FBFI Annual Fellowship, Wednesday AM, June 17- A Liveblog Report

[KenFields]

[JG] But I am about 99% certain that the characterization above is not truly representative of Dr. Congdon’s message, though it undoubtedly contains some things he said. And I am also about 99% certain that if it were truly representative, some of the FBFI men would condemn it rather than endorse it.

Are you implying that Todd Mitchell is distorting the truth, or is being untruthful? That is a serious accusation to make against a brother.

On the other hand, Congdon’s misrepresentations have been proven untrue and unfounded by Piper’s own position papers.

Frankly, I am a bit surprised the SI moderators have let your accusation go.

The Internet is a lovely place.

Perhaps we might consider the possibility that Todd Mitchell was mistaken.

We might consider the possibility that Rob Congdon was unclear in his presentation on some points, and this contributed to Todd Mitchell being mistaken on other points.

We might consider the possibility that Rob Congdon has spent many years in Europe, where his statement about “incitement” contains a lot of truth, and that Todd Mitchell’s perception of his presentation was skewed by that statement. His own account indicates that the “incitement” comment had him extremely skeptical from the beginning, and the one who is expecting errors will hear things in a way that confirms his expectation — so that is certainly a possibility.

There are other possibilities as well, but little need to elaborate extensively. There are many possibilities here besides dishonesty.

[Todd Mitchell] Anyhow, Satan is using McLaren, Piper, et al to lure unsuspecting youths into the snares of the EU with the appeal of environmental responsibility, and this will usher in One-World Government.

Here is an example. Did Rob Congdon say this will usher in One-World Government? Really?

Unless Rob has changed his views very, very significantly, he believes One-World Government is coming in with Antichrist, not with humanistic environmentalism and the EU.

But he does believe that the underlying philosophy of the EU is working toward that goal, and that secular-humanist environmentalism (one of the great gods of this day) is being used to further it. (Of course, so does anyone who lives in Europe and is paying attention at all, including many who aren’t believers. Will the EU accomplish that goal? Only if Antichrist comes. Otherwise, it will probably fragment and blow up in an ugly war.) II Thessalonians 2 tells us that the mystery of iniquity is working even now. We should not be surprised to see attempts in the world today to accomplish that which will really come to fruition in Antichrist.

Now, if Rob Congdon was discussing that, it is very easy to see how Todd Mitchell could have reported what he did, honestly believing that is what was said, without it being truly representative.

[rogercarlson] JG,

Thanks for answering my question. I agree with you. But many or our Fundamental bretheran are not as gracious. I think the comparison to Cogdon should be somewhere between Mohler and Ham. I still believe there is hypocrisy here by the FBF. Cogdon seems to have done a conference more than once with a person who worked for Jack Wyrtsen personally and speaks at places all over the landscape. What if is expertise were something different? And what if he teamed up with Dever for something? I don’t think there would be the same deference shown. But, again, I do share your view. My problem is that many in the FBFI do not, and yet seem to be applying a double standard.

Thanks, Roger.

Rob Congdon’s doctrinal statement includes a section specifically on separation:

We believe that at the point of salvation, all believers are positionally set apart (sanctified) spiritually unto the Lord. There then follows a progressive sanctification in which the believer must learn to discern godly living from ungodly (Heb. 5:14). Part of this discernment is seen in separation from worldly and sinful practices which are diametrically opposed to the Lord’s plan and purposes (Rom. 6:19-20; 1 Cor. 6:19-20; 1 John 2:15-17).

Additionally, the believer must separate from apostasy and unbelief. Therefore, we will not knowingly associate with unbelief in ministry, worship, or by ecumenical activities (2 Cor. 6:14-18; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:19-22, 3:1-5; Amos 3:3). Separation from those who are not walking according to truth deters the leavening effect of compromise, and gives faithful warning to erring brothers (Rom. 16:17; Gal. 2:9-11:1; 1 Cor. 15:33; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; 2 John 10-11).

Perhaps a very significant difference for me between Rob and men like Ken Ham is that last sentence. Rob specifically states, and sometimes emphasizes in his teaching, that we need to separate from error and compromise in erring brothers. Though he may draw the line differently than you or I, he draws the line, and takes the Biblical principle seriously.

Roger, “To make your millenial position a Fundamental of the faith is a deviation from what Fundamentalism is and was.” comment is historically inaccurate. The Premil position was Fundamental number XIV of the Niagara Creed in 1878 (Dr. Beale’s book “In Pursuit of Purity”. We seemed to have dropped a few fundamentals since then catering to the Least Common Denominator.

[DMLandon] Roger, “To make your millenial position a Fundamental of the faith is a deviation from what Fundamentalism is and was.” comment is historically inaccurate. The Premil position was Fundamental number XIV of the Niagara Creed in 1878 (Dr. Beale’s book “In Pursuit of Purity”. We seemed to have dropped a few fundamentals since then catering to the Least Common Denominator.

While the Niagara Creed did indeed affirm a premil position, it’s important to realize:

1) the framers didn’t characterize it as a “fundamental of the faith,” but as a position in which they believed—part of a Statement of Faith. The various items in the 14-point creed were “points” of belief held by that particular group or segment of biblical Christianity.

2) The Niagara Creed was a product of the Niagara Bible Conference, a decidedly dispensationalist gathering. It wasn’t by any means an attempt to be a “Church Council” or even representative of what historic biblical Christianity always believed as fundamental and essential. Its purpose was decidedly to promote the relatively recently “discovered” eschatological positions.

3) The leadership doesn’t seem to have had the attitude that “we’re the only ones, and if you don’t believe like us, you’re a disobedient brother.”

So, in fact, Roger was quite right.

When endeavoring to define “the fundamentals,” by the way, it’s not looking for the “least common denominator.” That has a strongly negative connotation, doesn’t it? As I understand it, the objective is, instead, seeking to define what doctrines must be held, without which biblical Christian faith would crumble.

Thank you, brother Byce. I agree.

To those who hold to Premillennialism as a fundamental of the faith– tell me, has a non-premillennialist forsaken the faith? If not, it’s not a fundamental.

Sorry I was unclear, but Bryan’s characterization is what I was going for.

JG.,

Again I agree with you. And I have no problem with Cogdon’s association per se. But if you look at the example I gave (Dever), he would fit all of the qualifications of Cogdon’s too. He is seperated and takes church discipline more seriously than many of our fellow IFB churches do. But I firmly believe if there was someone that the FBF was going to have speak, they would rescind the invitation if the Fundamentalist brother were speaking with Dever. That is the apparant double standard that I am inquiring about.

[JG] The Internet is a lovely place.

Perhaps we might consider the possibility that Todd Mitchell was mistaken.

We might consider the possibility that Rob Congdon was unclear in his presentation on some points, and this contributed to Todd Mitchell being mistaken on other points.

We might consider the possibility that Rob Congdon has spent many years in Europe, where his statement about “incitement” contains a lot of truth, and that Todd Mitchell’s perception of his presentation was skewed by that statement. His own account indicates that the “incitement” comment had him extremely skeptical from the beginning, and the one who is expecting errors will hear things in a way that confirms his expectation — so that is certainly a possibility.

There are other possibilities as well, but little need to elaborate extensively. There are many possibilities here besides dishonesty.

JG,

We might rightfully consider that Mr. Mitchell was present and accurately reported what was said because there is no evidence to the contrary—other than your past personal experience with Mr. Congdon.

We might rightfully consider that if Mr. Mitchell’s reporting was inaccurate, other SI members who were present for the breakout session (assuming there were some) would dispute his report.

We might rightfully consider that the FBFI members who were present either had no qualms with Mr. Congdon’s reported conspiracy theories and misrepresentations of Calvinists, Amillennialists, and men like Piper; or, they are unable to substantiate Mr. Mitchell’s report for reasons other than his possible inaccuracy.

There are also other possibilities we might consider about Mr. Congdon’s emphasis on eschatology and whether that could contribute to an unhealthy conspiracy-laden view of the future; but because neither of us were present in the session, it would be best for us to yield our “possibilities” to those who actually were present.

The idea that this is all about “kingdom now” is sufficiently flawed so as to mar the whole conclusion, regardless of associations (which seem troublesome by FBF standards). “Kingdom now” (which I reject as strongly as any) is not really the issue. As was pointed out somewhere, many, if not most, are “already/not yet” people (like Piper and others). I don’t know of anyone that does not believe the eternal state is in some sense the kingdom of God.

“Kingdom now” is one of the impetuses behind the original New Evangelicalism. They thought the “Kingdom later” (dispensationalists) had withdrawn too much from culture and society. Today, one of the marks of the Neo Calvinism is a heavy emphasis on social justice and cultural redemption. That all stems from a present form of the kingdom (that i think is greatly misguided). But it sounds to me like, from what I read and from the Panel Discussion that I listened to), Congdon is putting way too much emphasis on that, as well as misrepresenting some people.

I don’t know, Roger. I don’t really want to speak for the FBFI. Rob Congdon is, I believe, speaking at a conference next month where Ryrie is speaking. Ryrie isn’t Dever, of course. I don’t know what the FBFI position is on this, exactly. If you swap out Ryrie and put Dever in that conference, would they have done differently? I don’t know.

I do know that, even in FBFI circles, there has been an increasing awareness and appreciation for Dever in recent years. He isn’t where they are, and they believe he should be, but they recognize the good, while disagreeing with the bad. The days of saying, “Oh, he’s a disobedient brother, write him off,” are fading even in the FBFI. As broad evangelicalism drifts more and more into a mess, men like Dever stand out more and more when they hold the line on important matters. FBFI standards may not change, but their attitude towards those who differ on those standards may well be changing.

To all:

This has been an interesting discussion. Perhaps Rob Congdon will drop in on it, but the knives are out before he ever shows up, so perhaps there is little profit in him doing so. The knives have been out against the FBFI for a while, so it is hardly surprising. He was asked to speak on a controversial topic, and apparently said some negative things about one of the SI heroes. Because of the topics Rob addresses, it is easy to pick holes if you want to.

I know Rob fairly well, since he attended our church for over a year. He loves the Lord. He lives an exemplary life, and his family is exemplary. His daughter and future son-in-law intend to return to Scotland as missionaries. He is a generous and considerate person. He was personally very kind to us just a month ago when my daughter was very ill.

None of that excuses doctrinal error. But I know personally that Rob practices careful exegesis. I’ve heard him preach and teach. I’ve heard his contributions to Bible study discussions. His theological position is available on his website, and is sound.

Rob studies current trends extensively, and draws many conclusions, including conclusions about how those trends may relate to what we see in Scriptures about the end times. Perhaps not all of those conclusions are well-founded. Certainly, I have not always agreed with them. As far as I know, he does not claim Biblical or divine authority for those conclusions. He does not claim to be inerrant.

It has been several years since Rob was in our church, and I have only seen him once in the last three years, for a very brief visit. Perhaps he has changed in some ways in recent years. Perhaps this wasn’t his best presentation. Perhaps many things. Perhaps most of all, it would be good to get a tape and listen to it to hear exactly what was said — which may well be far more nuanced than one would think from reading this thread — before deciding to join those calling for an online tar and feather party.

The SI community in this thread gives the impression of feeling like “we won one against the bad guys” with Pastor Sweatt, and now lets flex our muscles to see if we can take down someone else at FBFI. It just so happens that someone here happens to know a little more about Rob Congdon than one seminar, and from my perspective, this all doesn’t look very good. There is more to this story somewhere. This is a good brother, and while he may be imperfect, and his presentation may have been imperfect, this thread has gone way over the top.

I doubt I have anything profitable to add to this thread beyond that.

[JG]

The SI community in this thread gives the impression of feeling like “we won one against the bad guys” with Pastor Sweatt, and now lets flex our muscles to see if we can take down someone else at FBFI. It just so happens that someone here happens to know a little more about Rob Congdon than one seminar, and from my perspective, this all doesn’t look very good. There is more to this story somewhere. This is a good brother, and while he may be imperfect, and his presentation may have been imperfect, this thread has gone way over the top.

JG,

Speaking for myself, it is not my intent to “take down someone else at FBFI.” Not my purpose, desire, or intent in any way.

But, as fundies—and FBF‘ers know, we are commanded to examine one’s teaching in light of the Scriptures.

I have nothing against Mr. Congdon as a person. I’ve never met him, and I have no reason to doubt what you said about his character and integrity.

Yet, assuming the reports coming from his breakout session are accurate, I am concerned with what he said and how he responded when he was confronted about his misrepresentation of Piper.

Sometimes it is difficult to separate the man from the message, but in this case, no one on SI has attacked Mr. Congdon’s character or his love for God. We have simply questioned the accuracy of his public statements, his eschatological views, and his misunderstanding/misrepresentation of Reformed eschatology.

I hope no personal offense has been taken.

[KenFields] but because neither of us were present in the session, it would be best for us to yield our “possibilities” to those who actually were present.

Ken, I discussed “possibilities” because you thought I was accusing Todd Mitchell of lying. That was not true. If his report is inaccurate, it is undoubtedly because of communication failure on the part of the speaker, the hearer, or both. That was the point of my “possibilities”. There are many ways a report can be inaccurate besides dishonesty.

In fact, Ken, you misrepresented my earlier comment as an accusation of dishonesty against a brother, when it was not. ;) Were you being dishonest? Of course not. Yet, it was not an accurate representation of my statement. You drew a conclusion from what I said, but it was not what I either said or intended. See how easily this kind of thing can happen?

one of the SI heroes

Who’s that?

New Calvinism and the Emergent church are worlds apart. I can’t imagine what kind of study put them in the same category. I don’t know how you get to that conclusion. The New Calvinism is very doctrinally certain (even if misguided in some places). Emergent hates doctrinal certitude.

[KenFields] Yet, assuming the reports coming from his breakout session are accurate, I am concerned with what he said and how he responded when he was confronted about his misrepresentation of Piper.

Ken, certainly there is no personal offense. Perhaps we should just pull back until the tape becomes available, and then we can each assess for ourselves how much concern is appropriate.

Sounds good. I too was not trying to attack Brother Cogdon. I am sorry I came across that way. I was trying to examine his position. It seems way to conspiritorial for my taste. I think that is one draw back ty my dispensational position. We have to connect alot of dots - and I think we can Biblically. But sometimes we connect dots and make connections that are not there. I remember when i was at BJ, SOME students were saying Sadaam HAD to be THE anti-christ. But, I too will wait till the tape comes out.