The Legitimate Concerns of the Next Generation of Christians in My Denomination

That was encouraging to listen to. I am grateful for Dr. Ward’s heart and willingness to speak. Brothers like him increase my optimism that godly men and women from “differing camps” will cease to view each other with great suspicion and will grow in our love for each other.

I applaud his call for separation from KJVO; the only thing that I would add is a more specific reason why it’s important to separate from the KJVO crowd. In my view, the reason is because you cannot make a KJVO argument without appealing to evidence that doesn’t exist (“the Alexandrians deliberately corrupted the text at the demand of Origen” or something) and without making a set of personal attacks. That’s a real, Biblical moral issue.

I also appreciate his call for grace in terms of non-essentials. I would love to see that one fleshed out more in the future, and I’ve been praying to see this kind of article out of FBFI for a while. And to be fair, wouldn’t be terribly bad if a few others got that medicine going.

This deserves a second hearing today. I pray that we’re all listening close enough implement changes.

This did bring me a chuckle: “though the KJVOs have indeed evicted all five tenants of Calvinism [ahem] )” Those pesky residents who clutter our apartments with their “tenets”.

Seriously, thank you so much for this and for making the most of your opportunity to speak to our brothers in Christ!

……what has already been said about this being very encouraging.

We heard from a number of younger men in our conference, they did an outstanding job. All of the messages are worth listening to. Here is a link to them all:

Audio from the 98th Annual Fellowship Meeting

I don’t see myself ever going back into Fundamentalism as a movement or calling myself a Fundamentalist but I do appreciate Mark’s heart and his attempt to bridge the generations. I wish him well in his efforts. For older guys like me who left the movement, many of whom are BJ grads, but remain committed to the fundamentals, to evangelism, to making disciples, to personal holiness, I don’t know if there will ever be restored fellowship but there can be mutual respect and encouragement, even co-belligerence. Bridges were burned through separation years ago over music, elders, eschatology, social issues, etc. In my thinking, the separation was not biblical but real nonetheless and the wounds not yet healed.

I’m like Steve in many ways. I remember days when conversations and comments like these were not accepted very well. For me, I’m praying that the conversation will result in action that will benefit us all.

I appreciated the message as well. Mark’s church is not that far from me. I may have to visit some time.

Suggesting that we appreciate evangelicals while separating ourselves from godly men such as Clarence Sexton and Paul Chappell isn’t right. I pray the FBFI is not heading in that direction.

Also, the FBFI is NOT a denomination. Calling it a denomination shows a lack of understanding on the part of the speaker. (This is not a minor point.)

Two things brother Cauthorne. Mark put the word “denomination” in quotes to emphasize what he and all of us familiar with the FBFI know; it is definitely not a denomination. Your response confirms that many are unable of perceiving nuance. Secondly the KJVO position is probably one of the most divisive false teachings I’ve encountered. It’s use as a shibboleth among brethren has been harmful.

Congrats to Dr. Ward for his opportunity to speak to the FBFI, and to the FBFI for inviting him to do so. I hope that the message is well received and bears a lot of good fruit.

Regarding separating from those who are KJVO, but not from those who are evangelical, absolutely. KJVO tells us that most text families of the ancient Scriptures, from the Alexandrian to the Majority to most of the western texts, are not Scripture. That’s a direct attack on the first fundamental. In contrast, evangelicals—at least conservative evangelicals to be sure— generally accept the first fundamental as written, but simply have different views on secondary issues.

One of those is a Gospel issue, the other is not. And again, also very important is that I’ve reviewed many variations of the KJVO argument—Chick, Sorenson, etc..—and I have yet to see one that does not start by making unsubstantiated claims about Origen and Alexandria. I have seen none fail to make the mistake of confusing difference with malice. So we’re talking about a distinction on the basis of fundamental doctrines, as well as a distinction on the basis of Christian character.

Brother, this is a big deal.

If these men are such good men, they need to denounce the excesses of their movement. To separate over what English translation of the Bible people use (and that’s really what it is, whether they try and use the TR argument or not) is the wrong issue to separate over.