BJU Bible Conference & C. Sexton

I cannot comment on Sexton. All I really know about him is his connection to the Sword of the Lord. I must say however that I was disappointed in the Sword’s full page ad promoting a conference where they were giving away copies of Jack Hyles ordination certificate. BTW, this was right at the height of the Shcaap scandel. I’m sure glad that I do not pay to get the Sword of The Lord. I very seldom read anything in it anymore. They have very little credibility left in my mind.

This is who BJU is. You look at the entire docket of speakers, and it represents their broad constituency. That is who they have always been, agree with them or not. I don’t necessarily like the choice, but I’m not surprised or particularly outraged. It’s not especially remarkable or controversial. In light of John Vaughn and BJU staff evangelist Mike Shrock featured at Sexton’s Independent Baptist Friends International meeting a little while back, it seems to me a reciprocal move somewhat to be expected.

Is anyone else concerned that BJU is having Clarence Sexton speak at Bible Conference? Sexton, in very recent memory has put a stamp of approval on not only Jack Schaap (prior to the sex scandal of course), but also on First Baptist of Hammond and their new pastor. FBCH has not owned its sin nor is it admitting its idolatry of man which paved a clear path for Schaap to groom and prey upon his victim(s).

I am concerned about this, in part because of the ties to FBC, but more importantly because of his KJV-Exclusive position. This is what his church’s doctrinal statement says:

We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Bible, “as it is in truth, the Word of God…” (I Thessalonians 2:13). We believe in verbal, plenary inspiration in the original writings, and God’s preservation of His pure words to every generation (II Timothy 3:16, Psalms 12:6-8). We believe that the Scriptures are inerrant, infallible, and God-breathed.

The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we accept and use; the King James Version of the Bible is the only English version we accept and use. The Bible is our sole and final authority for faith and practice.

Why would BJU invite someone to speak two times when they have a errant position on translations and Bibliology? It’s one thing to be KJV-preferred, but it’s a whole other kettle of fish to say that only one version is acceptable and usable (even if it is only in their circles).

If I said something like this in regards to the ESV (my preferred version), they’d run me off the platform or politely relegate me to the non-invited status. So why is it OK if Sexton believes the same thing for the KJV?

I think that this is more a problem of friends inviting friends than any conscious acceptance of doctrinal error, but that doesn’t make it any less confusing or frustrating to watch.

If I said something like this in regards to the ESV (my preferred version), they’d run me off the platform or politely relegate me to the non-invited status.

What leads you to say that, exactly? I know that Mark Minnick and Hantz Bernard (on this docket) made some pretty strong remarks on the NASB (and its underlying texts) a few years ago.

I am not defending them. But they have generally had a broad representation across many doctrinal positions. Even this docket has a broad representation on doctrines like baptism, eschatology, polity, and soteriology, I suspect.

Wishing they would change is one thing- but this is a move that given even recent history, is SOP. It should come as no surprise. I would even say that pragmatically speaking, it makes shrewd sense, especially if you look at how other schools in “the orbit” who have taken a more progressive approach have not exactly been overrun with students as a result. Again, I’m not necessarily saying that it is right, only that it shouldn’t be surprising.

Jay,

I agree with you about the KJVO issue. That is my concern about Clarence Sexton speaking at BJU, not the FBCH issue.

Ties to FBCH and Sword of the Lord are a concern as well.

[Greg Linscott]

If I said something like this in regards to the ESV (my preferred version), they’d run me off the platform or politely relegate me to the non-invited status.

What leads you to say that, exactly? I know that Mark Minnick and Hantz Bernard (on this docket) made some pretty strong remarks on the NASB (and its underlying texts) a few years ago.

I am not defending them. But they have generally had a broad representation across many doctrinal positions. Even this docket has a broad representation on doctrines like baptism, eschatology, polity, and soteriology, I suspect.

Wishing they would change is one thing- but this is a move that given even recent history, is SOP. It should come as no surprise. I would even say that pragmatically speaking, it makes shrewd sense, especially if you look at how other schools in “the orbit” who have taken a more progressive approach have not exactly been overrun with students as a result. Again, I’m not necessarily saying that it is right, only that it shouldn’t be surprising.

Greg - First things first. That statement was probably too strong, and I should have removed it. My fault.

Secondly, maybe you’re more plugged into BJU than I am, but I just didn’t see an openness to using alternative translations at BJU in their pulpit. I know that a couple seminary professors I had wished that they could use a different translation in their classes and for memory work, but the school has decided to avoid the whole KJV iceberg by just staying with the de facto standard, which is their right. I don’t know if it’s because they don’t want to deal with it, can’t decide on a new standard version to use, or don’t want to alienate their constituents…but at some point I think that will need to be revisited. Maybe it’s just something as simple as their chapel speakers deferring to the hosts’s stated preference for the KJV in their pulpit. I do that myself when I’m able to speak.

Maybe things have changed at the U. I didn’t see the remarks by Minnick and Bernard that you are referring to, so if you could share them, that would be good for all. I know Minnick has been particularly vocal on this issue (via the Mind of God and God’s Word books from a few years ago), but this is not the first time, if I remember right, that Sexton has spoken at BJU’s conferences with this kind of background. It just strikes me as really concerning that this guy in particular keeps coming back, and that’s before we get into the whole FBC orbit baggage that he carries around with him.

I’m not plugged in there, but just following issues, BJU has for a long time taken the KJV standard/eclectic in Greek approach. My dad used to get Peter Ruckman’s Bible Believers Bulletin paper in the 1980s when I was a kid, and I remember vividly how BJU and Stewart Custer were routinely vilified in Ruckman’s cartoons for this very reason.

Regarding positions from Minnick and Bernard, see http://mountcalvarybaptist.org/pages/resources/default/13/17

I’m just observing that it is their way of representing the spectrum- having both Bernard and Sexton, that is. And as much as he carries baggage, this is, if we’re honest, not uncommon in practicality. How many missionaries in our circles would draw support from churches at least somewhat sympathetic with KJVO or FBCH? I imagine a significant percentage of those who buy BJU’s school curriculum would be favorably inclined in that direction, too, just as there would be a significant percentage inclined the other way. It’s a big tent for them on those issues. This is them being accommodating. It’s the BJU way.

It’s my opinion that chapel speakers at BJU will be able to use alternative versions in a few years. It’s long been the case that the school doesn’t limit the text to the KJV because of its own convictions, but rather out of concern to not offend students who have convictions on the matter. As things change in constituent churches, they will change in the pulpit. Already any speaker can give alternative readings in modern versions so it’s not a big deal.

I also am concerned about having Sexton for Bible Conference. It just isn’t a good idea. There are so many good choices out there, and this is a case where the lack of separation from false teaching on the right is a good cause for separation if that principle was consistently applied. If Sexton this year, then why not Don Carson or Al Mohler the next?

I also am concerned about having Sexton for Bible Conference. It just isn’t a good idea. There are so many good choices out there, and this is a case where the lack of separation from false teaching on the right is a good cause for separation if that principle was consistently applied. If Sexton this year, then why not Don Carson or Al Mohler the next?

Yeah, there’s some ties there between Sexton, Schaap, and FBC that ought to have been examined by BJU.

But hey, at least Sexton isn’t Al Mohler or Mark Dever. That would have been a real separation issue to deal with.

There are boatloads of BJU grads across the world who are serving God faithfully. They are loyal to the Lord and His Word as they serve in various “camps” of Bible-believing Christianity. In that representation, men like Mike Harding and Shayne McAllister should be equally embraced and cherished as they strive to be true to the Word of God but have differences that should not warrant separation.

Therein lies one of the greatest opportunities for one of the most unique and strongest coalitions that would chart a Biblical and refreshing course for a Fundamentalism of our time. The cause of Christ would be strengthened by this and BJU would probably be strengthened by this in the long run.