The Future of Fundamentalism: A Forum for Leaders

Mike,

Thanks for the review of Chalcedonian Christology and its application to the blood of Jesus. Like you, I affirm that the shedding of Jesus’ blood was essential for the forgiveness of our sins. Like you, I deny that the efficacy of the blood consisted in any chemical (let alone mystical or magical) divine property, but derived from the power of His endless life. A hypodermic syringe of Jesus’ blood would not have secured our redemption.

I would add one note to your discussion of the natures. In orthodox Christology, we speak of the communication of attributes or properties. The properties of each nature communicate to the person according to that nature. The properties do not communicate to the other nature. Consequently, we deny (against the Lutherans) that the human body of Jesus is ubiquitous, for the omnipresence of the divine nature does not communicate to the human body of Jesus. This understanding of the communication of properties is what allows us to recognize that the person could be tired, unaware, and spatially bounded according to the human nature, while at the same time being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent according to the divine nature.

But here’s the thing. Since the properties of each nature are the properties of the person, it is appropriate to speak of one nature under the aspect of the other. That is why Paul, when talking to the Ephesian elders, could speak about Jesus’ blood as God’s own blood. It was God’s blood, even though it was purely and only human as to its properties. It was the blood of the person, and the person was (is) God. Consequently, I believe you’ll find many theologians who have referred to Jesus’ blood as divine blood.

The problem with this expression is that it is ambiguous. Jesus’ blood is divine in the sense that it is the blood of a divine person. It is certainly not divine in the sense that any property of the divine nature has been communicated to it. If we could smear it on a slide and put it under a microscope, we would find nothing that would distinguish it from other human blood. What is unique about the blood of Christ is whose it is, not what it is.

For similar reasons we are uncomfortable calling Mary theotokos, but we must never deny that she is. Over against Nestorianism, we insist that she carried and gave birth, not to a nature, but to a person. That person can never be divided, and the person is genuinely God. He possesses the full divine essence. While we don’t like what you-know-who does with the idea, we have to admit that Mary gave birth to God.

The blood of Jesus is God’s own blood in exactly the same sense and for exactly the same reason that Mary is rightly recognized as the mother of God. The truths are exactly parallel, and the risks are exactly parallel. It has always mystified me that some of us have been quick to react against errors in Mariology, but much slower to respond to an equally erroneous hematology. To reason from an erroneous understanding of Jesus’ blood as divine to a doctrine of the indestructability of the blood (for example) is to fall into the Lutheran error of communicating the properties of the divine nature to the human nature. This is necessarily to overshadow the true humanity of Christ by His deity, resulting in a practical Eutychianism.

Having said all that, I cannot claim to understand how any of it works. To me, the hypostatic union is a mystery to be affirmed by faith because it is revealed in the Holy Scriptures. I am staggered whenever I ponder these things, and, to tell you the truth, I cannot think of them for long without beginning to weep. Even though He subsisted in the form of God, He did not consider equality with God a thing to be selfishly grasped, but emptied himself, receiving the form of a slave and coming to be in the likeness of men. Then, when His external appearance was indistinguishable from the merely human, He humbled Himself to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Since blood is fittest, Lord to write
Thy sorrows in, and bloody fight;
My heart hath store, write there, where in
One box doth lie both ink and sin:

(George Herbert)

IFBF Resolution – Concerning Ecclesiastical Separation

Forasmuch as the Indiana Fundamental Baptist Fellowship of Churches has from its inception adhered to Jude’s admonition to, “earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints,” and,

Whereas, every generation faces its own unique and specific challenges to steadfastness and fidelity to the Scriptures, which are able to make one wise unto salvation; and,

Whereas there has in this generation arisen movements which have called for a merging of professing Christendom to gather under a Gospel banner, rallying ‘round a mantra of holding to and setting forth the gospel message, i.e. that Christ died for our sins and was buried and rose again the third day, as the only test of faith for fellowship and the standard for legitimacy in New Testament Christianity in this 21st century; and,

Whereas the IFBF has always been, and remains to this present hour, committed to the biblical principles of both personal and ecclesiastical separation, believing that the whole counsel of God’s Word is our imperative, and that erring brethren ought to be loved, yet admonished and even separated from when persisting in error;

Therefore, be it resolved at this IFBF annual meeting in the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, on the 12th day of April, 2011, that our constituency goes on record as affirming our commitment to these separatist principles and further,

Be it resolved that we, as a fellowship of Independent Baptists, reject the compromise of the present Together for the Gospel movement, the Southern Baptist Convention, Sovereign Grace Ministries, the Resolved Conference and similar current theological philosophies, associations, publications and trends impacting churches, colleges and seminaries which for the desired end of togetherness, cooperation and oneness in our understanding minimize doctrine and sacrifice faithfulness to our historic separatist, Biblicist stand, i.e. that of separation from Christian individuals or organizations that affiliate with those who deny the faith or are content to walk together with those who compromise the doctrine and practice of Scripture;

Be it further resolved that the IFBF affirms today that it stands as a separatist body where it stood at its inception when, rejecting the new evangelicalism of the 50’s, the IFBF was born and came into existence because of a need for a strong fundamental, separatist, independent and Baptistic fellowship to which men of conviction and churches of like faith could adhere; we stand now where we stood then, and we shall continue to steadfastly stand for, and upon, the once delivered faith, so help us God.

Respectfully submitted by the 2011 Resolution Committee:

Dr. Tony Slutz, Committee Chairman

Dr. Larry Hufhand, IFBF Secretary

Dr. Rick Arrowood, Board Member

The following paragraphs are taken from the Hufhand Report of April 18, 2011. This report is written by Lawrence D. Hufhand. At the time he wrote this report, Dr. Hufhand was the state representative of the Indiana Fundamental Baptist Fellowship. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation is sic. My thanks to Dr. Lance Ketcham who kindly notified me of this report.

Our Fellowship, the one we affectionately call the IFBF, consist of pastors from diverse backgrounds and educational esperiences from Bob Jones to Pensacola to Crown to Ambassador to Tennessee Temple, to Maranatha to Northland to Pillsbury, to West Coast to Heritage and IBC right here in Indianapolis, IN, and no doubt to other lesser known schools. Some of our pastors have been blessed with seminary training, as well as earned and conferred Doctor’s degrees, but when we meet together in fellowship, none of this matters. We love each other and are bound together by mutual respect and admiration. If a particular church has been singled out to be blessed by God in a special way, we rejoice and are glad. If a pastor or church is going thourgh a time of testing and trial we rally around them and pray for them to be encouraged and do whatever we can to help them through their trial. And most of our pastors stay a long time in their churches.

Hardly any of us agree on everything, but we all agree on the fundamentals of the faith and are honored to be considered an Independent Fundamental Bible-believing Baptist. Although our methods of operation, our forms of service, our styles of preaching may differ, we all do our best to keep the main thing, the main thing, and the main thing is to preach the whole counsel of God; win the lost to Jesus Christ; baptize them into our churches; and then disciple them in Christian growth.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

First, how do we gauge the gravity of any given error? …

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.

So far, so good. No disagreement that we can have differences over fundamental doctrine, denominational distinctives, theological systems, corporate (local church) and individual applications, or judgements, as you call them.

[Kevin T. Bauder] 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?

Now for a clarifying question of my own: in defining a ‘serious error’, must we limit it to matters of disobedience only? Are not some judgements/applications of doctrine also serious errors?

For example, when Billy Graham joined with liberals in his evangelistic campaigns, I think we would agree that he was in disobedience to the doctrine of separation. There were some who didn’t necessarily join with Graham in his crusades, but defended him, took up his cause, took issue with his critics, etc. Would we say they were in disobedience or making an error of judgement? Whatever we would call it, would it be a serious error or not?

In other words, I am not certain I want to concede that the only kinds of errors that are serious are errors that involve disobedience. There are other, more current issues that come to mind, but I’ll hold off on those for the time being as we go through the process of defining terms.

[Kevin T. Bauder] 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?

Simple answer: No.

I have long thought and often written that one of our problems in this discussion is the word “separation”. In the purest meaning of the word, we are only separate from unbelievers. As far as I know, Billy Graham (our usual whipping boy) is a believer. If that is correct, we will all share eternity with him and others like him. We wouldn’t cooperate with him in ministry, but all ties are not broken if his profession of faith is true - and I have no reason to suggest that it is not true.

Other men have committed errors far less egregious than his, yet both of us would still be unwilling to enter into ecclesiastical cooperation with them. I have seen you argue for limited cooperation with some, and as far as the argument goes, I agree in principle. Most likely, we will disagree in some applications and will therefore have to make decisions about each other, perhaps even at some point limiting the extent to which we could work with one another.

[Kevin T. Bauder] 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?

That last question: it remains to be seen…

[Kevin T. Bauder] 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.

The argument, such as it is, is not about the right side of the ditch, but the left side of the ditch. If there are serious errors on the right side (and we know there are), they have no bearing on an argument about errors on the left side. One can’t suggest that since there are some guys in the right ditch that I am given license to run headlong into (or even one tire in) the left ditch. The question is about the left side of the ditch not the right.

So I think your third issue is irrelevant.

[Kevin T. Bauder] 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.

In looking the following posts over, I am not sure I see why you posted them. So perhaps you could enlighten the dull plodders as to the points you want us to see!

Don,

What is the relevance of the IFBF resolution and of Dr. Hufhand’s report?

Let’s first consider the resolution entitled “IFBF Resolution on Compromise.” The resolution divides roughly into two parts. The first part attempts to articulate certain principles. The second part applies those principles to a particular situation. Here is the core of the first part.

Whereas there have in this generation arisen movements which have called for a merging of professing Christendom to gather under a Gospel banner, rallying ’round a mantra of holding to and setting forth the gospel message, i.e. that Christ died for our sins and was buried and rose again the third day, as the only test of faith for fellowship and the standard for legitimacy in New Testament Christianity in this 21^st century; and,

Whereas the IFBF has always been and remains to this present hour committed to the biblical principles of both personal and ecclesiastical separation, believing that the whole counsel of God’s Word is our imperative and that erring brethren ought to be loved, yet admonished and even separated from when persisting in error… .

If you didn’t catch that, here is a paraphrase. Some Christians think that the gospel is a sufficient basis for Christian fellowship and joint labor, but the IFBF believes that separation needs to reflect the whole counsel of God. Consequently, the IFBF promises to love brothers who do not subscribe to the whole counsel of God, but also vows to warn and separate from them.

As far as it goes, this statement is rather unremarkable. While I would certainly wish to flesh out the core idea and to nuance it, I have argued much the same in other places. Here is the idea: profession of the true gospel is the fundamental requirement for minimal Christian fellowship, but substantial agreement in the whole counsel of God is necessary for maximal Christian fellowship. Like the IFBF, I am willing to love brothers from whom I must separate at many levels.

What is not clear is whether the IFBF recognizes the distinction between minimal and maximal fellowship, or whether it would recognize any intermediate levels. This is an important question, because separation (as the IFBF envisions it in this resolution) is inversely proportional to fellowship. If there are no levels of fellowship, then there are no levels of separation. If the IFBF does not recognize the existence of levels of fellowship, then the separation for which it calls must be all-or-nothing. In other words, no fellowship of any kind would be possible with any believer who fails in any way to affirm the whole counsel of God.

Such draconian separation is certainly not what the IFBF practices. Evidence is found in another section of the very same “Hufhand Report.” There, Dr. Hufhand speaks in his official capacity to discuss the differences within the IFBF itself. He affirms that the pastors and churches of the IFBF do actually disagree over certain areas of faith and practice. Here is what he says [spellings, grammar, punctuation, etc., are sic].

Our Fellowship, the one we affectionately call the IFBF, consist of pastors from diverse backgrounds and educational esperiences from Bob Jones to Pensacola to Crown to Ambassador to Tennessee Temple, to Maranatha to Northland to Pillsbury, to West Coast to Heritage and IBC right here in Indianapolis, IN, and no doubt to other lesser known schools. Some of our pastors have been blessed with seminary training, as well as earned and conferred Doctor’s degrees, but when we meet together in fellowship, none of this matters. We love each other and are bound together by mutual respect and admiration. If a particular church has been singled out to be blessed by God in a special way, we rejoice and are glad. If a pastor or church is going thourgh a time of testing and trial we rally around them and pray for them to be encouraged and do whatever we can to help them through their trial. And most of our pastors stay a long time in their churches.

Hardly any of us agree on everything, but we all agree on the fundamentals of the faith and are honored to be considered an Independent Fundamental Bible-believing Baptist. Although our methods of operation, our forms of service, our styles of preaching may differ, we all do our best to keep the main thing, the main thing, and the main thing is to preach the whole counsel of God; win the lost to Jesus Christ; baptize them into our churches; and then disciple them in Christian growth.

According to Dr. Hufhand, some latitude must exist within the IFBF. As he says, “Hardly any of us agree on everything.” Yet these churches and their pastors (he says) love each other. They are bound together by mutual respect and (according to Dr. Hufhand) mutual admiration. The members of this fellowship rejoice when one is blessed, and they pray and encourage and help when one is tested. In other words, they are capable of fellowshipping and working together in spite of their differences.

Particularly interesting is Dr. Hufhand’s tabulation of schools. Of those listed, at least six are identifiable as King-James-Only institutions. One (Crown College) makes this very explicit. Its statement of faith includes an article “Concerning the Scriptures.” One of the points of this creed is that Crown College accepts and uses only the King James among all English translations. In other words, for Crown College, exclusive use of the King James is not merely a preference. It is a matter of doctrine, codified in its statement of faith. By its own profession, Crown College does not accept or use the American Standard Version of 1901, the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, and the New International Version as the word of God.

The view of Crown College and similar institutions is a serious departure from the whole counsel of God. Their attitude toward versions other than the King James displays contempt for Scripture. To such people, a Nestle-Aland Greek text or a New American Standard Bible is not to be accepted as the word of God. According to Dr. Hufhand, however, the churches of the IFBF are sufficiently broad-minded to allow differences in this area. I happen to think that they are permitting a serious compromise of truth, but the IFBF must determine for itself how broad it wishes to be.

Dr. Hufhand makes it clear that the IFBF experiences yet other areas of disagreement. These churches disagree about methods of operation, forms of service, and styles of preaching. Also, according to the denomination’s web site, the IFBF is committed to a very Calvinistic statement of faith (the New Hampshire Confession) that places regeneration prior to faith in the ordo salutis. It would certainly be interesting to poll the pastors of the IFBF to see how many agree with that.

At any rate, what we discover is that the IFBF does not really mean to restrict fellowship only to those who embrace the whole counsel of God. As Dr. Hufhand tells us, hardly any of these churches and pastors agree on everything. And while I might disagree with some areas of latitude that the IFBF permits, in principle I do agree that Christian fellowship must allow room for disagreement about the whole counsel of God. I would add that the more responsible and accountable the level of fellowship becomes, the greater must be the level of agreement.

So the IFBF actually permits disagreement over the whole counsel of God. That is no problem, but then Dr. Hufhand goes on to tell us that in the IFBF “we all do our best to keep the main thing, the main thing, and the main thing is to preach the whole counsel of God… .” After so many assurances about the tolerance of the IFBF, this statement is jarring. Either the IFBF upholds the whole counsel of God, or else it allows latitude for differences. It cannot do both.

So what are we supposed to make of Dr. Hufhand’s remarks?

Simply this. The IFBF wishes to be known for upholding the whole counsel of God, and perhaps it even thinks of itself as doing so, but it also wishes to permit disagreement about certain aspects of the whole counsel of God. In other words, the IFBF wants to say one thing, but do another. It wishes to enjoy a reputation for something that it does not really mean to practice.

If Dr. Hufhand’s report is taken seriously, then the IFBF has a practice that is inconsistent with its profession. That does not mean that the IFBF is necessarily a bad organization or that its leaders are bad men. They may simply be inattentive. What is clear, however, is that the IFBF cannot really mean what it says as long as it does what it does.

Which brings us back to the “IFBF Resolution on Compromise.” As we have seen, the first part of the resolution stated a principle that the gospel itself is insufficient as a basis of Christian fellowship (at some levels?). Fellowship (at some levels?) must be based upon the whole counsel of God. But here is how the IFBF applies this principle in the second half of the resolution.

Be it resolved that we as a fellowship of Independent Baptists reject the compromise of the present Together 4 the Gospel movement, and similar current theological philosophies, associations, publications and trends impacting churches, colleges and seminaries which for the desired end of togetherness, cooperation and oneness in our understanding minimize doctrine and sacrifice faithfulness to our historic separatist, Biblicist stand, i.e. that of separation from Christian individuals or organizations that affiliate with those who deny the faith or are content to walk together with those who compromise the doctrine and practice of Scripture… .

This is a nearly impenetrable sentence, but its sense can be teased out. The members of the IFBF are upset with Together for the Gospel and comparable organizations. They are upset because T4G and others are guilty of compromise. Their compromise consists in the fact that they “minimize doctrine and sacrifice faithfulness to our [the IFBF’s] historic, separatist, Biblicist stand.” Exactly what stand is that? It is one that involves “separation from Christian individuals or organizations that affiliate with those who deny the faith,” which would be the Billy Grahams of this world, “or are content to walk together with those who compromise the doctrine and practice of Scripture.”

This is just puzzling. In the first place, the T4G crowd hardly minimizes doctrine—if anything, those people take doctrine far more seriously than many within Baptist fundamentalism. In the second place, nobody in the T4G crowd is looking to “affiliate with those who deny the faith.” Consequently, the only real objection that applies to the T4G crowd is that they “walk together with those who compromise the doctrine and practice of Scripture.”

The problem is that the IFBF is accusing T4G of doing precisely the thing that the IFBF itself does. The IFBF walks together with those who compromise the doctrine and practice of Scripture. Within the IFBF, there is significant toleration of erroneous teaching in the form of the King James Only movement. Within the IFBF, there is significant disagreement over practice (methods of operation, forms of service, styles of preaching). According to Dr. Hufhand, all of this is compatible with a fellowship that involves mutual respect, admiration, rejoicing, prayer, encouragement, and help.

So how, exactly, does this criticism apply to the T4G crowd but not to the IFBF crowd? I confess that I cannot see.

The business of the IFBF is its own, and that denomination is welcome to issue any public pronouncements that it wishes. As one who yearns to see a Fundamentalism worth saving, however, this sort of statement places me in an awkward position. I would like to explain to young men why they ought to invest their lives in Fundamentalism rather than in certain other forms of evangelicalism. When those young men read resolutions like this one, however, all that they perceive is the massive inconsistency of objecting to acne while excusing leprosy.

If we want to know why young men are leaving Fundamentalism, we need look no further. They can spot such inconsistency whilst it is yet afar off, and they have no wish to make it part of their lives. Every time some Fundamentalist launches into the kind of diatribe that the IFBF has given us, another class of collegians and seminarians decides to abandon Fundamentalism.

The irony is that I agree with the rationale of the resolution. Fully Christian fellowship must ultimately center upon the whole counsel of God. Furthermore, I do not throw in my lot with the conservative evangelical crowd because I think those men (perceptive as they are about some things) have missed a couple of important aspects of the whole counsel of God. In areas where we do not share the faith (the whole counsel of God) in common, fellowship does not exist. Yet we must distinguish levels of fellowship, just as we distinguish levels of agreement. Most of all, we must not excuse an error on one side that is worse than the error we accuse on the other.

While I can see your point, I fail to see the relevance. Neither you nor I are members of the IFBF, so these statements could serve as an illustration, I suppose, but I don’t know the details so it is impossible for me to comment on them or use them in our discussion.

What we are discussing is my suggestions to you on avoiding the left ditch, not someone else who may or may not be in the right ditch.

Kevin,

I see the point of the IFBF example. It illustrates the over-reaction to those not in our circle with the simultaneous under-reaction to those within our circle. I have read your three articles on why you don’t join the gospel only organizations. I think your articles are very helpful. I do not join or attend those organizations for the same reasons you don’t. The GC seems to have been more careless than T4G. For example, when the GC had Driscoll in as a featured, keynote speaker, I just shook my head with amazement, much like I shook my head when Schaap was invited to the Friend’s conference.

The under-reaction to the KJV-onlyism, easy-believism, and other egregious error represented by some of the schools in your example reveals that the core of the problem really is doctrinal. KJV onlyism reflects a misunderstanding of the doctrine of inspiration and the doctrine of preservation. Easy-believism reflects a misunderstanding of faith, repentance, and perseverance. I have already discussed the heterodoxy on the blood that still exists in certain segments of fundamentalism which deprecates the humanity of Christ.

No organization will be perfect. To cite one writer, “perfect consistency is the hobgoblin of Lilliputian minds”. We have to nuance our over-reactions and humbly confess our under-reactions. This involves doctrinal precision, integrity, honesty, humility, as well as courageous confrontation. My goal is to help strengthen the FBFI doctrinally and practically. I think we need fundamentalist organizations to encourage fellowship, good doctrine and practice, and to speak in a unified sense to the issues of our day.

Kevin,

I want to emphasize here that these are my personal assessments and not the assessment of the executive board. I am one among many board members.

Kevin,

I think if leaders such as yourself, Doran, Horn, and many others would stay involved in organizations such as the FBFI, it would encourage young pastors over whom we have direct influence to consider uniting themselves to good fundamental organizations. The reason I stay involved with the FBFI is because it has shown a willingness to deal with our own issues as well as the issues in the evangelical world. Even the best of organizations have some level of inconsistency and we must remember that one leader doesn’t necessarily speak for the whole organization. McCune used to quote R.V. Clearwaters in class when he would occasionally say, “God is Almighty, Almost”. McCune would cringe in the pew when “Doc” occasionally uttered those words. It would be unfair to characterize Fourth Baptist or Central by the theology represented in those inappropriate assertions. All our organizations have had their Clearwater moments that can be easily used as ammunition to discredit the overall good of the organization. I know you have been looking for Pickering’s book on Lordship Salvation. I had the book and read it twice. I think he misrepresented and/or misunderstood JM. Yet I didn’t draw the worst conclusions about Dr. Pickering or the church and seminary he led. One has to look at the big picture and consider the aberrations as aberrations. Where is the organization today compared to where it has been?

What is the solution as to involving young men in our fundamentalist fellowships? Let’s strengthen our organizations doctrinally. Let’s root out our own errors and inconsistencies and then call the young men to join us. Yes, I am strongly against the serious theological errors promoted and tolerated by some of our fundamental organizations, but I am also militantly opposed to the errors promoted and tolerated in the evangelical world. I have a hearing in the fundamentalist world. The evangelical world is so broad and large that changing it would be tantamount to changing the global temperature.

Mike,

I finally tracked down a copy of Pickering’s booklet on Lordship Salvation. From the looks of it, he was responding to the original edition of The Gospel According to Jesus which, I think we agree, contained a few problems. I’ve heard that many of those were the result of MacArthur’s editors who, in at least some cases, over-rode his own preferences. If that’s so, then Pickering’s (and others’) reactions to the first edition may be more understandable.

On the one hand, Pickering does appear to be concerned that MacArthur is in danger of adding elements to the reception of the gospel. On the other hand, he is still very careful to treat MacArthur as a brother and respected leader. As far as I know, Pickering never engaged MacArthur’s later writings, which certainly nuanced some of his original assertions.

If I could be given three theological wishes, one of them would be to turn down the temperature on the whole Lordship Salvation debate. On my view, none of the positions represents an actual denial of the gospel (leaving aside Hodges’ later development of a crossless gospel). In terms of what they meant to challenge, each of the principals had an important truth at the core of his claims. Clearly errors were taught, and some of those errors were more serious than others. But not every error is a deadly error. Hodges and MacArthur in particular seemed to push each other further than either would otherwise have gone.

For myself, I have still not found a position that I’m entirely happy with. In my opinion, each of the major views does less-than-perfect justice to some aspect of biblical teaching. I suppose that means is that I presently hold what McCune would call a brushpile position. Bad as that may be, I just have not found the way to put all the elements together coherently.

• Saving faith has to be more than intellectual assent. It involves a movement of the heart, a seizing of the promise of salvation grounded in the finished work of Christ.
• Christ could not offer salvation if He did not hold authority (Lordship); consequently, implicit in every act of saving faith is an acknowledgement of the authority of Jesus.
• God does not intend to save us merely from the penalty of our sins, but from our sins. Any exercise of faith that presumes to receive forgiveness so that one can continue to sin with impunity is an exercise in bad faith.
• Sanctification begins in some meaningful sense at the moment of conversion and continues throughout the believer’s life.
• God will not allow His children to live permanently in sin, but will use means (including chastening) to provoke perseverence.

These are the points at which I agree with those who teach Lordship salvation. Where might (and I emphasize the subjunctive) I disagree? Over the definition of repentance. Over the possibility of Christians whose lives are for some period of time indistinguishable from those of unsaved people (i.e., carnal Christians). Over the degree to which the implicit recognition of and submission to the authority of Jesus must be made explicit in order for salvation to be applied.

These are points over which some of the more extreme statements of some defenders of Lordship Salvation have made me uncomfortable. But not as uncomfortable as those anti-Lordship types who want to insist that Lordship Salvation is a false gospel. That’s just ridiculous.

Kevin

P.S. I can’t speak for Dave or anyone else, but you’ll notice that I have kept my membership in the FBFI. But I’ll still leave the board work to people who are better at administration.

Kevin,

Thanks for responding. I agree that JM when he gets polemical often overstates his case or makes unwise statements. He did so on the blood issue which evoked some over reactions on the part of fundamentalists, some of whom went into error on the other side such as diminishing the humanity of Christ. Here is where I am coming from regarding the FBFI. I am willing to overlook or put in its larger context some of the mistakes that have occurred in times past regarding Central, because I know where you are today. I don’t hold you responsible for the baggage in the past such as statements by George Dollar or others. I ask for the same consideration regarding the FBFI and other fundamental organizations. We have had well-intentioned leaders in the past who were not careful theologians or exegetes. They hurt us at times. I don’t think that is the case today generally speaking. Organizations can change for the better. We are by God’s grace changing for the better.

Without being caustic or unfair about the evangelical world, they tolerate a great deal of error in doctrine and practice. Whether its anti-dispensationalism, continuationism, old-earth progressive creationism, or Christian rap, its a whole new world that I don’t desire to participate in. When I see some of our Christian colleges moving in that direction, it grieves me. Those colleges were built by fundamental people with doctrinal/philosophical statements that are being abandoned or significantly ignored. Colleges that could have been examples of a healthy fundamentalism are compromising their doctrine and practice. The FBFI is honestly trying to be part of the solution not the problem.

All my remarks in this thread are my personal assessment. I am not speaking for John Vaughn or Kevin Schaal, but I am speaking. I hope some of our young assistant pastors and pastors will join us in what Dr. McCune often called “The Cause”. We need our young men to join us to become the King’s Mighty Men who will do battle for biblical truth and righteousness by offensively, defensively, and devotedly serving God (2 Sam 23:1-17). I pray that some of my friends who are considering vacating the FBFI and the board will not do so. Often, they are the men we need the most. Whether it is the FBFI or some other reputable fundamental organization, I want to encourage them to join, get involved, and make the cause of historical, biblical, orthodox, baptistic, separatist Christianity their cause.

Kevin, I want to thank you for your time and effort in this thread. I personally view you as an ally in the CAUSE. In the day and age we live in, we need all the allies we can get.

Mike Harding

The one from Kevin “The Book” and the one from Mike “Kevin, Thanks for”. In particular, I agree exactly with Kevin’s statements concerning Lordship salvation. That wouldn’t be a bad theme to expand into an article, if I may be so bold as to suggest a topic for you.

And I agree with Mike that we have to get over the mistakes of the past - we are all fallible and no organization is going to have a perfect history. Instead, we have an opportunity to do better and we should.

Having said that, I’d like to get back to discussing the topic of my suggestions to Kevin regarding relationships with evangelicals. I like what Mike just said in his last about that topic, but more could and should be said. I also think we have not finished discussing what, if anything, should be made of the quotes Kevin posted.

So what I am saying is that I am waiting for Kevin’s response to my post #52867 and also to my post #52856. Kevin has responded partially to the last, but not completely, I think. And I’m thinking it is now his turn to respond (in case he is waiting for me to say something).

Don,

Actually, I wasn’t waiting for you to post again, but for me to find a few moments. During the last two days I’ve had to work through a complete Th.M. thesis and a (nearly) complete doctoral dissertation. It’s taken a significant chunk of my time—and it’s what I actually get paid to do!

Anyway, I hardly have more than a moment or two to put into a post right now. Since you’re still wondering about the relevance of my interaction with the IFBF, let me start there.

First, as you yourself recognize, the IFBF is driving with at least two wheels in the ditch. In fact, they pride themselves on it. As far as they’re concerned, it’s not a ditch, it’s an eight-lane superhighway. They congratulate themselves on being bound to those in the ditch by “mutual respect and admiration.” When a driver makes a mistake this serious, you begin to wonder whether he’s really sober.

Second, no one should take driving lessons from people who aren’t sober. If we want to learn about ditch avoidance, we’ll seek out someone who has a clear idea where the ditch is and where the road is. In particular, when a person or institution can’t tell the difference between a ditch and a roadway, thoughtful people aren’t likely to take them seriously when they start pontificating about the opposite ditch.

Third, there is significant overlap between the IFBF and the FBFI. You and Mike may not be board members in the IFBF, but leaders in the IFBF are also leaders in the FBFI. Some of the same people have their hands on both steering wheels. If they’re willing to let their IFBF car run along in the ditch, I have to assume that they’ll also be willing to run the FBFI bus into the ditch. As a matter of fact, the FBFI bus did recently drop at least one big wheel into potholes in Hammond and Powell. Don’t misunderstand: I’m grateful that, as Mike has indicated, the FBFI has pulled back into its lane. Still, I have to wonder when I see that some of the hands that steer the IFBF are also gripping the FBFI stseering wheel.

Fourth, I acknowledge that the FBFI also has sober hands on the wheel. People like Mike clearly see the danger of both ditches, and I know he’s not alone. The question is, who’s really steering the bus? There are lots of hands on the wheel, and it’s not clear to me whether the bus is going to stay out of the ditch or whether it is about to lurch back in again. Either way, much as I respect Harding, Schaal, Sproul, and people like them, I wonder whether drivers of the FBFI bus are in the strongest moral position to be warning about the other ditch.

Fifth, just because a car isn’t in our lane does not mean that it is in the ditch. This probably approaches the nub of the issue. You seem to think that people like John MacArthur, Michael Vlach, Bill Barrick, or Phil Johnson are in the opposite ditch, while others claim that they are simply in another lane. Let’s suppose I’m trying to decide which is true: why should I take the word of someone whose bus is being steered partly by people who put their own car in the ditch? Shouldn’t I prefer to take the word of people who have shown that they can tell whether a driver is sober?

The FBFI has been willing to name conservative evangelicals publicly, to analyze their putative errors, and to warn against them. Do you think that the FBFI would ever be willing to name the IFBF and to warn against its errors? If not, then why the imbalance?

If we cannot demonstrate an ability to stay between the lines with the shiny side up, why shouldn’t other drivers just ditch us?

Mike,

You may not have noticed, but we have anti-dispesationalism in Fundamentalism, and we have for years. My valued friend Reg Kimbro wrote an entire book against dispensationalism. I’m actually trying to get him to join this conversation.

We have old-earth creationism (though not of the progressive variety) in Fundamentalism, and we have for years. The first theory of creation that I ever learned was the gap theory—and it’s still in Larkin.

Fundamentalism was built upon music borrowed from popular culture, and it is now following the popular trends almost as rapidly as the evangelical world. Probably forty percent of the Fundamentalist churches that I visit use some version of CCM. Some of those churches have leaders who are affiliated with the FBFI.

As I said earlier, the only rock concert that my wife has ever attended was a chapel service at one of the Fundamentalist Bible colleges (and I do not mean one located in northern Wisconsin).

It seems that the “whole new world” is coming to a neighborhood near you.

On the other hand, there are Southern Baptists who are more musically conservative than the vast majority of Fundamentalists. You know at least one of them pretty well.

Young-earth creationism is being promoted primarily by evangelicals (ICR, AIG) who are much broader than the FBFI.

The primary voices defending dispensationalism today are located on the left edge of Fundamentalism and over into the conservative evangelical movement.

Not only that, the most important advocates of cessationism are also outside of Fundamentalism.

If these things are the cause, then what does the cause require us to do with Fundamentalism?

Kevin

Quite frankly, Kevin, I think you are trying to shift the focus of the discussion. In post # 52844 you started off with this:

[Kevin T. Bauder] 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.”

From there you asked three questions:

[Kevin T. Bauder] First, how do we gauge the gravity of any given error?

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?\

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?

Since there isn’t much disagreement on the last two questions, you appear to be focusing on the third question. I ask “What does this have to do with my suggestion to you about the way you engage or discuss Conservative evangelicals?” You are turning a discussion about your actions or proposed actions to a discussion of the actions of “leaders of the FBFI”.

I cry foul.

That’s not the question at all, and with respect to the question of your actions, it would make no difference if the leaders of the FBFI were participating with the Illuminati or anyone else in the world. We aren’t talking about the FBFI, we are talking about you. We are talking about you at your own request, I might add.

As to the IFBF, I would like to point out a few things where you are making some logical errors:

1. You start by analyzing the IFBF separation statement and note that the IFBF calls for separation on the whole counsel of God, not just the gospel.
2. You assume that the IFBF doesn’t recognize levels of fellowship so therefore must advocate ‘all or nothing’ separation.
3. You then imply they are inconsistent because they don’t actually follow through on that. (Yet you admit that the question of levels of fellowship isn’t clear - you really don’t know what the IFBF means about separation from their statement. You are simply making assumptions.)
4. You cite Dr. Hufhand providing evidence that the IFBF doesn’t practice separation over the whole council of God. You attempt to make Dr. Hufhands statement an “official” pronouncement with Dr. Hufhand speaking in his “official capacity” for the IFBF, but one would think that a document named the Hufhand Report might just be the personal newsletter of Dr. Hufhand and not an official IFBF document. Scan his own website and see if he has any “official capacity” any longer - it would seem that his words are his own, not that of the IFBF.
5. The evidence you cite for the alleged IFBF inconsistency is the numerous colleges Dr. Hufhand mentions including Crown College (the horror!). Since Crown College states in their doctrinal statement “that Crown College accepts and uses only the King James among all English translations”, you assume they are elevating the exclusive acceptance and use of the KJV to a doctrinal level, thus violating the whole counsel of God.
6. Then you assume that those Crown College graduates in the IFBF are mind-numbed robots who couldn’t possibly think differently from their alma mater. Ergo, their very presence taints the organization because it tolerates error (contrary to the whole counsel of God) because (on your assumption) those Crown grads march in lockstep with their alma mater. Clearly they should be shunned forever because of their alma mater.

I don’t know what can be said about such reasoning. It is an amazing structure of imagined conclusions - that’s about the best that can be said.

Now to respond to your latest post to me:

[Kevin T. Bauder]

First, as you yourself recognize, the IFBF is driving with at least two wheels in the ditch.

I made no such statement.

For the sake of argument, if the IFBF were in the ditch (not something I conceded at all), their being in the ditch is completely irrelevant to the question of what you should do with the conservative evangelicals. Doesn’t matter.

[Kevin T. Bauder] Second, no one should take driving lessons from people who aren’t sober. If we want to learn about ditch avoidance, we’ll seek out someone who has a clear idea where the ditch is and where the road is. In particular, when a person or institution can’t tell the difference between a ditch and a roadway, thoughtful people aren’t likely to take them seriously when they start pontificating about the opposite ditch.

What is that supposed to mean? What does that have to do with you and your words about and actions towards Conservative Evangelicals? Nothing at all.

[Kevin T. Bauder] Third, there is significant overlap between the IFBF and the FBFI. You and Mike may not be board members in the IFBF, but leaders in the IFBF are also leaders in the FBFI. Some of the same people have their hands on both steering wheels. If they’re willing to let their IFBF car run along in the ditch, I have to assume that they’ll also be willing to run the FBFI bus into the ditch.

Man, you are big on assumptions. You are assuming the IFBF is in the ditch based on a fairy-land logic trail. What rubbish. You are assuming the men in the IFBF leadership who are on the FBFI board (only two of them, by my count), are somehow evilly plotting to wrest control of the FBFI from the whole roomful of very INDEPENDENT Baptists and drive us off into some imagined similar error or compromise. Good grief.

I could go on, but I grow weary of it. You are going exactly counter to what I suggested. You are not dealing with the subject at hand, instead returning to the point we had finished discussing, and simply attacking the FBFI and now the IFBF. Your words will not build up anyone to have a positive view of the FBFI or, I would suggest, much of fundamentalism at all. You claim you want to help, yet you push away the men you say you want to help with your rhetoric. It is hard to imagine why any of them would want to listen to you at all.

Your recent articles on TGC and T4G have been excellent. That kind of plain talking is what I’d like to see from you.

You might think you are offering plain talk about fundamentalists as well. If you didn’t base your argument on assumptions, then I might agree. But as it stands you are building up a very shoddy case. I don’t know why. It makes no sense to me, and I know you can do better than this.

So… if you are simply going to use this thread to continue to attack fundamentalists, then I’ll bow out of the conversation. I’m willing to participate if you’ll stay on topic and address the question at hand.

Back to you, then, but I’m not overly optimistic…