March 7, 2010

Let’s Get “CRYSTAL” Clear on This: A Response to Kevin Bauder’s “Cannonball” Cogitations

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

On Friday, March 5, 2010 Dr. Kevin Bauder (president, Central Baptist Theological Seminary) posted an article Let’s Get Clear on This at his Nick of Time blog. The article will appear at *other sites.

In my response to follow I will not be addressing his article apart point-by-point, but instead address the issues I find most disconcerting from it.

Dr. Bauder’s article is no mere “cannonball in the pool of Fundamentalism,”1 as one pastor has suggested. It is instead the latest from a full magazine of cannonballs fired on Fundamentalism.2

Upon my initial reading of Bauder’s article I hoped to draw some general conclusions and close with one response. Since then I have, however, developed what will be a two-part response. Let us, therefore, begin with the first, which is the more lengthy of the two.

Beginning with getting myself on record I will briefly comment on the following from Dr. Bauder:

These Fundamentalist critics…are seldom willing to express these same concerns over the excesses of the hyper-fundamentalist Right.
Bauder references unnamed “critics” he cites at the lead of his article. There do exist and are for me elements and/or personalities within the broader Fundamentalist community that I am uncomfortable with. Some, I am highly uncomfortable with. I am certainly willing to and have historically expressed concerns with some of these elements and groups.3

Now I'll engage the body of his article. Dr. Bauder wrote,
American Christianity never has been neatly divided between new evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Other groups have always existed, and one of them is the group that we now designate as conservative evangelicals.”
I am not among those who consider the body of so-called “conservative” evangelicals to be full-blown New Evangelicals. I do, however, believe some of them have the capacity for, the seeds are planted within, are well watered, and have been germinating for the “conservative” evangelicals to sprout into New Evangelicals.

Dr. Bauder wrote,
Conservative evangelicals are different from Fundamentalists, but they are not new evangelicals. New evangelicals were committed to a policy of re-infiltrating ecclesiastical organizations that had been captured by apostates. They wanted to live in peaceful coexistence with apostasy. They were willing to recognize certain apostates as fellow-Christians and to cooperate with them in the Lord’s work. These are attitudes that conservative evangelicals explicitly reject. To apply this label to a conservative evangelical is completely unwarranted.”
Nearest to full-bloom new evangelicalism among the conservative evangelicals is Dr. John Piper.

John Piper still affiliates with the old Baptist General Conference, aka- Converge Worldwide.** This denomination he identifies with is a member of the National Association of Evangelicals. His church, Bethlehem Baptist Church, was fully involved with the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association’s 2009 Rock [n-Roll] the River Tour. With these things on his present resume- why would it be “unwarranted” to label Piper a new evangelical? Is this not a form of Infiltration theology, not dissimilar to the historic new evangelicals?

Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan, star personalities in conservative evangelicalism, are willing to work with apostates “in peaceful co-existence.” They have recognized, by extension, “certain apostates as fellow-Christians.” This is irrefutable with their signing the Manhattan Declaration and is just one of Mohler’s many forays into ecumenism. In his article Bauder essentially ignores this pattern of ecumenical compromise with apostates.4 The Bible is very clear!
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them,” (Eph. 5:11).

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Cor. 6:14-17).

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed,” (2 John 9-10).
Mohler and Duncan know these God-ordained mandates yet disobeyed the Lord to enter into a cooperative effort with unbelievers and rank liberals by signing the Manhattan Declaration.

Some conservative evangelicals are not full-blown new evangelicals, but they are its first cousin. Piper is in the lead toward new evangelicalism with Mohler and Duncan in very close proximity. Tragically, many who are attracted by Piper’s magnetism will be drawn along with him. Regrettably that number will grow among the young fundamentalists who are enamored with Piper and are being encouraged by Dr. Bauder and other pastors to embrace him.

Dr. Bauder also wrote,
Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals still do not agree about what to do with Christian leaders who make common cause with apostates.”
The problem is quite simple. Conservative evangelicals, by and large, simply refuse to make a personal application of the biblical mandates for separation from apostates and/or disobedient brethren.

Has Bauder forgotten that conservative evangelical men signed the Manhattan Declaration? No, he has not forgotten this. Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran and men such as these are determined to close ranks and pursue fellowship with their likeminded Calvinistic counter-parts in conservative evangelicalism. Signing the Manhattan Declaration, which granted Christian recognition to the deadly “enemies of the cross of Christ” is, therefore, tolerated and no hindrance to fellowship because, as Dave Doran concluded from his blog, signing it was merely a “wrong decision based on bad judgment.”5

Must He Trash Our Own:
One of the most troublesome elements in Bauder’s article is a repetition of a pattern to eagerly trash, often without provocation, our own in Fundamentalism. Bauder besmirches Fundamentalism to in part build up conservative evangelicalism. In this latest article he offers virtually no qualities that exist in a balanced Fundamentalism worthy of special commendation. He is, however, eager to commend the conservative evangelicals in expanded and glowing terms. You would be hard pressed to recognize in his article so much as an unvarnished whisper of admonishment to the conservative evangelicals or “ministry of warning6 for our younger generation about the obvious doctrinal aberrations, ecumenical compromises and worldliness in methods of ministry in conservative evangelicalism.

As if Dr. Bauder had not crossed the line before, this article removes any lingering doubt of it.

Dr. Bauder cannot think that this is helpful for the fundamentalism that he thinks is worth saving.7 I think it is neither balanced nor fair on any level and IMO was not intended to be fair or balanced.

IMO, it is irrefutable that Bauder is willingly and with purpose advocating for the conservative evangelicals and leading our younger generation to them. And to fuel the push he needs a demon to be skewered and fled from. Fundamentalism is his demon, which he finds in various historical contexts, personalities and/or forms. He could make his case for close cooperation with the conservative evangelicals while leaving Fundamentalism out of the discussion, but chooses not to.

Among conservative evangelicals there are aberrant doctrines, such as non-cessationism, ecumenical compromises and worldly practices of ministry, including corrupt communication from the pulpit and the world’s Rock/CCM/RAP culture in worship. Theology and practices that are “contrary to the doctrine which we have learned.” They reject admonitions of their brethren and are wholly unrepentant. They are therefore numbered among the disobedient. These things therefore, demand our obedience to the God-given mandates.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them,” (Rom. 16:17).
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us… And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother,” (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15).
These Scriptures are not open to selective application! They cannot be redefined or ignored to escape the force of what is there.8 Yet there appears to be an effort to reinterpret or dismiss these scriptural principles. Have these Scriptures become inconvenient truths?*** Will these passages be redefined or ignored because they interfere with a desire to fellowship and cooperate with conservative evangelicals?

Dr. Dave Doran wrote,
For the sake of the clarity of the gospel, believers and churches must separate from those who compromise the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith (Rom 16:17; Phil 3:17-19; cf. 2 Thess 3:6-15)…. We cannot extend Christian fellowship to those who deny fundamental doctrines of the Faith. We cannot ignore the disobedience of those who do so.9
Will Kevin Bauder heed these biblical obligations? Will Dave Doran heed his own biblically defined terms for Gospel-Driven separation? Will they teach the next generation of Fundamentalists, by their own example, that one cannot be loyal to the Scriptures while simultaneously cooperating with, fellowshipping alongside and hosting men who are among the disobedient as if nothing is amiss? Those who refuse to “admonish” or “withdraw from” the disobedient, to “mark and “avoid” them become disobedient themselves. The Scriptural mandates that forbid hobnobbing with unbelievers, and brethren like Mohler and Duncan who gave unbelievers “Christian recognition and fellowship” are NON-negotiable.

In a personal discussion with one preacher he noted,
The insidious part is that if one disagrees with the rush to embrace evangelicalism’s star personalities and their conferences, he will likely be painted as ignorant, unloving, divisive and an obstructionist.”
Another pastor shared with me that,
Separation from believers who are disobedient is a loving response to their disobedience. It is a demonstration of our love for the Lord (John 14:15) and it is a demonstration of our love for the disobedient.
The first step toward New Evangelicalism is refusing to live in fidelity to the Scriptural mandates that call for separation when it is clearly warranted.
The basic problem is this: Many fundamentalists, when speaking of the New Evangelicalism, are referring to the original positions and writings of the early founders of New Evangelicalism such as Carl Henry and Harold Ockenga. They repudiate heartily the thoughts of these earlier leaders, but either in ignorance or willingly they fail to recognize the updated version, the “new” New Evangelicalism. It is always safer to berate the teachings of those historically farther removed than of those who are currently afflicting the church.10
Unfortunately some men in Fundamentalism, who presently identify themselves as biblical separatists, appear to be “either in ignorance or willingly…fail to recognize the updated version, the “new” New Evangelicalism. ” Kevin Bauder appears to be among them.

The trend of some Fundamentalists toward the “conservative” evangelicals appears to be how can I foster fellowship with them instead of what are the “biblical obligations” for me in the face of their aberrant theologies, compromising the Gospel through blatant ecumenism and worldly practices in ministry. (Revised excerpt from Are We Recognizing the “New” New Evangelicalism?)

Is everything coming from conservative evangelicalism aberrant or destructive; of course not. Is everything coming from Fundamentalism the ideal; of course not. There is, however, more than enough in contrary doctrine and practice of the conservative evangelicals to cause a balanced Fundamentalist, who longs for unity in the body, to step back and instead,

Call on Them to Become the Best of What Fundamentalists can be in Balanced, Biblical Separatism.

In my second response to Kevin Bauder’s Let’s Get Clear on This I am going to address his numerous expressions along the theme that the conservative evangelicals,
…are the foremost defenders of the gospel today… their vigorous commitment to and defense of the gospel …a coalition of Christian leaders who have directed our focus to the centrality of the gospel.”
Are they; have they? I will answer that question in the next.


Please continue to Part Two in this Series.

For a related discussion please continue to- “Conservative” Evangelicalism: Threading a Frame Work for Discussion, Final

UPDATE: (3/8/10)
Today, with Don Johnson’s assistance, I am able to post the electronic periodical from Bauder’s “retired seminary professor” that triggered his (Bauder’s) cannonade. It was Dr. Warren Vanhetloo from his Cogitations. Vanhetloo’s remarks were wise, balanced and charitable; much better than Bauder’s gun powder reaction. Please go to the thread (appendix) under this article for Vanhetloo’s cogitation.

Site Publisher’s Note:
In well over three years of publishing at IDOTG I do not recall having asked my guests to share the link to this blog with others in their circles of friends, family or in their sphere of influence. The issues we are dealing with, however, are no small matter. This for me is not about saving or slaying movements. It IS about fidelity to the Scriptures, warning the church about those among us who are “speaking perverse things” (Acts 20:30) and ultimately a defense of the Gospel, will I will address in Part 2. That said, I encourage each of you to share a link to this article, or any related articles with anyone with whom you believe might be encouraged and/or edified by what is here.

1) Dave Doran: Time for a Group Hug, Glory & Grace blog, (accessed 3/7/10). Curious title for an article that addresses what can be consider Bauder’s strangle-hold (in print) on Fundamentalism.

Kevin Bauder: A Call for His Removal From the Platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship

3) If the occasion arises from the
hyper-fundamentalist Right and the need is clear I would raise an alarm. Presently, however, there is no effort I am aware of that compares to the wide spread efforts to embrace the hyper-fundamentalist Right such as exists to embrace conservative evangelicalism.

4) Al Mohler’s pattern of ecumenical compromises includes:
  • Naming the SBTS School of Evangelism after, and in honor of Billy Graham
  • Chairman of the 2001 (Louisville) Billy Graham Crusade
  • Dedicated a new SBTS pavilion in honor of past president Duke McCall- a rank liberal
  • Original signatory to the Manhattan Declaration
  • Board member- Focus on the Family
5) Dave Doran, A Bronx Declaration, Glory & Grace blog, (accessed 3/7/2010)

6) Dr. Peter Masters, “
In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked.” The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness

7) With Bauder’s increasing published hostility toward Fundamentalism, the only kind of Fundamentalism he appears to see is “
A Fundamentalism Worth SLAYING.”

8) Kevin Bauder does not hesitate to obey the mandates to “
admonish, mark, withdraw from…avoid” in regard to the so-called, “hyper-fundamentalist Right and vocalize these things with great gusto. When he comes to the contrary doctrine and practices of the conservative evangelicals, however, he seems to contract a serious case of laryngitis for the mandates.

9) Dave Doran: From his
Gospel-Driven Separation series: Starting at the Right Spot, Part 1, Glory & Grace blog, (accessed 3/7/10).

10) Dr. Ernest Pickering,
The Tragedy of Compromise, p. 159.

*Shortly after this response was published Dr. Bauder’s article was reproduced by the
pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron site.

**The Swedish Baptist Conference became - The Baptist General Conference, which became - Converge Worldwide.

***In an upcoming article I will be discussing a trend to subdivide and redefine the “
biblical obligations” for separatism. This new effort appears designed to clear the way for evangelicals to minister within the ministries of a local church that alleges commitment to the heritage and principles of biblical separatism. I would have posted this week had it not been for the need of a timely response to Kevin Bauder’s article.

Revised (3/8/10 @ 9:15am). General Baptist Conference, Bethlehem Baptist Church.


  1. Warren Vanhetloo’s Cogitations #1338 02.24.10 oops

    *** Stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or our epistle (2 Thess 2:15).

    -- From readers, two quick responses to names included and impressions given:

    You included today, “The oft-repeated mantra coming out of Dr. Piper and Dr. Storms is that it is impossible for human beings to enjoy too much pleasure. We are made for pleasure, but it’s the pleasure of enjoying God.” These guys are full-bore new evangelicals and Piper is a hard line Calvinist. I presume the meeting was of the Baptist General Conference of Bethel College (University). Why are you promoting this sort of thing?

    Dr. Van, While I can appreciate many things coming out of Dr. Piper’s ministry, are you endorsing such a leading New Evangelical with no disclaimer? I realize Pastor Wayne’s trip is his and not yours, but it is your email list. I am sure you do not endorse the New Evangelicalism that is Dr. Piper’s ministry, but when we simply laud a New Evangelical by attending his conference and praising it, that is the result at the practical level. I would never take my staff or my church family to a New Evangelical conference. I have watched what that did at our church 15 years ago, and it nearly destroyed our church because the staff could not discern and wanted to take the church into total New Evangelicalism. I firmly believe there are many ways of receiving the benefits of New Evangelical teachers without attendance and thus the association of full-throated endorsement. Fundamentalism has multiple conferences for fundamentalists to attend. It is not like we are without options. Leadership is about influence, and what we do influences people much more than what we say.

    First, my apology; I assumed too much. I did not recognize the names of the speakers, did not know anything of their position, even debated leaving the names out. But I assumed the conference was at Central Seminary, Fourth Baptist Church, and that although unknown to me, the speakers would be fundamentalists. No, I do not want to promote new evangelicals or new evangelicalism. These days, characteristic denials of new evangelicals are either of the inspiration of Scripture or the deity of Christ. They may have much good to say in other areas, but their denials can easily creep in for eventual serious damage. I do not promote listening to or reading the works of new evangelicals.

    I do not, however, consider it totally wrong to read the works of others who are clearly wrong in a few areas but may be quite helpful in most of what they say or write. If they are getting it from Scripture, their source is right, and I need only consider whether they are twisting the Word. My practice, though, has been not to name any preacher or writer whose works cannot be trusted by the average Christian.

    Mature, trained, discerning pastors will normally follow such procedure. We are responsible for the sheep, and to make attractive a pasture area which may be dangerous to them is to be avoided. This goes against the “scholarly” emphasis of always citing sources, and also at times against the supposed benefit of quoting popular writers or speakers. If the truths are worth sharing, they are not the copyrighted property of individuals. They might better be restated than to name a dangerous source.

  2. Lou,

    Thank you for your cogent assessment of Bauder's "cannon ball." You have hit the nail on the head regarding his stealth brand of compromise. While asserting that he sails the seas under the Fundamentalist flag, he is anything but a true Fundamentalist. He is an impostor, and the captain of a phantom boat plying the shark-infested waters of compromise. You are doing a great job of systematically dismantling his attacks against us.
    My counsel to the leaders of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary is that they hop on the first stage leaving Dodge and run for their lives, or Bauder will sink their institution just as surely as he is sinking Central Seminary, and causing it to veer for from the course set by Dr. Clearwaters.
    As for Dr. Doran's tepid response to Bauder, he has little credibility, since he and the other Piper promoters at DBTS always seem to do cartwheels whenever Piper speaks. The seminary bookstore promotes Piper's books with little or no disclaimers that I am aware of.
    So, when Dr. Doran speaks about Piper in his response to Bauder, it is not in the form of warning, but only to inform us that Piper is in fact a New Evangelical. IF that is the case, why does DBTS drool over Piper?
    There is little for us to agree on in Bauder's cannon ball. His feeble attempt to distinguish between New Evangelicals and Conservative Evangelicals doesn't pass the straight face test. It is just another example of how the liberal influences in Bauder's background are now coming home to roost. Calling compromisers "Conservative Evangelicals" doesn't make it so. They are still New Evangelicals, as Don Johnson points out. But they are just better at disguising their true colors, so as to fool the undiscerning like Bauder, and to a certain extent, Doran.
    May the Lord help us to continue to fly the flag of Biblical, militant Fundamentalism, regardless of those who desire to jump ship and swim in the murky waters of Conservative Evangelical compromise!

  3. Gary:

    I appreciate your poignant cogitations here.

    FBTS would be wise to prayerfully reconsider a merger if that means Kevin Bauder will have an opportunity to influence their philosophy, faculty and student body. That is so especially in light of the article I just posted by Faith's Dr. George Houghton's Another Look at the New Evangelicalism.

    You wrote, "Calling compromisers 'Conservative Evangelicals' doesn't make it so." Agreed, and I liken it to the political arena where calling Liberals, "Moderates" doesn't make it so.

    Thanks for submitting this.


  4. To All:

    I read the following comment by Gerald Priest at the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron site, and I’d like thought you would be interest here. To format in a thread comment I have to submit this in two parts.

    Can We Be Even Clearer?

    Kevin [Bauder] has been quite explicit in his criticism of “some fundamentalists” for incorrectly stereotyping conservative evangelicals as neo-evangelicals. However, two areas, I believe, need to be addressed. First of all, if it is improper to call conservative evangelicals neo-evangelicals, is it not also improper to refer to KJV-Only types as fundamentalists? By embracing the heresy of KJV-Onlyism (which usually carries with it the baggage of anti-Calvinism), do they not discredit themselves from being considered legitimate historic fundamentalists, even though they continue to claim the title? Furthermore, do we not have biblical grounds for separating from them? Indeed, many of us have.

    Second, Kevin has been quite lavish in his praise of conservative evangelicals while castigating so-called fundamentalists. Yet he has spent very little time warning us about the pitfalls and problems of conservative evangelicalism. Dave Doran does a good job with this on his blog. Kevin commends fundamentalist institutions for welcoming conservative evangelical speakers, but offers no warning regarding the baggage some bring with them that could endanger our movement. While on the one hand “the Fundamentalist label is no guarantee of doctrinal fidelity,” neither is the conservative evangelical label a guarantee either. Indeed, this supposed fidelity to the gospel in their various associations is undermined by their lack of separation from that which compromises the gospel. Al Mohler, for example, is considered one of the darlings among conservative evangelicals, yet he has caused great harm to the gospel by his endorsement of men and movements that have confused and corrupted it (e.g., Billy Graham, Duke McCall, and most recently the Manhattan Declaration). Fundamentalists should rightly separate from him as a disobedient brother. And although MacArthur, Sproul, and others have courageously criticized such endorsements, they still invite Mohler to their platform, because, they say, he speaks for the gospel, even after he has endorsed the social gospel. (If the Manhattan Declaration does advocate another gospel is this not a heresy from which we should separate and likewise from those who endorse it?). And I might add that there are plenty of conservative evangelicals that promote some form of the social gospel, which, as we well know, was a major plank in the neo-evangelical agenda. Furthermore, has sufficient warning been sounded regarding what is at stake in welcoming men who are non-cessationists? Does permitting the continuation of revelation in the form of sign gifts not do harm to the gospel? Turning to still another example, is it really conducive to the health of fundamentalism by inviting John Piper to one of its meetings after he welcomed to his Desiring God conference the foul-mouthed Mark Driscoll? (not to mention the other problems with Piper that Doran cites). Does this not send a mixed signal of just what “desiring God” means? Do these things not matter any more, as it did to our fundamentalist forbears, who vigorously attacked them? And should we overlook the almost rabid contempt many conservative evangelicals express toward dispensationalism (which, as Kraus and Sandeen have noted, was born “from within the womb of orthodox Calvinism”)?

    Part Two to follow...

  5. Continuing the comment by Gerald Priest...

    What I fear is that we may be allowing a Trojan horse into the fundamentalist camp. And after a while, if we keep going down this track, any significant difference between conservative evangelical and the fundamentalist institutions may disappear. Fundamentalists will become even “nicer” to the conservative evangelicals and they in turn will appear more “respectable” to the fundamentalists. It may be that some fundamentalists desire this. But then, would they not also have to forfeit the label?

    Like Kevin, I would give credit to the conservative evangelicals where credit is due. I say “Amen” to everything they have done well in defense of the gospel of Christ. But not at the expense of discrediting fundamentalism for the valiant battles it has fought against some of the very things many conservative evangelicals are espousing which compromise the gospel, yet which many of the current generation do not seem to take very seriously.

    Site Publisher Comment: The portion in bold above on the “Trojan horse into the Fundamentalist camp,” is as sound a warning of the reality as you will read anywhere. Ironically, there are a growing number who are convinced Kevin Bauder is a Trojan horse in Fundamentalism. Bauder’s article this week does nothing to dampen that growing perception.

    At the very least, Bauder is leading conservative evangelicalism’s Trojan horse by the nose into and through the Fundamentalist camp. This is however, one pony ride we do not need.


  6. Lou,
    would you agree with Bauder that Ryrie is a Conservative Evangelical? If so, in yours and Ryrie's concurrent participation in Grace Conferences, where does that leave you in terms of consistency in your arguments against Bauder, Doran, If Ryrie is to be grouped with such men, would this not leave you in a position of needing to agree with Bauder? If Ryrie is to be described as a fundamentalist, would he accept that moniker, and could he be described as such?

    This seems an important question, and speaks to consistency I think.

  7. Sam:

    I read some suggesting we need to not be worried so much about labels, so let’s give that try (as best we can) here by focusing on the men and what they do; OK?

    As soon as Dr. Ryrie disobeys the Scriptures to hobnob with unbelievers like Mohler and Duncan have...

    As soon as Ryrie begins teaching the Charismatic sign gifts are active today like Piper and Mahaney do…

    As soon as Ryrie brings in a man like Driscoll for an earful of disgraceful filth speech and next Rick Warren into his church like Piper is reported (unconfirmed) to be doing in 2011…

    As soon as Ryrie tolerates, allows for and excuses the obvious doctrinal aberrations and ecumenical compromise of the conservative evangelicals the way Bauder and Doran are doing and encouraging others toward…

    As soon as Ryrie begins to preach the false, works-based Lordship Salvation like MacArthur, Piper, Lawson, et al., do...

    As soon as Ryrie opens a blog and begins to speak on behalf of the so-called, “conservative” evangelicals to reshape and/or to malign balanced historic Fundamentalism the way Bauder (primarily) and Doran are doing…

    Then I’ll be as consistent with Ryrie as I am with the “conservative” evangelicals and with Bauder and Doran who want Fundamentalists to embrace them in spite of all of the above and almost completely apart from the “ministry of warning.” OK?

    Nice try at a redirect, but I’m not having any of it, or any more of it.

    I trust I have been CRYSTAL clear


  8. Lou,
    I'm going to leave you alone on this. You have my earlier post (awaiting moderation) as to my disagreements regarding your arguments. I don't want to be any more ill-mannered than I have been, so I will stop. My apologies for being boorish.

  9. Another balanced commentary, with a warning was posted today at the pseudo-fundamentalist site Sharper Iron. I am sharing excerpts below by Steven Thomas (whom I am not familiar with, but am beginning to like a great deal after reading his comments) under the title, Unintended Consequences. I encourage each of my guest to read and mediate on the following.

    I consider Kevin [Bauder] a friend. We have crossed paths on more than one conference platform and I have gladly shared my pulpit with him.

    Next, the one thing that is most “clear” is the imbalance of the tone in “Clear.” I looked in vain to find value ascribed to fundamentalism, yet the praise for conservative evangelicals was pervasive and enthusiastic. In reality, all of the named CEs bring to the table a dangerous theological perspective—the rejection of the biblical principle of separation from the erring brother. This position guarantees the eventual apostasy of their institutions and organizations.

    There is no greater display of affinity than a shared pulpit. As some now display a measure of public unity with conservative evangelicals, unintended consequences are sure to follow. The intent of our leaders might not be “abandoning Fundamentalism” or “embracing conservative evangelicalism,” but a new generation will assume the latter and use it as an excuse to do the former. It is an undeniable certainty that many young men in our circle will view “Clear” as their certificate of emancipation. They are looking for the exit right now and imagine that Kevin is their doorman. The solution to our problems must not be found in broadening our circle (or erasing it), but in tightening it where warranted.

    Unintended consequences are, after all, consequential nonetheless.

  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  11. Well,

    Revival Fire I don’t know who you are and I was very hesitant to post your comment.

    While I appreciate your passion I personally do not appreciate the rhetoric with which you expressed your passion. I want to encourage you to meditate on Colossians 4:6 as you go forward in your life and walk with God. You need some seasoning; OK?

    We can say difficult things, very difficult things which at times I do here, but I do my dead level best to frame the difficult things in light of Colossians 4:6.

    I trust all of my guests will appreciate my feelings about what was posted above, especially how it was conveyed. I allowed the comment above for a teaching opportunity. I may, however, delete it shortly.

    RF: Why don't you go back to the drawing board on that one and give it another try. Then submit your revision. Frankly, what you wrote is what I would view as far from the best of what Fundamentalism is. You can do better!

    I expect my guests, who name the name of Christ, when they post here, to honor Him in their communication, especially in the difficult challenges before us

    Kind regards,


  12. To All:

    I trust it went without saying earlier, there are elements of RF's comment above that I certainly do not agree with or would express myself.