By Greg Linscott
Jun
18
2009
Stephen Jones was ill, so his session was canceled. Panel discussion on conservative evangelicals live now at http://twitter.com/sifilings
6227 reads
There are 15 Comments
Selected Quotes
It seems to me that there's a bit of a divide manifest in the panel over relating to the CE's. I thought it was good that Bauder addressed some of the double standard at play [Keyes at BJU, and I'm HOPING Clarence Sexton's appearances at BJU ], but w/o the audio I can't really tell. I'd love to hear some of the responses to the quotes above.
It also seems like there is a definite presumption that you're either "of us" or you aren't - someone referred to this yesterday in another thread. So my followup is - "of us" being the FBFI or is it broader? I'm assuming it's FBFI.
Any other thoughts?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Van Gelderen confirmation
I will confirm that I heard Van Geldren say "dialogue is dangerous at this point"
Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.
Sad
This appears to be yet another elitist call for isolationism.
Sad.
Ken Fields
KenFields wrote: Matthew
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Dangerous Dialogue?
Wayne VanGeldren's statement said in effect we have already heard the Conservative Evangelical's; we know where they stand; and dialogue is dangerous at this point. This came at the heels of Dr. Minnick's statement that said in effect that we needed dialogue with these men. I would like to hear Dr. VanG's line of reasoning behind the "danger of dialogue." Is this to say that Dr. Minnick's dialogue with Mark Dever was wrong and dangerous? Again I would like to know how it was dangerous? In my opinion it was very informative and brought much light on this subject of the line of demarcation between Conservative Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, that being the issue of unity with non-evangelicals. We are very much alike with these brethren but the dividing line is Fundamentalists have settled this issue and the Conservative Evangelicals by and large have not. I have more to say about my observations concerning the symposium but I must run.
Nothing will change
Rob,
I don't think that's a question. The people who listen to Van Gelderen (this is the correct spelling, which I missed) will continue to listen to Van Gelderen; the people that don't will do the same. Nothing will change there.
I don't even know that you accurately characterize the "popular belief"—Vaughn acknowledged as much (the FBFI is not monolithic) in his remarks this afternoon. I'm sure there are some in the FBFI that want it to be monolithic throughout, but the impossibilities of that seem evident when the leadership doesn't even agree among themselves 100%.
Today was not a watershed event.
Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.
Matthew Olmstead
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
FBFI and Western chit chat
1. I need to pay my FBF subscription and get back on the Frontline mailing list.
2. Greg, thanks for all the interesting quotes.
3. Many of Southern Idaho Independent Baptist pastors are KJV-only and not too fond of Calvinism. I would imagine that Lancaster/West Coast is the flagship for Western Baptist Fundamentalism. (Btw, did you all see the full page ad of Striving Together Publications in the latest World magazine?)
4. I need to lovingly engage more with both KJV-only pastors and conservative evangelical pastors. Some "evangelical" pastors are very "militant" on some of the fundamentals of the faith. You can see this in the Mormon heartland where the foundations on God and His Gospel have been removed.
5. Fellowship with nonevangelicals is a watershed issue.
Roots by the River
Jesus in Idaho Falls
come on, now
And you can draw this uncharitable conclusion from one small snippet of the panel discussion? Wow....
Folks, if we're not careful, we can be guilty of the very same negative, rush-to-judgment behavior we so passionately decry in the OFs.
Kent McCune I Peter 4:11
A Caveat
Kent,
As you imply, I was not present for the panel discussion. I did follow the gist of the discussion via tweeter, but I was not present.
That is why I prefaced my concern regarding elitism with the caveat, "appears."
Yet, I believe that, in the flow of the discussion--assuming the report was accurate--the "dialogue is dangerous at this point" counsel was a call for fundies to turn their backs on conservative evangelicals for good. And that does appear a bit elitist. And it does seem to be a call for isolationism.
I hope I am not guilty of a rush to judgment--and I hope professing fundies do not follow the advice they were given.
Ken Fields
I think VG's point was that
I think VG's point was that Dialogue implies learning what they believe and say and we know what they say by what they have written. We simply need to talk at them, admonish them, not talk with them.
good example
And Larry's reading is a much more charitable one...
Kent McCune I Peter 4:11
The pertinent audio for this
The http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=618091523340 ]pertinent audio for this conversation begins at 1:05:00 with Minnick arguing that there must be a dialogue to earn the right to admonish—Van Gelderen's comment is at 1:13:04
Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.
Quote: And Larry's reading is
I did listen to the panel discussion last night so I had heard it in its context.
Todd Wood wrote: SNIP 3.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..