contention in this debate, the MacArthur ‘blood controversy’. If you search this thread, you will see that it was first raised by Mike Harding in the OP. The next instance is also in the OP where I respond to Mike, quoting his reference to it. The next reference is when you pick it up as an example of the sins that fundamentalists cover up - it is in the post headed “Equal Time” and numbered 52557. (I don’t know why this thread isn’t counting posts consecutively.)

We have devolved into quite a bit of back and forth on this issue which has perhaps interested us but no one else much. Here are some questions I have about this particular issue:

• Was the issue about nothing? In other words, didn’t MacArthur have some blame for his initial statements on the topic? He later clarified his views, that suggests that at least he was partly to blame for the controversy.

Perhaps the problem we are having coming to agreement on this issue is that I don’t see it as a crystal clear example of fundamentalist error alone. (That is not to say we shouldn’t correct our part in that error and I am open to further discussion of that point.)

I also wonder, given the amount of back and forth we have had on this point, if this isn’t the tip of an iceberg. Suppose we were to address the MacArthur issue to your satisfaction. Would that be enough for you to grant us absolution? Or would it only open the flood-gate of more offenses the nasty fundamentalists must repent of?

On the other hand, I raised the issue of Dr. Pickering’s statement about MacArthur while he was president of Central - it seems to me to be a parallel issue. You haven’t addressed it at all.

It is all very well to say that we must deal with sins of the past as a general principle, but the reason we sidestep them, it seems to me, is that 1) we think the issue is presently a non-issue because it is long in the past; 2) we think the issue is a non-issue for us because we weren’t a party to it; 3) we think that there are some aspects of the issue that were merited on the “sinning side” (as it were).

Are any of those the reasons why you keep avoiding the Central published pamphlet that said MacArthur changed the terms of the gospel?

~~~

This whole conversation really got rolling when you asked me to offer you suggestions for what you should do. You spent a lot of time reshaping my suggestions. I have to say that I was surprised at this effort since I don’t think my suggestions were that unclear in the first place. I’d like to reiterate them here.

With respect to evangelicalism I suggested:

I would counsel you to to speak more forthrightly about why you are so different from the evangelicals and why you can’t go there to join with them.

With respect to fundamentalism, I suggested:

I would also have you refrain from rehearsing the litany of fundamentalist offenses and excesses whenever you talk about fundamentalism. It is not that we should not be self-critical. But we don’t need to be self-trashical (I know, no such word). The way you talk about fundamentalism reinforces the caricature many disaffected people hold. I simply don’t believe it is an accurate picture of fundamentalism. The errors you mention really did happen, I agree. But that is not all there is to fundamentalism and fundamentalists. For every error you point out, there are faithful fundamentalists laboring outside the spotlight, serving the Lord with integrity and spending their lives building disciples.

Please remember, I am not saying fundamentalists are immune from criticism. But the way the criticism is made has more than one effect, and I would have you encouraging young people to be fundamentalists. That is not because I think fundamentalism as a movement or a label needs to be preserved, but because I believe that fundamentalism is Biblical Christianity.

Are these points really so difficult to understand?

You want us to clearly deal with past outstanding sins of fundamentalism. I’ll concede that point as a worthy suggestion. We’ll have to have some discussion as to how that should take place. But, having conceded that point, let me point out that there are a whole lot more than just me that you must persuade. How do you propose to do that when you use terms that attack those you seek to convince? You broad-brush them as “muckety mucks” who “fulminate”. You imply that they are imperial, etc.

If you want to convince men that these corrective steps should be taken, you need to get involved with them, speak with them, persuade them. I have sat in the room with the other leaders of the FBFI. There are a lot of strong personalities in that room. They are quite willing to work through issues very frankly. I don’t see anyone in that room who is an empire builder. They are all interested in promoting fundamentalism because it is Biblical Christianity. They are lending their support to ministries intended to promote these ideas. These are the men you need to influence if you think something should be done about the past. Well… how will that happen if they are wondering if you will sit on the sidelines and cast stones at them if they don’t all jump to your suggestions?

We are now coming back full circle in this discussion. I am a bit puzzled at the direction it has taken, and at the length of time. I am not really sure if we have accomplished anything. As often happens with conversations, we have gotten sidetracked on tangential issues.

That is all for now. I look forward to leaving SI alone until after Sunday!

As with Christ’s Deity, so his humanity is a test of fellowship. Christ’s whole person with two natures necessitates that that we not deny or diminish either one of the natures without casting aspersion regarding his person—otherwise known as the Theanthropic person. It is neo-platonic or at worse, gnosticism, to deny any aspect of the humanity of Christ, including his blood. Unless Jesus was fully and completely man, no man could be saved. “Only what God became can be saved.” He didn’t become an angel or an animal; he became a full, complete, 100% man while simultaneously remaining 100% God. Thus, Jesus, the eternal Son of God, took upon himself, perfectly and completely, sinless human nature in human flesh, blood, and form. His humanity is completely, absolutely genuine. Christ said, “Take eat, this is my body…this is my blood of the covenant” (Matt 26:26-28 NASB). The Word became Flesh (Jn 1:14). This refers to his body and blood—all a part of genuine human nature. Prior to the incarnation Christ was not human in any sense. After the incarnation he added full, complete, perfect, sinless human nature to his personhood, without confounding the natures or dividing the person, equaling his hypostatic union—the God-Man (Phil 2:5-11). His flesh and blood speak of a human being (Matt 16:17). Even Christ exercised human emotion on the Cross in connection with his sweat which became like great drops of blood (Luke 22:44).

Human nature includes the sum total of all the essential qualities that make something genuinely what it is. A nature is not a person, but rather is a complexity of attributes that gives definition to the reality of something. Jesus is one, eternal divine person who now has two complexes of attributes—divine and human. Yet the natures though united in the one person, still remain distinct (Rom 1:3-4; Rom 9:5 ESV). There is no transmutation of one nature into the other to form a hybrid third nature. The theanthropic person does not have theanthropic natures. Therefore, it is important to realize that the Divine Logos did not deify the sinless, genuine, human nature of Christ. This would be the ancient heterodoxy of Eutychianism that fused the two natures into a unity of nature with the divine nature absorbing the human nature.

We enthusiastically must affirm that Jesus’ literal blood was shed on the cross to make atonement for the sins of the world (Jn 19:33-34). His blood is inseparable from his person, but is not confounded in its nature. As Christ poured out his blood in his sacrificial, atoning death it represented his perfect life of obedience to the Father, the true satisfaction of the Mosaic Law, and the obedience unto death, even the death of the cross which paid both the positive price of imputed righteousness and the infinitively negative price of a true and just punishment for our sins. Unlike the Romanist heresy, however, we clearly affirm that the physical properties of the blood’s corpuscles, glucose, plasma do not have any mystical, sacramental value (Rom 5:9-10; Col 1:20; Heb 9:14-15). Thus we don’t literally “eat his flesh” or “drink his blood” as the papacy affirms. If we assign the efficacy of Christ’s blood to the literal molecules as does Rome, we deny his true humanity and confound his natures. In light of this further explanation, I have asked Aaron Blumer to remove my sarcastic note on this issue in my previous post. It was unnecessarily pejorative and a poor attempt at humor. Nevertheless, for a more complete explanation of this issue, read Leon Morris in “The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross” (pp. 108-24).

Don,

Sorry for the delay, but it’s been an intense weekend. I taught Friday night and all day Saturday, then preached in a church out-of-state on Sunday. I’m tired, but rejoicing in what the Lord has been doing.

I think your last post raises two smaller issues and a larger one. Let me knock out the two smaller ones here.

First, you express bemusement that I spent time rewording your suggestions. I felt that I had to because I wanted to eliminate what I thought was an unfair personal element. For example, you began a key paragraph with these words: “I would also have you refrain from rehearsing the litany of fundamentalist offenses and excesses whenever you talk about fundamentalism.” But I have never, ever rehearsed anything approaching the whole litany of Fundamentalist offenses. At most, I have mentioned only a few of the most egregious and obvious ones, and those have always been the offenses that remain unresolved. And I certainly don’t bring them up “whenever [I] talk about fundamentalism.” But there is little point in wrangling over how many words I write in defense of separatism, dispensationalism, Baptist ecclesiology, etc., within Fundamentalism as over against the number of words that I spend criticizing Fundamentalists. So I tried to recast the statement in a more objective way. In other words, I tried not to be offended by what I thought was an unfair accusation, but rather to understand the principled critique that you wanted to make.

Second, you ask why I have not said anything about Pickering’s statement concerning MacArthur during the controversy over Lordship Salvation. There are two reasons. The first is simple. You yourself suggested that I should not. You said, “I don’t think anyone at Central needs to dig up this episode and make any statement of apology or amends.” So I took you at your word.

The second reason is that I have not yet found a copy of the pamphlet. I’m still looking. Until I do, I’m reluctant to comment about a single statement that may or may not have been understood rightly in its context.

“Changing the terms” can be understood in multiple ways. If it means, “Altering the conditions for reception of the gospel,” then it is a much more serious charge than if it means, “Adjusting the expressions that one uses in describing the gospel.” You seem to be assuming that it means the former, and that Pickering was implying that MacArthur was somehow denying the gospel. That may be the case, but if so, it does not match Pickering’s conduct. While he was president of Central Seminary, Pickering retained faculty members who advocated Lordship Salvation. Not only that, one of the prominent voices in the history of Central Seminary is Rolland McCune, who has never been hesitant to express himself on this subject. For these reasons, it does not seem likely that Pickering would simply denounce Lordship Salvation as a denial of the gospel.

That’s why I would very much like to see a copy of the pamphlet before responding. I’m working on finding one.

Your last post also begins to address a bigger issue, and I think it is the next one that we need to address. It is specifically raised by your other recommendation to me—the recommendation that I avoid situations that look like cooperative ministry with conservative evangelicals in view of their serious error. We’ll have to break that one out for separate discussion.

—>

Thanks for the note.

I understand how my words initially contained “an unfair personal element”, but perhaps it would have been easier to simply point to those words and ask if that was the best way to express it? This is not meant critically, I do see what you mean in criticizing my comments. Hyperbolic expression is habit-forming and isn’t helpful in discussion.

Secondly, on thinking this over, I am not that anxious to pursue the Pickering pamphlet. I personally don’t think it is a matter you or Central need to clear up. I offered it as an example of a past controversy that is outstanding, but one that doesn’t really need to be answered, just as I don’t think the FBFI needs to answer, in the present time, errors that are long past and not really germaine to the present discussion.

Look forward to addressing a larger issue. In some ways, the discussion has taken us down a path of dealing with what I see as minor or petty issues that really aren’t the main point of where we need to go.

Kevin,

Now that I have given a more complete explanation of the blood issue, I certainly understand its importance. I will suggest to Kevin Schaal that we clear this matter with JM in a more definitive fashion than we have. There still are men in “Fundamentalism” that doggedly hold to a Sacramentarian view of the blood. I don’t want to be connected with that view which I consider heterodox at best. Those of us on the positions and policies committee need to remove some of the old resolutions that are in error.

Even with some of our historical baggage, I think the FBFI organization is worthwhile for a healthy fundamentalism. I want to encourage our young men who wish to remain identified as historical, biblical, orthodox, separatists as well as baptists to join in with us for the perpetuation of the ideals of a healthy fundamental baptist movement and its practical implementation.

Don,

Now it’s time to get to your other word of advice, which is to avoid public conversations with evangelicals when these conversations could be mistaken for cooperative ministry, because these evangelicals (Dever, MacArthur, Mohler, etc.) are in “serious error.” This advice actually raises substantial issues. It forces us to ask three questions.

First, how do we gauge the gravity of any given error? Presumably we agree that we have an obligation to affirm all and only those doctrines that Scripture affirms, and to implement all and only those moral and ecclesiastical practices that Scripture requires. We commit error whenever we hold a wrong view on a biblical topic or whenever we fail to implement some moral or ecclesiastical practice that Scripture requires (or, for that matter, when we implement as a matter of morality or ecclesiastical practice something that Scripture does not require). The upshot is that whenever two brethren disagree about what the faith actually affirms of requires, at least one of them must be in error (and, since we are obligated to avoid error, to be disobedient).

Requirements of the faith, however, are different from applications of the faith. Applications involve particular circumstances, and because circumstances differ, applications require an element of judgment. Differences in judgment do not necessarily imply biblical error disobedience on the part of either party, while differences over doctrines and practices do. In other words, errors in judgment are not necessarily matters of disobedience.

But how do we determine whether our disagreement is over a matter of obedience or a matter of judgment? When it is over a matter of obedience, how do we determine which forms of disobedience are more serious and which are less so? Evidently you would distinguish levels of seriousness for disobedience, since you charge conservative evangelicals with serious (rather than mild or moderate) error. What is the mechanism for making that determiniation?

Second, do all instances of disobedience (let alone errors of judgment) require the same reaction, or do different levels of disobedience require different levels of response? In other words, are there levels of fellowship at which we can tolerate greater disobedience (or errors of judgment) in our brethren than at other levels? Different levels of public ministry? Of platform participation? If so, how do we know which levels of fellowship, ministry, or platform participation are broader and which are narrower? Is it possible to answer this question biblically and theologically, rather than simply on the basis of personal prejudices?

Third, what would lead you to believe that the errors of conservative evangelicals (with whom you do not wish me to engage in public ministry) are any more serious than the errors of some Fundamentalists with whom leaders of the FBFI actually have engaged in public ministry? In fact, don’t we find a range of errors being committed by both conservative evangelicals and Fundamentalists? Until we have a mechanism for gauging the gravity of these errors, it seems presumptuous to insist that the errors of the one are necessarily worse than the errors of the other.

In this post, I am simply trying to frame the questions, not to answer them. In my next post, I hope to put up some ideas that are not my own, in order to show that even some very separatistic Fundamentalists recognize the legitimacy of these concerns.