Together for the Gospel: Jack Schaap & John Vaughn ??

26919 reads

There are 86 Comments

Jay's picture

Wow - this is mind blowing.

If the staff evangelist for BJU AND the President of the FBF are going to be there, I'm hoping that it's because of Schaap and Trieber are moving towards orthodoxy. But I doubt that, and I really have to wonder about the overall direction of those speaking; and esp. the FBF and BJU. Any questions I ever had about doing business with the FBF are now resolved - there's no way I can do anything with them.

Ben could not be more right when he says:

Quote:
The affiliation of a theologically and exegetically bankrupt swath of pseudo-fundamentalism with the leader of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship should not merely be surprising. It should have been unthinkable. I don't mean to suggest that the FBF hasn't demonstrated doctrinal indifferences of its own in the past. (Remember the Danny Sweatt fiasco?) I do mean that this constitutes a significant and undeniable step towards a choice fundamentalists need to make.

The FBF is no fringe association. Check out the leadership of the organization and you'll see the names of men whom many would consider the mainstream of thoughtful, balanced fundamentalism. Names like Jones, Phelps, Harding, Burggraff. Names like Minnick, who recently identified Conservative Evangelicals as a growing threat to his church and fundamentalism.

Their president's choice to put the name of their organization in affiliation with a plethora of doctrinal aberrancy has created the same sort of scenario some of them have used as occasion to criticize Conservative Evangelicals. This is not the sort of fellowship that strikes me as likely to bear the fruit of credibility.

No one thinks these choices will be easy for men who have long-standing relationships. This sort of thing just makes them easier.

"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

Jonathan Charles's picture

As I remember, after the Danny Sweatt incident the FBF came out and said that they have long had men in the fellowship who were Calvinistic and those who were not. I know I remember Mark Minnick address the incident saying that it was wrong for that speaker (he didn't name pastor Sweatt) to speak negatively to the issue of Calvinism in that forum since the fellowship was open to the fellowship of men who were Calvinistic. So, I think the author of the above quoted article is out of line for saying that the FBF has been doctrinally indifferent.

Why are the Hyles types inviting 2 men to speak at a conference who clearly aren't where they are on issues like bible translation? I don't know for sure, but maybe while still holding their errant beliefs, they feel a need to be more charitable to other brethren than they have been in the past. Perhaps this is an olive branch on their part. And maybe this is why speakers like Vaughan are taking part. Perhaps they feel by taking part they may bring about rapprochement between them and us. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Dan Pelletier's picture

Sometimes I wonder if I would rather not be called "Fundamentalish" than "Fundamentalist." I remain a conservative, independent baptist who believes in the doctrines of salvation by grace alone through Christ alone, the inspiration of Scripture, the need to separate from apostasy, etc. But with so many fundamentalists claiming that OTHER fundamentalists are NOT for various reasons, I am growing weary of the title. I don't know everyone who will be at this conference, but I do know many of them. They are truly good and godly men! It has been my privilege to meet face to face with many of the leaders in the various "families" of fundamentalism. Of course I don't agree with everything they say, do, or believe; but I think we need to treat those we have differences with more like quirky relatives rather than demons to ostracize. Sure, we have differences; but they're still family! When we get to Heaven, we're all going to find out where our hidden warts are. None of us have it totally figured out. The biggest problem we have today is that we have too many opportunities to observe and criticize one another via impersonal technologies like the Internet. It's not unlike being a sports fan who "hates" or "loves" a team - without ever really knowing any of the players on that team. It's so easy to sit at a keyboard, watching and critiquing these things from afar. It's expensive, time consuming, and (really and practically) impossible to sit down face to face with every one of these guys to learn their true heartbeat for God. If we could do that, I'm sure that some of this cybercriticism would diminish. I'm so glad that Paul and Barnabas didn't have to deal with this hyper-critical fundamentalism that we live with these days! Thank God for some of these men who are willing to get close enough to get to know one another in person before throwing darts at one another! I praise the effort of those involved in Independent Baptist Friends International Conference! Go for it!

Dan Pelletier
Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco
Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past

Jay's picture

No way.

This just reinforces Phil's argument [URL=http://www.docstoc.com/docs/26235196/Continuing-Dialogue-Phil-Johnson-an... ]from a couple weeks back[/URL ]:

Quote:
Still, it disturbs me when fundamentalists respond to criticisms about the doctrinal poverty of the wider fundamentalist movement by deflecting the criticism and pointing to others who (they are convinced) are worse off. It’s true enough that American religion in general has tended to be anti-intellectual, atheological, devoid of propositional truth and objective content, and hostile to the very idea of doctrine since the beginning of the 20th century.

But for the fundamentalist movement, such doctrinal apathy and anti-intellectualism is absolutely inexcusable. Neo-evangelicals practically admitted from the get-go that they didn’t care much about doctrine. By contrast, fundamentalists are supposed to love sound doctrine, and they are supposed to be prepared to do battle for the fundamentals. Deliberate neglect of doctrine is therefore a worse sin for fundamentalists, because it also involves gross hypocrisy. This is not one of the flaws of fundamentalism that serious fundamentalists ought to be downplaying or discounting just because everyone else is doing it, too...

Meanwhile, even some of the best fundamentalist leaders and schools clearly aren’t putting the same kind of energy into warning their people about the influences of their own movement’s lunatic fringe as they spend critiquing John MacArthur. That is tragic. Thoughtful, conscientious fundamentalists ought to acknowledge the seriousness of this problem and not get indignant when it is pointed out. I remain basically unmoved by the complaints of those who insist that my portrayal of fundamentalism is unfair because I haven’t painted the best fundamentalists as the mainstream of today’s fundamentalist movement. Granted, a pastor like Mark Minnick is a true historic fundamentalist, and the average Jack Hyles clone is not, but that doesn’t make Pastor Minnick more representative of the mainstream in the movement—any more than the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals’ commitment to the historic Protestant creeds automatically places them in the “mainstream” of the modern evangelical movement...

It was actually a question about fundamentalism's policy on separation when it comes to the kind of "disobedient brethren" who blatantly thumb their noses at what Scripture plainly teaches about morality, personal character, church leadership, or ministry philosophy—yet remain loyal separatists and want to remain "in" the fundamentalist movement. Why does it seem like separation from men like that is never done as quickly or talked about as profusely as separation from the kind of "disobedient brethren" who happen to be Southern Baptists? Or presidents of different colleges?

The trumpet is blowing an uncertain sound...is it any shocker that people are confused about the battle?

"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

Dan Pelletier's picture

Jay C. wrote:
No way.

The trumpet is blowing an uncertain sound...is it any shocker that people are confused about the battle?

Who's trumpet?

Dan Pelletier
Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco
Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past

rogercarlson's picture

Dan,

I don't completely disagree with you. BUT I think you are missing something. For quite sometime, the Younger Fundamentalists have been decried for listening and even fellowshiping on some leve with the CE's. Yet, here we have two examples of "mainstream" Fundies speaking with guys who are either on the fringe or close to herecy. Fugate has used some Ruckanish like language (after private conversations with some who know him,I don't think he is a Ruckmanite, but I am he does not have a firm grasp of inspiration). He has never publically clarified the statements in the public way that he made them. The same would be true of Dr. Schaap. But what I dont' understand, is why go after younger men for sitting under but not preaching with those who are problematic but then sharing the platform with men who are just as problematic. And then when the question is raised, the younger guys are just trouble makers. It makes no sense to me. Please tell me where I am wrong.

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

Dan Pelletier's picture

rogercarlson wrote:
Dan,
...Why go after younger men for sitting under but not preaching with those who are problematic but then sharing the platform with men who are just as problematic. And then when the question is raised, the younger guys are just trouble makers. It makes no sense to me. Please tell me where I am wrong.

I'm not "going after" anyone...unless it is those who are constantly "going after" men that God is using to reach the lost, disciple believers, and making an impact on this world for Christ. I'd rather be an encourager than a critic. In Mark 9:38-50 it seems to me that Christ was making the point that He would rather we cheer one another on than exert so much time trying to be "watchdogs" looking for each others' faults.

When I come to Sharper Iron, other blogs, many of the newsletters, etc. I am constantly amazed at how nosey we have become. Frankly, I have so much to do in my local church that I don't take the time to engage in this forum. I am amazed at how much time it has taken me even this morning - and yet how intriguing it is to continue. This could be addicting - and I am afraid that it has become just that to too many people.

There must be thousands of people who occasionally peek at this forum, shake their heads, and walk away...as I intend to do now.

Maybe I'll post something again in another 6 months or so...

In the mean time, I'd love to sit over a cup of coffee with you at Peet's Coffee in San Francisco for fellowship. Smile

Dan Pelletier
Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco
Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past

rogercarlson's picture

Dan,
I am not saying that you are doing that. But this has been done publically by the FBF leadership. I agree that some YF have done some crazy things. But I really don't understand the inconsistancy on these issues. It makes us seem like a good ole boy network. I have no problem staying out of others business. But that is a two way street and many of our bretheren only want it one way. They want to caution the young men (which is good) but they are unwilling to listen to their own inconsistancies. Or to put it another way, if we don't deal with the beam in our own eye before we deal with the spec in the YF/CE eyes we will have problems.

As long as the coffee shop has some type of iced coffee frape type thing I am there. Or even a soda.... not a big coffee guy. Smile

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

Dan Pelletier's picture

rogercarlson wrote:
Dan,

As long as the coffee shop has some type of iced coffee frape type thing I am there. Or even a soda.... not a big coffee guy. Smile

You buy the ticket. I'll buy the ice coffee! Smile

Thank the Lord, my battery is just about gone on my laptop. Gotta go!

Dan Pelletier
Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco
Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past

Jay's picture

The fundamental difference between myself, Schaap, and Trieber is the matter of Biblical preservation / inerrancy. I cannot go along with the position that they hold to on the KJV, so I will not attend. The fundamental difference that I now have with the FBF and BJU is yet another separation issue. Both organizations have carefully staked out a position of Romans 14 on the KJV issue, and they are [apparently ] not discerning the major difference in their preservation and inerrancy doctrinal positions. It's either believe that or decide that they believe the "fellowship" with Schaap et al is more important than the significant differences in their Bibliology. Personally, I hope it's the former!

Quote:
When I come to Sharper Iron, other blogs, many of the newsletters, etc. I am constantly amazed at how nosey we have become. Frankly, I have so much to do in my local church that I don't take the time to engage in this forum. I am amazed at how much time it has taken me even this morning - and yet how intriguing it is to continue. This could be addicting - and I am afraid that it has become just that to too many people.

The problem, Dan, is this that the people who are teaching separation from "unbelievers" and "apostates" [their terms from their texts ] to their students [having earned my MA from BJU ] are not practicing separation as rigorously as they themselves teach. That's a MAJOR problem. It's not being nosey when you discover that your teacher is a hypocrite, esp. if they continue to lecture on the topic while practicing other wise. What makes it worse is that BJU, in particular, has thrown MacArthur under the bus when he [appears ] a lot closer to them doctrinally than Schaap is/was/will be.

So for everyone who argues that YF's don't practice secondary separation - I think I've just provided a handy illustration that yes, we YF's DO practice it Wink

"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

Dan Pelletier's picture

Jay C. wrote:

The problem, Dan, is this that the people who are teaching separation from "unbelievers" and "apostates" [their terms from their texts ] are not practicing separation as rigorously as they themselves teach. That's a MAJOR problem. It's not being nosey when you discover that your teacher is a hypocrite, esp. if they continue to lecture on the topic while practicing other wise. What makes it worse is that BJU, in particular, has thrown MacArthur under the bus when he [appears ] a lot closer to them doctrinally than Schaap is/was.

Thanks for clarifying, Jay. Have you talked to your teachers? Do they know of your concerns? ...I've never seen "the bus." ...and the gurus can do what they want to do. I'm happy in my own little world.

Dan Pelletier
Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco
Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past

Jay's picture

Dan Pelletier wrote:
Jay C. wrote:

The problem, Dan, is this that the people who are teaching separation from "unbelievers" and "apostates" [their terms from their texts ] are not practicing separation as rigorously as they themselves teach. That's a MAJOR problem. It's not being nosey when you discover that your teacher is a hypocrite, esp. if they continue to lecture on the topic while practicing other wise. What makes it worse is that BJU, in particular, has thrown MacArthur under the bus when he [appears ] a lot closer to them doctrinally than Schaap is/was.

Thanks for clarifying, Jay. Have you talked to your teachers? Do they know of your concerns? ...I've never seen "the bus." ...and the gurus can do what they want to do. I'm happy in my own little world.


I'm aware of my teacher's positions since I sat under them for over 6 years combined...but thanks for asking. Yes, I'll probably be penning a note to them as well.

"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

Dan Pelletier's picture

Jay C. ][quote=Dan Pelletier ][quote=Jay C. wrote:

I'm aware of my teacher's positions since I sat under them for over 6 years combined...but thanks for asking. Yes, I'll probably be penning a note to them as well.

Good, Jay. Keep the communication lines open. I won't throw you under the bus for disagreeing with them...and I won't be driving or riding on any busses, either. Smile Have a great day!

Dan Pelletier
Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco
Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past

Dan Pelletier's picture

Well...maybe a school bus.

Dan Pelletier
Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco
Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past

RPittman's picture

Wow! Many have missed some important and obvious points here but Jay C hit the nail squarely.

Jay C wrote:
So for everyone who argues that YF's don't practice secondary separation - I think I've just provided a handy illustration that yes, we YF's DO practice it Wink

The most ironic thing is that I'm hearing a lot of people who are supposedly opposed to "secondary separation" advocating "secondary separation." Well, this thing works both ways. If you can justify separation from the likes of John Vaughn over this speaking engagement at Crown, then don't even bother to argue the case of separation from Bros. John Piper (e.g. Piper & Mark Driscoll), Al Mohler (e.g. Manhattan Declaration), & co. Their entanglement is too wide and tangled to even sort out.

BTW, no one has noted that Jim Binney, a speaker at BJU Bible Conference this week, has been a featured speaker along with Frank Garlock and Ron Hamliton at Schaap's own Pastors School. I have read all the excuses for Binney going there but it all boils down to whether you like the guy or not. Furthermore, Dr. Binney's secretary confirms that he recommends Schaap's book, Marriage the Divine Intimacy. In the book, Schaap writes, "The person who deeply loves Christ understands that when He receives Christ as Saviour, it is a spiritual intercourse. A person receives the body of Christ. A Christian is the female gender in the spiritual realm, and God is the male gender of the spiritual realm. When a person receives Christ as Saviour, he is receiving Christ as a lover (p. 42)." He further compares partaking of the Lord's Table with sexual intimacy. Need I say this is heresy?

When all is said and done, if Jim can associate with Jack, then why can't John?

Jonathan Charles's picture

RPittman wrote:
Wow! Many have missed some important and obvious points here but Jay C hit the nail squarely.
Jay C wrote:
So for everyone who argues that YF's don't practice secondary separation - I think I've just provided a handy illustration that yes, we YF's DO practice it Wink

The most ironic thing is that I'm hearing a lot of people who are supposedly opposed to "secondary separation" advocating "secondary separation." Well, this thing works both ways. If you can justify separation from the likes of John Vaughn over this speaking engagement at Crown, then don't even bother to argue the case of separation from Bros. John Piper (e.g. Piper & Mark Driscoll), Al Mohler (e.g. Manhattan Declaration), & co. Their entanglement is too wide and tangled to even sort out.

BTW, no one has noted that Jim Binney, a speaker at BJU Bible Conference this week, has been a featured speaker along with Frank Garlock and Ron Hamliton at Schaap's own Pastors School. I have read all the excuses for Binney going there but it all boils down to whether you like the guy or not. Furthermore, Dr. Binney's secretary confirms that he recommends Schaap's book, Marriage the Divine Intimacy. In the book, Schaap writes, "The person who deeply loves Christ understands that when He receives Christ as Saviour, it is a spiritual intercourse. A person receives the body of Christ. A Christian is the female gender in the spiritual realm, and God is the male gender of the spiritual realm. When a person receives Christ as Saviour, he is receiving Christ as a lover (p. 42)." He further compares partaking of the Lord's Table with sexual intimacy. Need I say this is heresy?

When all is said and done, if Jim can associate with Jack, then why can't John?

OK, that is just creepy, and it is creepy that Jim Binney would recommend such a book.

rogercarlson's picture

RPittman,

Before you joined SI, when Binney first went to pastor's school, that was brought out as a BIG concern. Not only does Binney speak at BJ, he also does @ Northland. The same was true when it was announced that Hamilton was there. Again, in both instnaces many here @ SI raised concerns. I think there is a difference here. Garlock and Hamilton (and to a lesser extent Binney) are not theologians. Dr. Phelps is very astute as well as Dr. Vaughn.

I am really on the sidelines on this issue. I have gone to CE and IFB conferences. Again, I don't understand why me going to a CE/NE conference is worse than IFB men sharing the pulpit with men like Schaap and Fugate. I also don't understand how @ teh FBF national conference, men like me were encouraged to be more discerning. Yet one of the speakers (Dr. Robert Cogdon) shared the platform the next week with someone who worked for Word of Life for years. I am not necessarily calling for secondary seperation (although, I would never allow Schaap or Fugate in my pulpit) but I am asking for the discepncy to be cleared up.

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

Larry's picture

Moderator

Couple of things:

1. Much has been said about Jim Binney, Ron Hamilton, and Frank Garlock going to FBC Hammond. That has been going on for several years, and it was well discussed several years ago. Schaap's book was also discussed here, I believe. RPittman says, When all is said and done, if Jim can associate with Jack, then why can't John? Exactly the point. And a great many would say neither Jim nor John should associate with Jack. But it seems pretty quiet about that. Yet if we were to change "Jack" for "John MacArthur" imagine the fur that would be flying. Why the difference? John MacArthur, for all his overstatement and confusing rhetoric (though he fully affirms Christ alone for salvation and preservation of the believer) is much closer to the biblical gospel than Jack Schaap. MacArthur's bibliology is much closer to the Bible's own bibliology than Jack Schaap. The Master's College is far more orthodox than HAC. But some will give Jim and John a free pass for speaking for/with Jack, but would run him out of fundamentalism for preaching with John. Now here's the question: Is John MacArthur having C. J. Mahaney or John Piper preach really that much worse than preaching with/for Jack Schaap. I think that would be a pretty torturous argument to try to make. Those watching would probably feel the pain of the one trying to make it while simultaneously keeping a straight face.

Now, for those who might make an error in reading and understanding, I am not encouraging fellowship with or condoning MacArthur, Piper, or Mahaney, or anyone else. I am not even claiming these views are mine necessarily. I am stating what I understand the issues of many people to be, namely, that there is the perception that a fairly large inconsistency exists and is not being adequately addressed.

2. To Dan's comment, I don't think that many believe the problem is with "truly good and godly men" of whom there are some at this conference. Most fundamentalists, young or old, don't object to that. Nor do they object to a group of people getting together and having a conference.

3. I think the issue for many is the appearance of inconsistency. Here you have a collection of people for whom some fundamental doctrines (like the Bible and the gospel, which all agree are pretty important) appear to take a back seat because of the agreement on matters of separation, or at least possession of the same "card" (the fundamentalist card). To repeat my earlier point, doctrinally, these men should be pretty far apart. The biblical gospel is much closer to what Piper, Mohler, and MacArthur preach than it is to what Schaap and FBC Hammond preaches. The biblical doctrine of Scripture is much closer to what Piper, Mohler, and MacArthur teach than it is to what some who are speaking at this conference teach. So the argument goes that if fundamentalists are really concerned about doctrine, then we should be exposing this stuff, not preaching along side of it as if it is okay. And if preaching alongside of it doesn't indicate agreement with it, then what has been the big deal all along with secondary separation? Do we really believe that teaching a faulty gospel is more acceptable than preaching with a charismatic who affirms the final authority of Scripture? Do we really believe that teaching a faulty doctrine of the Bible is more acceptable than having drums on the stage at a church? Again, I would hate to see someone try to make that argument with a straight face.

What Jeff Fugate and Jack Schaap have done in the name of church and the gospel should be repudiated by everyone. Yet it's not. That these guys can get a speaking invitation anywhere is beyond belief and is a testament to just how much some struggle with basic biblical doctrines. We are addicted to success and big names, not to biblical fidelity. And that's problematic, IMO.

Summarizing this thought, this speaking engagement shows what many (both young and old) have objected to for a long time: That fundamentalists give a wide berth for doctrine on the one side so long as the person agrees on separation, and a very narrow berth on the other side because they don't agree on separation. That, to many, is troubling.

4. If Dan's point is that we should stay out of people's business and tend to our own, then a lot would agree. If he means by this that we ought to leave this "fundamentalists" alone at their conference but we ought to speak out loudly against T4G or TGC, then a lot are going to object. If Dan means we should leave both alone and go about our business in our local churches and calling, then I imagine that will be more accepted. Perhaps Dan can clarify.

rogercarlson's picture

Great post Larry! You said so much better what I was trying to say.

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

Dan Pelletier's picture

Larry wrote:
Couple of things:

2. To Dan's comment, I don't think the problem is with "truly good and godly men" of whom there are some at this conference. Most fundamentalists, young or old, don't object to that. Nor do they object to a group of people getting together and having a conference.

4. If Dan's point is that we should stay out of people's business and tend to our own, then a lot would agree. If he means by this that we ought to leave this "fundamentalists" alone at their conference but we ought to speak out loudly against T4G or TGC, then a lot are going to object. If Dan means we should leave both alone and go about our business in our local churches and calling, then I imagine that will be more accepted. Perhaps Dan can clarify.

Bottom line...I love the local church. I believe that the greatest sphere of influence I can have is through the local church. I believe that like-minded men should get together and encourage one another. This critiquing from afar stuff bugs me. Paul and Barnabas were both good men - who had a big disagreement over John Mark. So...they went their own ways and continued spreading the Gospel and making disciples and starting churches. I don't see any record of either man trying to gain a following against the other guy. So, if you don't want to associate with MacArthur, Binney, T4G, TGC (whatever those are), Schaap, Fugate, Vaughn, Piper, etc....then DON'T! But why do I have to hear about someone's complaints. I can agree with MacArthur, Binney, et.al. (and I do) on one issue and disagree with them on another issue (and I do). But I don't have to hit them with a hammer or throw them under a bus because of that issue. These are my brethren - and your brethren. I'm going to do what I have been called to do. You do what God has called you to do. Let me pray for you and encourage you. I'd like for you to do the same for me...and for Binney, MacArthur, Piper, Schaap, Fugate, Vaughn, Mohler, Bob Jones, Jack Trieber, Clarence Sexton.................. I'm not the fundamentalist policeman. Did we ever vote for one? ...and who should have the right to vote?

Dan Pelletier
Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco
Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past

RPittman's picture

rogercarlson wrote:
RPittman,

Before you joined SI, when Binney first went to pastor's school, that was brought out as a BIG concern.

Well, I don't know. I was an anonymous user back when anonymity was allowed. Afterwards, I simply followed threads that interested me until I decided to re-join. So, I don't think your assumption is accurate but I really don't see why it matters unless you're using a pseudo-argument of "johnny-come-lately." Perhaps you can explain why this is worth mentioning.
Quote:
Not only does Binney speak at BJ, he also does @ Northland. The same was true when it was announced that Hamilton was there. Again, in both instnaces many here @ SI raised concerns.
Yes, I know. I did my homework including research, verification, and calls to Dr. Binney's office. I researched Binney's degrees and qualifications for counseling. Also, I read and critiqued Schaap's book. I followed these threads but I haven't seen many, if any, results. We huff and puff as we continue doing as we have always done. There is a severe disconnect between our talk and our walk.
Quote:
I think there is a difference here. Garlock and Hamilton (and to a lesser extent Binney) are not theologians. Dr. Phelps is very astute as well as Dr. Vaughn.
No, I don't buy the theologian argument for one minute--it's immaterial and irrelevant. Yes, there's a difference but it's the difference in our bias. We excuse those we like and condemn those we don't. It's been the same way in Fundamentalism since I can remember. Let's face it, we are inconsistent according to vested interests, personal feelings and individual prejudices. This is precisely what has given separation a bad name!

Quote:
I am really on the sidelines on this issue. I have gone to CE and IFB conferences. Again, I don't understand why me going to a CE/NE conference is worse than IFB men sharing the pulpit with men like Schaap and Fugate. I also don't understand how @ teh FBF national conference, men like me were encouraged to be more discerning. Yet one of the speakers (Dr. Robert Cogdon) shared the platform the next week with someone who worked for Word of Life for years. I am not necessarily calling for secondary seperation (although, I would never allow Schaap or Fugate in my pulpit) but I am asking for the discepncy to be cleared up.
Well, you're facing an inevitable disappointment. The discrepancy can never be resolved. Even though Fundamentalists may agree on the idea of separation, they can never come to a consensus on the grounds for separation. We must be discerning and fully persuaded in our own minds but we must also be merciful and charitable toward others who do not see it precisely as we do. This, however, does not preclude us from acting or taking a stand.

Larry's picture

Moderator

Thanks, Dan.

I agree to a large extent. I am willing to grant liberty to people to do according to their conscience in their local church. But that doesn't mean that what they do won't have an affect on my relationship to them. It may or may not depending on the issue. Again, I think the issue for many is the appearance of consistency. If you are going to condemn Al Mohler for signing the MD or John MacArthur for having C. J. Mahaney to preach, it's going to be hard to convince people why it's okay to speak with Fugate, Schaap, or some others who have many clear doctrinal and methodological problems.

But in the midst of "live and let live," we also must call people to biblical fidelity and obedience, particularly when they name the name of Christ. I am not sure that means a random free-for-all on the blogosphere as some seem wont to do. In Paul's day, it was certainly a local context, and probably has today the extension to people of influence. IOW, where our people are endangered by some person or some teaching, we should address it accurately and graciously. I don't need to spend time in my congregation calling out some guy they have never heard of and probably won't hear of. But I am not sure that "polemics" or "vitriol" is a spiritual gift or calling in the NT. The work of exposing error in the NT seems to take place in the context of making disciples in the local church ministry, not in the context of making a name for oneself in the cyber-world (or anywhere else). I think there are some who, under the guise of standing for the truth, don't get all the facts right; they don't read carefully and understand what is actually being said. They just rare back and let-er-go. And that's not helpful to anyone.

For young men, when someone stands up and condemns one side and not the other, those young men looking for men to follow will see the problems and will look elsewhere. I think this is where Bauder hit the nail on the head. When someone sees the careful handling of Scripture by some conservative evangelicals (not all) and the atrocious handling of Scripture by some fundamentalists (not all), that will be an easy choice for them. They won't focus on the fact that Doran does it right, or Osteen does it wrong; that Minnick does it right, and Warren does it wrong. If the choice is between MacArthur's soteriology and Schaap's, that will likewise be an easy choice. And they will likely start to "hang with" people who agree with them. IOW, they will leave fundamentalism over the gospel issue or the Bible issue because fundamentalism is not giving them another option. Of course, I have long said that many who are "leaving fundamentalism" never shared its commitments. Fine. Let them go. I think the truth is that fundamentalism is giving people an option in soteriology and bibliology, in expository models of preaching and ministry, and many other areas, but I don't feel the need to be a "movement fundamentalist." I am what I am. I don't intend to be anything different. I am a fundamentalist separatist. I am hesitant to use the name today because of the baggage. But as someone said to me privately recently, I am glad to keep the name because it lets me separate from some people.

When this discussion arises, I am reminded of something Jeff Foxworthy (who I hesitate to quote and don't listen to or recommend anyone else listen to; I don't endorse his conferences, who anyone who speaks at his conferences; I don't recommend his books or audio files; I don't recommend you share an airplane with him or stay in the same hotel; and if I missed anything, I don't recommend that either) ... Anyway, back to the issue, Foxworthy said once about southerners (of whom I am one): "The problem with southerners is that we can't get the dumbest of us to keep their mouths shut." (Let the reader understand how that applies here.) (Let the Foxworthy experts correct the quote, because I am sure there are some here.)

If this group wants to get together and preach, have at it. Preach Jesus and the Bible. And when Mohler/MacArthur/Dever/et al get together, have at it. Preach Jesus and the Bible. If you don't like it, then don't go. Go somewhere else, or stay home like I am.

Larry's picture

Moderator

Quote:
So, I don't think your assumption is accurate but I really don't see why it matters unless you're using a pseudo-argument of "johnny-come-lately." Perhaps you can explain why this is worth mentioning.
I think the point is that your earlier comment seemed to imply that no one was addressing Binney or Hamilton preaching at FBC Hammond. (And BTW, I think they are all going to be at Chappell's/West Coasts' spiritual leadership conference this year too.)

You said, BTW, no one has noted that Jim Binney, a speaker at BJU Bible Conference this week, has been a featured speaker along with Frank Garlock and Ron Hamliton at Schaap's own Pastors School. I have read all the excuses for Binney going there but it all boils down to whether you like the guy or not.

We were pointing out that, in fact, it was noted, many times in the past. In fact, this may be the first year it wasn't noted. And the response was fairly negative towards Binney/Hamilton/Garlock being at FBC Hammond. I don't remember anyone defending it, but perhaps there were. The fact is that it was discussed, and even people who seemed to like Binney and Majesty Music thought it was a bad idea and should not be done. Early on, the first time, there were some (I think such as Mike Harding) who were willing to give him a break once on it. I don't know about now for those people.

Bottom line, none of them should do it.

RPittman's picture

Larry wrote:
If this group wants to get together and preach, have at it. Preach Jesus and the Bible. And when Mohler/MacArthur/Dever/et al get together, have at it. Preach Jesus and the Bible. If you don't like it, then don't go. Go somewhere else, or stay home like I am.
Amen! Preach it, brother!

Dan Pelletier's picture

:bigsmile: :bigsmile:

Larry wrote:
Thanks, Dan.
...Jeff Foxworthy (who I hesitate to quote and don't listen to or recommend anyone else listen to; I don't endorse his conferences, who anyone who speaks at his conferences; I don't recommend his books or audio files; I don't recommend you share an airplane with him or stay in the same hotel; and if I missed anything, I don't recommend that either) ... Anyway, back to the issue, Foxworthy said once about southerners (of whom I am one): "The problem with southerners is that we can't get the dumbest of us to keep their mouths shut." (Let the reader understand how that applies here.) (Let the Foxworthy experts correct the quote, because I am sure there are some here.)

If this group wants to get together and preach, have at it. Preach Jesus and the Bible. And when Mohler/MacArthur/Dever/et al get together, have at it. Preach Jesus and the Bible. If you don't like it, then don't go. Go somewhere else, or stay home like I am.

Larry, I love it! Guess we can't go anywhere and be good Christians. ...I can't write anymore, because I'm laughing so hard!.... Biggrin

Dan Pelletier
Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco
Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past

Todd Wood's picture

Surely, things are changing politically in America - good grief, the state of Idaho is currently suing our federal government. Wow.

And the "Independent Baptist Movement" in America is changing, becoming much more fluid (thankfully not suing one another). Baptists are fellowshipping with Paul Chappell and Clarence Sexton. And Baptists are fellowshipping with Al Mohler and Mark Dever. Hey, I enjoyed Al's article, "Does the Church Need Change?" in the latest PCC UPDATE, Spring 2010. Smile

BryanBice's picture

Dan Pelletier wrote:
Larry wrote:
Couple of things:

2. To Dan's comment, I don't think the problem is with "truly good and godly men" of whom there are some at this conference. Most fundamentalists, young or old, don't object to that. Nor do they object to a group of people getting together and having a conference.

4. If Dan's point is that we should stay out of people's business and tend to our own, then a lot would agree. If he means by this that we ought to leave this "fundamentalists" alone at their conference but we ought to speak out loudly against T4G or TGC, then a lot are going to object. If Dan means we should leave both alone and go about our business in our local churches and calling, then I imagine that will be more accepted. Perhaps Dan can clarify.

Bottom line...I love the local church. I believe that the greatest sphere of influence I can have is through the local church. I believe that like-minded men should get together and encourage one another. This critiquing from afar stuff bugs me. Paul and Barnabas were both good men - who had a big disagreement over John Mark. So...they went their own ways and continued spreading the Gospel and making disciples and starting churches. I don't see any record of either man trying to gain a following against the other guy. So, if you don't want to associate with MacArthur, Binney, T4G, TGC (whatever those are), Schaap, Fugate, Vaughn, Piper, etc....then DON'T! But why do I have to hear about someone's complaints. I can agree with MacArthur, Binney, et.al. (and I do) on one issue and disagree with them on another issue (and I do). But I don't have to hit them with a hammer or throw them under a bus because of that issue. These are my brethren - and your brethren. I'm going to do what I have been called to do. You do what God has called you to do. Let me pray for you and encourage you. I'd like for you to do the same for me...and for Binney, MacArthur, Piper, Schaap, Fugate, Vaughn, Mohler, Bob Jones, Jack Trieber, Clarence Sexton.................. I'm not the fundamentalist policeman. Did we ever vote for one? ...and who should have the right to vote?

Let's be clear, though, that Paul & Barnabas went their separate ways without criticizing each other because the issue was not doctrinal but methodological. From all indications Paul & Barnabas remained friends while they differed on this methodological point. On the other hand, however, Paul was scathing in his criticism (& rightly so) of Alexander & Hymenaeus [1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 4:14 ]. The differences many of us have with Schaap & Fugate are not over whether we should uses buses to pick up kids; they center on doctrinal, theological aberrations. I understand the "critiquing from afar" being bothersome. Sometimes folks can carp about relatively petty stuff, in violation, I believe, of Titus 3:9. But we pastors of local churches also have a responsibility to guard the flock, and our sheep have all the technology available to them that we have. All too easily can they end up on an FBC-Hammond's mailing list. Shoot, our church has never had anything to do with Crown College or FBC Hammond or HAC, but all the publicity stuff comes pouring in for all their events. People in my church are connected to people who've graduated from HAC. And on we can go with the fundamentalist web. I say all that to say it's too simplistic to ignore the doctrinal aberrations--even of well-meaning, sincere "fundamentalists." "Throw them under the bus"? That rhetoric is a little too strong. But cut off any chance their craziness will infect my sheep? I'll do all I can.

Todd Wood's picture

I am sure there are nuances between Crown and Hyles, etc.

And Sexton is probably good iron-sharpening-iron for Schaap. Just like Chappell is probably good iron-sharpening-iron for Trieber. Just like Vaughn is good iron-sharpening-iron for Sexton.

Just like Mohler and Dever (and the others at times) are good iron-sharpening-iron for me.

Dan Pelletier's picture

BryanBice ][quote=Dan Pelletier ][quote=Larry wrote:
Couple of things:

.. we pastors of local churches also have a responsibility to guard the flock, and our sheep have all the technology available to them that we have. All too easily can they end up on an FBC-Hammond's mailing list. Shoot, our church has never had anything to do with Crown College or FBC Hammond or HAC, but all the publicity stuff comes pouring in for all their events. People in my church are connected to people who've graduated from HAC. And on we can go with the fundamentalist web. I say all that to say it's too simplistic to ignore the doctrinal aberrations--even of well-meaning, sincere "fundamentalists." "Throw them under the bus"? That rhetoric is a little too strong. But cut off any chance their craziness will infect my sheep? I'll do all I can.

I agree with you, Brian. We do have to protect our flocks. But if we preach truth from the pulpit, teach our people to think for themselves, etc., those we CAN protect will be protected. (It's impossible to keep every sheep away from every wolf. Some sheep just refuse to stay in the fold, no matter how biblical it is.) If they have to read someone else's blog or newsletter because they are starving for spiritual nourishment, then that's our fault. But, if we keep them full and satisfied with truth, they may eat a stray doctrinal weed once in a while, but they'll know the difference. The greatest spiritual policing system is a Christian who knows the Word of God and walks in the Spirit of God Who will guide us into all truth.

Again...I am amazed at how much fire my comments seem to generate? ...and how much time this takes!

Dan Pelletier
Hamilton Square Baptist Church - San Francisco
Acts 20:24 - Touch the Future with Truth from the Past

Pages