Minnesota Baptist Association to host Phil Johnson as conference speaker

[Ron Bean]

This is a question I’ve asked for 30 years.

What is wrong with Baptists having associations with non-baptists?

(And can Alex answer this in under three sentences?)

Is there anyone else in the SI room that believes a Baptist has to be called a baptist to actually be a baptist? It’s been my experience that many who call themselves Baptist are actually not Baptist. Once again, at least in my book - and maybe even with our dear friends in the MBA, what is far more important about a leader is what he believe’s and how he lives - not just what he is called. Alex, there is nothing Biblically wrong here with a Baptist group asking a Community Church leader to come to a Baptist meeting. The reality is many community and “non-denom” guys are actually more Baptist than many Baptist are ….. Baptist.

A quick thought. Straight Ahead!

jt

One more thought - thankfully all over the world Bible church people and Baptist church people are mixing more and more. This is wonderful - it will mean less of an “awkward” stage when they bump into each other in Heaven!

A new leader arose in Minnesota Baptists that knew neither R. V. Clearwaters nor the history of the MBA, and so they got Phil Johnson as a headliner, and who knows who the next CE will be.

Alex,

Well it’s been too long sense I’ve responded to you! I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.

On to the point. Alex, you have done this before. When someone answers you straight up - you try to shove them over into the ditch of false logic - so you say my response is a straw man. It is not. You accuse Phil of not being a baptist vis-a-vis “non-denom.” I happen to believe he is a baptist by way of belief, at least historically. As such I believe a historic baptist group can ask a historic baptist guy to come minister. How in the world is that response filled with straw my man? It is not. This was a direct response to one of your earlier points. Well - he limits his fellowship and is careful as to which baptists he hangs with. I really don’t blame him. I find myself doing the same. It’s OK that you and others wish the MBA would have chosen someone else.

I’m thrilled they’ve asked Phil for a variety of reasons - the largest one being I believe the barrier between responsible fundamentalists and militant conservative evangelicals is a sad divide. These conservative and militant evangelicals are not ecumenical and as such must not be viewed as disobedient brethreim! To link them with ecumenical evangelicalism or “new-evangelicalism” is not accurate. In my way of thinking this continued ecclesiastical divide that some of you want to continue would be similar to there being a Berlin wall twenty years after the fall of communism in Germany. Uh the war is over - conservative and militant evangelicals hate ecumenicalism and even practice forms of secondary separation. Some of you remind me of the Japanese soldier by the name of Hiroo Onoda. It seems that Hiroo finally accepted that War World 2 ended almost 30 years after it did end. Yep - Hiroo came out of his Philippine jungle on March 10, 1975 at the age of 52 and surrendered. Don’t be a fundamentalist version of “Hiroo” - still fighting an ecclesiastical battle that in reality ended years ago. Sure there are differences between Type B’s and C’s ….. but not enough to cut them off!

One more personal commentary here - It saddens me that some who I respect and love deeply just can’t bury the hatchet already! We have real enemies of the gospel and I promise you Phil Johnson is not one of them! As a matter of fact Phil is a friend in the Gospel. I would submit that Phil is a better baptist and a better fundamentalist when it comes to consistent practice than many who claimed both labels and ministered at one time or another within the MBA. A few thoughts from I’m sure what Alex will call another hay ride. Please pass the cider!

Straight Ahead!

jt

[Joel Tetreau]

Alex,

Well it’s been too long sense I’ve responded to you! I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.

[Joel Tetreau] On to the point. Alex, you have done this before. When someone answers you straight up - you try to shove them over into the ditch of false logic -

[Joe Tetreau] so you say my response is a straw man. It is not. You accuse Phil of not being a baptist vis-a-vis “non-denom.”

[Joe Tetreau] I happen to believe he is a baptist by way of belief, at least historically.

[Joel Tetreau] As such I believe a historic baptist group can ask a historic baptist guy to come minister. How in the world is that response filled with straw my man? It is not. This was a direct response to one of your earlier points.

Joel-“Alex, there is nothing Biblically wrong here with a Baptist group asking a Community Church leader to come to a Baptist meeting.”

However, I made no such complaint. In fact here is what I did say to which you were responding:

Alex-“And the issue is not whether the group is good or whether a non-denominationalist can ever speak to a group of Baptists such as at a Bible conference. But when the meeting is specifically Baptist and even further, that of a Baptist Association, yes, it is quite ironic that a non-baptist and non-denominationalist would be the “featured” speaker.”

You see Joel? Right, I didn’t say there was a problem with a Baptist group asking a non-denominationalist to “ever” speak, rather that at a meeting which is purposefully and centered upon Baptist identification both personally and ecclesiastically, to have a non-denom as a featured speaker is unprincipled. The meeting is an affirmative Baptist meeting, that is a group of Baptist of personal and ecclesiastical Baptist identification, meeting to affirm its distinctives. You ignored my context as if I merely asserted there is something wrong with “a Baptist group asking a Community Church leader to come to a Baptist meeting” which I never asserted. So now you understand your mistake, at least that is my hope.

[Joel Tetreau] Well - he limits his fellowship and is careful as to which baptists he hangs with. I really don’t blame him.

[Joel Tetreau] It’s OK that you and others wish the MBA would have chosen someone else.

[Joel Tetreau] [I’m thrilled they’ve asked Phil for a variety of reasons - the largest one being I believe the barrier between responsible fundamentalists and militant conservative evangelicals is a sad divide. These conservative and militant evangelicals are not ecumenical and as such must not be viewed as disobedient brethreim! To link them with ecumenical evangelicalism or “new-evangelicalism” is not accurate.

[Joel Tetreau] In my way of thinking this continued ecclesiastical divide that some of you want to continue would be similar to there being a Berlin wall twenty years after the fall of communism in Germany.

Uh the war is over - conservative and militant evangelicals hate ecumenicalism and even practice forms of secondary separation. Some of you remind me of the Japanese soldier by the name of Hiroo Onoda. It seems that Hiroo finally accepted that War World 2 ended almost 30 years after it did end. Yep - Hiroo came out of his Philippine jungle on March 10, 1975 at the age of 52 and surrendered. Don’t be a fundamentalist version of “Hiroo” - still fighting an ecclesiastical battle that in reality ended years ago. Sure there are differences between Type B’s and C’s ….. but not enough to cut them off!

[Joel Tetreau] One more personal commentary here - It saddens me that some who I respect and love deeply just can’t bury the hatchet already! We have real enemies of the gospel and I promise you Phil Johnson is not one of them! As a matter of fact Phil is a friend in the Gospel. I would submit that Phil is a better baptist and a better fundamentalist when it comes to consistent practice than many who claimed both labels and ministered at one time or another within the MBA. A few thoughts from I’m sure what Alex will call another hay ride. Please pass the cider!

I do believe Johnson is a committed Calvinist and can rightly be described as a Neo-Calvinist in many instances. Now, he will tell you he is a Calvinist, that is for certain. But a Baptist, no, he is not. He is no more a Baptist than he is a Presbyterian though he shares much of the doctrines of both. He deliberately identifies himself outside of Baptist distinction in his theological identification. He ought to have enough self-constraint to understand where he should be featured and where he should not though weaker minds might be eager to have him.

It is thoroughly unprincipled and remains that way and I will continue to object as I would if the LCMS were to invite a non-LCMS Minister to be a featured speaker at a specifically LCMS meeting as opposed to merely a Bible conference. But they don’t. You know why? Because at least they understand Biblical separation on that matter. The MBA did at one time, but not today.

[Alex Guggenheim] I don’t have to accuse Phil of not being a Baptist because he isn’t. He identifies himself as not being a Baptist … Maybe you should write him a letter and ask why he does not identify himself as a baptist before you override his own biographical information

For some potential clarity, Phil said [url=http://sharperiron.org/comment/21842#comment-21842] here[/url]:

Though baptistic by conviction, I’ve never been a member of any Baptist organization. And though I’m Calvinistic in soteriology I have never championed “Reformed theology” as a system; I’m too Baptistic for that.

Likewise, I’m a fundamentalist by conviction but too independent to join the kind of “fundamentalist” fraternity where brashness is mistaken for leadership and trivial matters and trite ideas are treated as if they were fundamental doctrines.

I don’t say he is or isn’t. I just wanted to direct any interested party to what he once said about himself.

The meeting is an affirmative Baptist meeting, that is a group of Baptist of personal and ecclesiastical Baptist identification, meeting to affirm its distinctives.

I am not going to spend a lot of time in this discussion, because I simply don’t have the time to spend. That being said, this is not the MBA’s annual meeting (which takes place in the summer)- this is a men’s gathering, sponsored by the Minnesota Baptist Association (which describes, not this meeting, but the organization of fellowshipping congregations) where our churches pool our resources together to address issues that will assist the men of our churches to function better as Christians in the course of their daily lives. We have a similar meeting for ladies annually as well. While there have been times in the men’s meetings where we have featured discussions on local church doctrine and practice distinctive to Baptist churches, we have also addressed topics closer to Biblical Counseling (“Christian Living in the Home” was a recent theme).

So, with that in mind, we found it quite appropriate to bring Phil in to address the men of our churches in this setting, and furthermore, so did all of the pastors whose churches have been taking the most advantage of these annual gatherings over the last several years.

It should also be noted that Phil has signed the MBA’s Position Statement, in his own words, “without hesitation.” The statement is not one recently drawn up, either. It begins by defining New Evangelicalism, has a statement on what constitutes a “disobedient brother,” and other similar language and posture. This recent article, based on an interview with Phil, demonstrates that’s no anomaly, either.

I’m sure this won’t deflect all the criticism, but I hope it at least is useful in framing further discussion.

Feel free to contact me personally with any concerns. I don’t intend to post in this thread again. I’d be happy to discuss this with some of you face-to-face at the event next September, if you wish! :D

Greg Linscott
President, MBA Men’s Fellowship Committee
pastor@firstbaptistmarshall.com

Alex, Wilson is a postmill covenantist. Where does Johnson affirm Wilson? Are you talking about a partial affirmation?

[James K]

Alex, Wilson is a postmill covenantist. Where does Johnson affirm Wilson? Are you talking about a partial affirmation?

Maybe there is some affirmation, but I have googled the names and found some serious disagreement over at least one issue Phil doesn’t back down from. Too much excusing exists just because people are calvinists, but such looking the other way exists in every level and topic of fellowship.