Directions in Evangelicalism (Fifth in Series)

Kevin T. Bauder

This essay’s first appearance at SharperIron was in January of 2009. Previous installments in the series: 1, 2, 3, and 4.

The Gospel According to Walt

We have examined the vision of the gospel that is being propagated by Scot McKnight of North Park Seminary and by Timothy Gombis of Cedarville University. They are certainly not unique in the evangelical world. Indeed, their understanding of the gospel has become influential among an increasing number of evangelicals.

The theory, however, is not new. As an example, consider Walt. Like Scot and Tim, Walt did not wish to abandon the gospel of personal salvation. Also like Scot and Tim, he yearned for a gospel that could deal with problems that he deemed larger and more important. Here is what Walt said:

Discussion

Should NIU separate from BJU?

Don P
Bob Jones University and Bob Jones, III practice separation. Recently they separated from Matt Olson. They withdrew their invitation to him to speak at their graduation services. Presumably, this was because NIU had invited a staff member from John MacArthur’s church to preach at Northland. This, of course, was a terrible sin and required that BJU separate from NIU and Matt Olson. No one should dialogue with anyone at John MacArthur’s church!

Using their theology of separation, when are fundamentalist leaders going to separate from BJU?

Discussion

Skirts on Men

JD Miller
I did a concordance search of the word skirt in the KJV and every time it was used, it referred to skirts on men. My question is, why don’t we have a skirts only rule for men instead of women if the argument is that men and women should be dressing differently based on skirts or pants? Of course I do not hold to the dresses only argument for either men or women, but am confused as to why some contend over this issue as if there were a verse in the Bible that said that women shall wear dresses.

Discussion

Proud Fundamentalist

Aaron Blumer

proudpup.jpg

Lots of people claim to be fundamentalists. Far more are labeled “fundamentalist” by media outlets or Christian leaders who wish to distance themselves from more traditional—or just more feisty—brethren. Those who want to use “fundamentalist” in a historic sense can only avoid confusion by using the term with qualifiers and explanations—in other words, by including context.

So when I say, “I am a proud fundamentalist,” I mean “fundamentalist” in the historic sense. Two statements from one of SharperIron’s “About” pages sum up the concept:

In a religious sense, the term “fundamentalist” was first used in 1922 in reference to a group of Baptists who were seeking to establish doctrinal limits in the Northern Baptist Convention. Their goal was to uphold the Bible and rid the convention of the philosophy of Modernism, which denied the infallibility of Scripture, rejected miracles, and gutted the Christian faith of defining principles such as the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. In short, the fundamentalists thought the Northern Baptist Convention ought to at least be genuinely Christian.

…

At SharperIron we’re still clinging to the term in its historic sense. Here, a fundamentalist is someone who believes in the foundational principles of the Christian faith and also believes in separation from apostasy. Opinions vary as to the degree of separation, the process and the methods. But we are committed to the principle.

Discussion