In Defense of What?

Exactly…The gospel is not really what’s being defended, but rather the Fundamentalist subculture and it’s scruples.

Much of what they are promoting as Biblical separation is, in reality, division.

The blog writer is clearly hostile towards fundamentalism in general. Not sure what, if anything, of substance he has to contribute. A lot of straw men about fundamentalism here. The writer portrays fundamentalists as almost crazed madmen.

In fact, the more one reads these blogging bullies one has to wonder what they are actually defending.

They are of the same breed as Fred Phelps and should be ignored.

Looks like a pure attack piece with no effort at constructive thought. Who is using a punching bag now?

The man is obviously hostile against the movement in general:

When I was lost in the cloistered thinking of fundamentalism I actually thought that when a fundamentalist said his pontifications were in defense of the gospel that they were in defense of the gospel.

Any guy who compares a blogger to Fred Phelps is off his rocker. Pathetic comparison. Phelps is a cult leader and a false teacher. Lou is not - don’t care whether you agree with him on separation or not. If you’re prepared to denounce Lou as a false teacher - do so. If not, please agree the man has some pent up hostility and this particular post is way over the top.

If the man wants to be constructive, tone down the hostility and the false and slanderous accusations. Comparing a guy to a Fred Phelps? Way out of line.

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” - John 13:34-35

Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. - Heb. 12:14

But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. - James 3:17-18

Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned. - Titus 3:10-11

Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. - 2 Thess. 3:6

Tyler,

Lou represents himself as a member of “fundamentalism”, of which very few are apparently a part of. He intentionally excludes orthodox men like MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Mark Dever, Matt Olson, Dave Doran, Tim Jordan, and Kevin Bauder (to name a few easy examples) from being ‘one of us’ (whatever that is).

The point that Bixby makes is dead on. Lou uses his blog for faultfinding, gossip, and malicious slander of brothers in the Lord. A cursory review of his blog demonstrates that repeatedly (and that’s before we read the things he wrote on SI before he ‘quit’ or on other Forums that he has been banned from). Lou isn’t actually defending anything Gospel related. His defense is to be on the offense against those he deems to be not Fundamentalist enough (like this site). So is he defending the Gospel or is he defending Fundamentalism? Are believers called to die for Fundamentalism? Did Jesus atone for our sins so that we could be Fundamentalists?

Don’t get me wrong. I am a Fundamentalist, and I agree with Fundamentalism as an idea. But Lou’s concern with defending Fundamentalism at all cost seems to indicate that his priority is Fundamentalism and not Christ.

Lou uses his soapbox to attack brothers in Christ, even if they are different from where you or I might fall. That’s very serious behavior…it’s worthy of separating from him and marking him as someone to avoid. It might indicate even more problems as well. It’s not behavior that should characterize Christians, and he’s exhibited it for years. I know, because he has made himself conspicuous for years.

The Bible is clear on fruits that characterize believers - we’re supposed to ‘love the brothers’ and ‘encourage one another’ (on two basic counts). John says that we as believers will be characterized by the way we treat brothers. Ephesians talks a lot about how Christ Jesus died to bring us together - not to tear us apart, and how we are supposed to be united in the faith and in (again) love for each other. Lou does very, very little any of that, and it should be concerning that Lou can’t seem to bring himself to actually agree with just about anyone that’s orthodox. Disagree? Sure - we can all do that. I’ve disagreed with plenty on this site. But the constant attacks on anyone that’s not ‘one of us’ makes me wonder if he is ‘one of us’.

Jesus said that we would know each other by our fruits. Lou’s fruits, as far as I see, are toxic and dangerous. Bixby may be over the top, but it’s not Bixby we should judge him by - it’s the Bible. And it’s by THAT measure that I think people are wise to mark and avoid his ‘work’.

The head hunter blogs hurt more than they will ever help. If a college decided to hold a separation and sausage sub event, they would find a way to question the authenticity of their commitment to Christ.

I mostly agree with Tyler, evangelicals hostile against fundamentalists like to paint broad strokes on fundamentalism. I would also say that there are many so called fundamentalists who take an isolationistic approach to there separation, yet there are also those on the other extreme fundamentalism that are self claiming fundamentalist but they’ve begun to buy into contemporary ideas of fellowship. But I also must admit as a fundamentalist I’ve only really been exposed to one major branch of fundamentalism which sits in between those two factions. I’ve been surrounded by Kevin Bauder’s, the Houghton twins, and the Hartog family affiliated with Central Seminary and Faith Baptist Bible College. That is the only fundamentalism I have ever known and we do have many traditionalist/isolationist leaning individuals around as well as many evangelical leading individuals, but I’ve not been exposed to any leaders of either extreme. When I see articles like this one, I am feeling that my face is the punching bag, none of what he said shows itself present in any fundamentalist leader I’ve ever interacted with. It also frustrates me that one can blame the faults of one group in a large spectrum of individuals and use it to stain an entire movement. Even if all fundamentalists were currently as he claimed, that wouldn’t mean anything about fundamentalism because the things that are of err in the group that tends toward isolation causes them to cease to be real fundamentalists.

Jim nailed it.

It wasn’t that long ago when Lou’s position and behavior was the norm for fundamentalists as represented by NIU and BJU. NIU is changing; BJU is not. So Lou has pointed his guns directly at NIU in the tradition of many a fundamentalist of the 1950s to 1990s.

That many of us now realize that this aspect of fundamentalism was and is wrong doesn’t change the fact that Lou still represents who many of us once were.

That’s got to hurt.

Lou self published a book that was meant to serve as a refutation of Lordship salvation. The problem was that Lou didn’t even know what it was very well. He had obviously read what Ryrie, Pickering, Bing, and Geisler had to say about it. Too bad Jesus, Paul, Matthew, and the others were ignored. Sadly, the work wasn’t thought through. After having an internet discussion/debate with Nathan Busenitz (Master’s Seminary) on the issue of repentance, Lou had to go back and revise his book.

I saw someone refer to him as a ministry drop out once. It was for the better with those exegetical efforts.

This filing has the potential to do nothing but encourage attacks upon each other. Let us band together to do away with it, and have dialogue somewhere else where it may actually be profitable …

[TylerR]

This filing has the potential to do nothing but encourage attacks upon each other. Let us band together to do away with it, and have dialogue somewhere else where it may actually be profitable …

Interesting Tyler… Between Martuneac and Northland, which one demonstrates fruit of the spirit to you? Which one is divisive? You love separation; which one should obviously be separated from?

It is interesting that you have not called for the Northland threads to be shut down. Why not?

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind LM writing his garbage. I don’t agree with his positions and am tickled that he is a chosen front man for those positions. That is a gift that keeps giving.

If I were you, I would be looking for a new spokesman.

This thread is full of nothing but personal attacks, as was yours. The Northland threads have some substance. This one does not - it is a hit piece with some apparent personal animosity mixed in for good measure.

Lou is not my “spokesman.” I’ve never met the guy and don’t know him.

I shall repeat what I said above. If you are prepared to label Lou a false teacher like Fred Phelps then do so publicly. If not, then please admit the blog writer’s post was inappropriate and slanderous - regardless of the larger point he wishes to make.

Your words have cut me deep, GregH. So deep, in fact, that I am reduced to this …

[TylerR] This filing has the potential to do nothing but encourage attacks upon each other. Let us band together to do away with it, and have dialogue somewhere else where it may actually be profitable …

I disagree.

If Lou wants to be ‘high profile’ because of his blog, he’s going to have to take the good with the bad. Furthermore, you aren’t being consistent, because all the NIU threads weren’t a problem for you.

Lou’s not just writing stuff in an ether. I know of pastors who have been pitted against each other over NIU or other issues because one read Lou’s blog and then tried to ‘warn’ the other. When Pastor B tried to question the narrative, Pastor A started labelling him as being ‘soft on the gospel’ or something like that and the friendship became strained. When Lou received comments on his blog about lies in his main posts (and that’s what they were - lies), he deleted the comments and proclaimed his right to remove anything that he didn’t see as appropriate or something like that. Is that the kind of behavior Christians/Fundamentalists should have?

I don’t like talking about Lou, but to be frank, this thread has been a long time coming. Even here on SI, Lou was merely ‘that guy’ or the ‘blog’. We didn’t name him, and we didn’t give him the time of day. Now his name is out, and we can finally have catharsis.

I knew one of those prominent fighting fundamenatists from the 50’s and 60’s very well. He published his quarterly paper in which he “exposed” the compromise of anyone who wasn’t as separated as he was. He admitted that he had a problem with the passages in I John that talked about loving the brethren. He eventually rationalized that, even though he didn’t feel any love for the brothers in Christ he was attacking, he was born again and loved God so he must love his brethren–he just didn’t know it.