August 26, 2010

Cogitations Stemming From the Central/Bauder Ethos Statement

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

On Tuesday I published, Do Fundamentalists & Evangelicals, “Believe, Preach and Defend the [Same] Gospel?” There have been over 600 reads of that article to date. In the article, which is likely to have a sequel, I called upon Dr. Kevin Bauder to be honest and transparent on the true nature of the relationship between fundamentalists and evangelicals in regard to the gospel. For example,

IMO it is disingenuous and irresponsible for Kevin Bauder to speak of the Gospel in his [Differences, Part 12] article as if there is wide spread unanimity in all of Fundamentalism for agreement with evangelicals on what constitutes the Gospel, the nature of saving faith. His failure to disclose the well-known, demonstrable division in Fundamentalism over the LS interpretation of the Gospel, the open rejection of the LS gospel of the evangelicals, is in fact the practice censorship by omission. I am calling on Kevin Bauder to be honest with his readers. To publicly recognize that many men in Fundamentalism reject Calvinistic soteriology and especially the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel, which the evangelicals “believe, preach and defend.”
This morning the pseudo-Fundamentalist Sharper Iron1, whose leadership is a willing ally and conduit for the push to sweep aside significant doctrinal differences for the sake of unity between fundamentalists and evangelicals, has published Central Baptist Seminary’s Ethos Statement on Fundamentalism & Evangelicalism, which was written by Kevin Bauder. This article contains trace elements on the theme, which we have identified as a misrepresentation of the relationship on the gospel between fundamentalism and evangelicalism.

You will also note trace elements of Bauder’s departure from his predecessor Dr. Ernest Pickering’s position who, in his classic Biblical Separation taught us that separation is the struggle for a pure church. That is what Kevin Bauder is pushing aside for his new paradigm, of fellowship around his so-called “pure gospel,” or as Dave Doran references as a “gospel-driven separation.”

In his article There is a Difference and It’s a Name Changer Evangelist Gordon Phillips addressed this paradigm shift. For example he wrote,
What are the implications of changing Fundamentalism ecclesiastical separation from the purity of the church to the purity of the Gospel and forging strategic alliances with Conservative Evangelicals around that Gospel?2 At least one Fundamentalist suggests that to do that should only come with a change of labels as one is no longer in accord with historic Fundamentalism....If you are going to change your stance on ecclesiastical separation, please do not forget to change your name, as the two go hand-in-hand.... what he [Kevin Bauder] is presently doing appears to be giving the new life-filled movement of his ‘ideal’ Fundamentalism the compromised thinking of Neo Evangelicalism rather than a greater degree of Biblical fidelity.”
In the ethos statement we also read,
Because of these differences, we do not believe that complete cooperation with conservative evangelicalism is desirable.... For this reason, we believe that careful, limited forms of fellowship are possible.”
Last month that excerpt was dealt with in the article, Faith Baptist-Central Seminary Merger Talks Shelved… I encourage you to read that commentary, which includes the following,
For many what should come immediately to mind is the camel’s nose in the tent. “Careful, limited forms of fellowship” now. Sure, but it never ends there; does it? Later there will be unfettered, full cooperation. If you crack the door open, even a little, it will eventually be found wide open. Much could be said here, it is probably enough to say that elements from the institutional ethos/culture statements of each school would have yielded contributing factors for the cessation of merger talks. (edited 8/27 @ 3:35pm)
We’ll watch with great interest how these issues develop in the coming days beginning tomorrow with Kevin Bauder’s 13th installment in his series Now, About Those Differences. Kevin Bauder is well aware there is no universal “mutuality, allegiance” or agreement across the whole of fundamentalism with the evangelicals who believe, preach and defend the Lordship Salvation gospel. I am hopeful and confident he will publish a sorely needed retraction and clarification of his current misrepresentation of the relationship between fundamentalists and evangelicals on the nature of the gospel.

Yours faithfully,


LM

Addendum: (8/27/10)
Just heard from a friend who wrote, “How odd it is for 2 staunch Calvinists (Bauder/Doran) to react against the Faith/Central non-merger, which in their thinking should be accepted as Sovereignly ordained.”

For an excellent related read see Don Johnson's a new-fundamentalist manifesto at an ox goad, eh?

For important related discussion, in which the Central/Bauder ethos statement was challenged please see, SI Playing Favorites: Again???
Kevin Bauder is beginning to realize there is a growing number of persons and blogs willing to challenge his assertions. By his sharp reaction(s) at SI it is apparent he does not like this very much at all. Of course, the SI team lines up to defend him from legitimate inquires and once again gang-tackles those who dare question their star contributor.

1) SI Gang-Tackles “Doc” Clearwaters, a companion article to, A Letter from Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder by Evangelist Dwight Smith.

2) “That Gospel,” is Calvinistic soteriology in the form of Lordship Salvation.

63 comments:

  1. I think Bauder is angling to "do away with" the elements of fundamentalism he does not agree with.

    Many of the original fundamentalists were presbyterian. If they had to pick a side, don't you think they would have sided with the Lordship view as well?

    Lou, isn't your calling SI a pseudo Fundamentalist site the same thing that Kevin is doing to non LS fundies?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Josh:

    Appreciate the input. You wrote, “Lou, isn't your calling SI a pseudo Fundamentalist site the same thing that Kevin is doing to non LS fundies?”

    Not sure I follow the correlation, but what I do know is that Kevin Bauder is propagating what he and most any causal observers knows to be a gross misrepresentation of the relationship between Fundamentalists and the evangelicals on the gospel.

    SI has a long running track record of open disdain and/or hostility towards Fundamentalism. Aaron Blumer used to honestly define SI a place for fundamentalists of the conservative evangelical variety, which is what it always has been, minus the “fundamentalism.” SI is a pseudo site because it masquerades as a site for and about and to promote Fundamentalism. However, when one reads the artciles by Bauder in which he often redefines, demonizes and besmirches Fundamentalism with the broadbrush and men from its past you know what SI stands for. And SI's leadership happily endorses those kinds of articles on Fundamentalism.

    From its inception the leadership at SI has been gushing over the star personalities of evangelicalism and its conferences. And just like Bauder- SI’s publisher, admins and moderators (not every, but nearly) paint Fundamentalism in a negative light with the broad brush. They will pounce on any non-Calvinist, non-LS, who tries to defend balanced Fundamentalism or raises legitimate concerns over the many disconcerting issues in the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism. Read the article I link to above on how SI Gang-Tackled “Doc” Clearwaters. These things are why SI has driven off almost every person who would openly identify with balanced Fundamentalism and why I publicly quit SI in June 2009 after 3+ years of trying to post for the lurkers.

    Good men, who once participated at SI, have come to feel that to post at SI is the first cousin of pearls before swine if you care about Fundamentalism. I agree and hope to see SI’s demise one day.

    Anyway, the SI issue is a sidebar and I’ll leave off it with that.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  3. To All Readers (Josh especially):

    Blogger has a new comments feature I was unaware of and I just accidentally deleted 13 of 15 comments in this thread. Very frustrating!!!!

    Sorry, they can't be retrieved.

    Maybe I'll go through my e-mail notifications and repost them.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  4. Greg/RPittman (if you’re looking in):

    I’ve read your discussion over my quote that Greg posted. At SI Roland wrote, “Just in case you missed it, my point was simply that if Central is justified in condemning and separating from the far-right Fundamentalists, then the author of the second quote is justified in condemning and separating from Central.”

    You men are missing the meaning of my two paragraph quote. Nowhere do I condemn, nor did I intend to infer condemnation and separation from Central. If that is what you took from the quote I either badly communicated my meaning or you’ve simply misunderstood.

    My line under discussion is, “Hundreds of evangelists, pastors and teachers in Fundamentalism do NOT “believe, preach and defend the [LS] Gospel” of the evangelicals. We resist it as fervently as we would Roman Catholicism.”

    Would it help if I clarify with, “We resist it [LORDSHIP SALVATION of the evangelicals] as fervently as we would Roman Catholicism.”

    Does that help? I'd appreciate your communicating that in the SI thread lest readers misunderstand my meaning.


    My full quote was,

    I am among many in IFB circles who will NEVER agree with or follow the lead and influence of Bauder and Doran to increase fellowship and cooperation with these so-called “conservative” evangelicals. The first and primary reason is that they propagate a false gospel commonly known as Lordship Salvation. All other considerations, and there are several, for separation from them are secondary to that one.

    I addressed this in the previous article when I challenged Bauder to stop the gross misrepresentation that there is unanimity across Fundamentalism with the evangelicals on the Gospel. Hundreds of evangelists, pastors and teachers in Fundamentalism do NOT “believe, preach and defend the [LS] Gospel” of the evangelicals. We resist it as fervently as we would Roman Catholicism.



    LM

    PS: Someone please let these men know at SI that I have this clarifcation for them here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The whole point of your post is to distinguish yourself from preaching the same gospel as Evangelicals, which is what Bauder is asserting that he does, in statements like this one:

    "Both fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals believe the gospel, preach the gospel, and defend the gospel."

    Source: http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/resources/nick-of-time/248-now-about-those-differences-pt-12

    I'm not sure how I'm misconstruing. There are certainly those in Fundamentalism who see the problems you do with LS, and some who rather endorse the position articulated by someone like MacArthur. If you separate from the message, how is it that you are not separating from those who defend and declare it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Greg:

    In Bauder's article and the statement you cite in particular he perpetuates a gross distortion, which is that fundamentalist and evangelicals “believe, preach and defend the [same] gospel.” There is nothing that remotely suggests he is distinguishing himself or any one in Fundamentalism from the evangelicals on the gospel. This is serious misrepresentation, which I dealt with in this article. I have called on him here and privately to clarify that there are many IFB men who do not believe, preach and defend the same gospel of the evangelicals, which is Lordship Salvation. Bauder’s misrepresentation of the truth, however, is not my concern with you at the moment.

    Here is my (unfortunately deleted) thread comment that you posted at SI, with the revision for clarity in the last sentence, which is where your misunderstanding lies.

    I am among many in IFB circles who will NEVER agree with or follow the lead and influence of Bauder and Doran to increase fellowship and cooperation with these so-called ‘conservative’ evangelicals. The first and primary reason is that they propagate a false gospel commonly known as Lordship Salvation. All other considerations, and there are several, for separation from them are secondary to that one.

    I addressed this in the *previous article when I challenged Bauder to stop the gross misrepresentation that there is unanimity across Fundamentalism with the evangelicals on the Gospel. Hundreds of evangelists, pastors and teachers in Fundamentalism do NOT ‘believe, preach and defend the [LS] Gospel’ of the evangelicals. We resist it [LORDSHIP SALVATION of the evangelicals] as fervently as we would Roman Catholicism.


    I trust that is clear. We resist LS, NOT Central Seminary, as fervently as we would resist Roman Catholicism. Why? Because both are a false gospel so there is no way we would accept Bauder’ claim that we particular Fundamentalists who reject LS would ever believe, preach or defend the same gospel of the evangelicals because LS is their gospel. You need to read that final sentence without reading things into that are not there. There is no condemnation of or call for separation from the Central Seminary implied; is there?


    LM

    *Do Fundamentalist and Evangelicals, “Believe, Preach and Defend the [Same] Gospel?”

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't see the distinction. It's as if you are saying I'm separating from Roman Catholicism, but not the Pope. Yes, you are separating from LS, but there it seems to me that if institutions assert that LS is the same gospel they proclaim and defend, doesn't it stand to reason that you separate from that institution as well?

    What am I missing here? Are you saying that institutions like Central don't really know what they are teaching and preaching as it compares to LS? If they only knew, they would not say they preached the same gospel? I find that difficult to understand, if so.

    ReplyDelete
  8. BTW Greg:

    You really need to change that evil-eye image; scary.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  9. Josh:

    I've been able to reconstruct our exchange in the thread here. I am going to upload it again today. If you think I missed anything let me know; OK?

    All of the comment will be under my name to repost them for you, but I will attribute yours to you.

    Glad I was able to retrieve it through the e-mail alerts. I think we had an iron sharpening discussion.


    LOu

    ReplyDelete
  10. Greg:

    I appreciate the discussion, but we are at an impasse. I have been very clear in my explanation. My statement and clarification is very clear. Never did I have Central Seminary on my mind when I wrote those paragraphs and I still not mean to infer or imply Central in any way. I was thinking of Central no more than I would have been thinking of Grace Comm. Church or the Vatican. You need to accept that, and refrain from trying to force into or extract from those paragraphs something that is NOT there.

    I was addressing, just like in the article, that Kevin Bauder is wrong and he is misrepresenting the whole of fundamentalism when he writes without a qualifier that fundamentalists and evangelicals believe, preach and defend the [same] gospel. He is wrong, that needs to be retracted and I am going to hold him accountable for that broad brush misrepresentation. Time to move on and agree to disagree; OK?

    Please continue to the next…


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  11. Greg:

    Now, I’d like to ask you something since I understand you are a student Central. By way of preface, I have no idea what the official position of Central is on the LS interpretation of the gospel, even if they have a position they'd acknowledge; do you? Can you state with any degree of certainty that Central as an institution would take a position that the interpretation of the gospel commonly known as Lordship Salvation (like the term or not) is the official position of the seminary? What I hear and this is only second hand is that the faculty is split on the LS gospel. Some accept, some reject it. Can you shed some light on that?

    In any of your classes (or chapel) at Central has Lordship Salvation been discussed, and did the faculty member take a postion that LS is the gospel he (or the institution) believes, preaches and defends?

    FWIW, the typical experience when asking a Calvinist in fundamental circles what his position is on the LS debate he will not give a clear answer. I am hopeful that you are not one of these.

    So, let me ask you: Do you accept the LS interpretation of the Gospel as a legitimate expression of the nature of saving faith and do you believe, preach and defend that (LS) interpretation of the gospel? Please advise.

    Thanks,


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  12. INSERTING LOST THREAD COMMENTS BEGINNING HERE. Regular discission will follow.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  13. Keith wrote,

    What exactly have they said that indicates they think it wasn't divinely ordained?

    And, don't you all think it was divinely ordained? Or, did it slip by the Sovereign God? Was he napping like the gods of the pagans just this once?

    Keith

    ReplyDelete
  14. Keith:

    We’re having a little fun here; OK? If, however, you must know exactly what they have said that prompted that thought…

    The extreme reactions that Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder are publicly making about the Faith/Central non-merger. The fact that a while back Doran was wishing there was no Internet so that certain voices couldn’t be heard and now has gone on the Internet with a public rant of ignorance, coupled with Bauder praying a prayer of imprecation.

    Couldn’t these reactions cause one to wonder what has become a non-merger might have meant to one or both of them personally?


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  15. Keith:

    One more thought.

    And Josh I appreciate your comment above, so this is in part for your attention as well.

    I am among many in IFB circles who will NEVER agree with or follow the lead and influence of Bauder and Doran to increase fellowship and cooperation with these so-called “conservative” evangelicals. The first and primary reason is that they propagate a false gospel commonly known as Lordship Salvation. All other considerations, and there are several, for separation from them are secondary to that one.

    I addressed this in the previous article when I challenged Bauder to stop the gross misrepresentation that there is unanimity across Fundamentalism with the evangelicals on the Gospel. Hundreds of evangelists, pastors and teachers in Fundamentalism do NOT “believe, preach and defend the [LS] Gospel” of the evangelicals. We resist it [LORDSHIP SALVATION of the evangelicals] as fervently as we would Roman Catholicism.

    Have a blessed Lord’s day.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  16. Josh wrote,

    Lou, as I look over the site, it seems as if "fundamentalist" is such a narrow definition that the gospel does not even define it anymore. It appears that "fundamentalist" has come to mean "separatist" as its primary meaning. Even in this post you link to a book on separation.

    So whether it is Kevin Bauder or you, you are both arguing for a certain kind of separation as the defining mark of fundamentalism. Is this a fair viewpoint?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Josh:

    What I am arguing and admonishing men for is absolute fidelity to the God-given mandates for separation from unbelievers and the disobedient among us.

    2 Cor. 6:14-17; 2 John 6-11; Eph. 5:11; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; Rom. 16:17

    Biblical Separation, what Dr. Ernest Pickering (Bauder’s predecessor at Central) called the struggle for a pure church is the heritage and a defining hallmark of Fundamentalism.

    It is obvious to any objective reader that men like Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran, who claim a heritage as fundamentalist separatists, are trying to influence a generation to soften their fidelity and militancy to these Scriptural mandates for the sake of fellowship with the so-called “conservative” evangelicals.

    To ignore the preaching of the false gospel known as Lordship Salvation, to tolerate, allow for and excuse charismatic theology, worldliness in ministry and ecumenical compromises of the evangelicals for the sake of unifying with them around Calvinistic soteriology is to betray the Gospel and the Lord Jesus Christ.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  18. Josh wrote:

    Lou, I understand your point. I am not sure if you understand mine. The original fundamentalist movement that opposed modernism included all kinds of theologies. It was actually very broad. Baby sprinklers, non baby sprinklers. Lordship and nonLordship (although that term wasn't used, the covenantal calvinist surely did teach the view). Premills and amills. To be fair about charismatics, the movement wasn't really around like it is today. You seem to be arguing for a much narrower definition of what fundamentalism is or at least should be than the original group.

    Josh

    ReplyDelete
  19. Josh:

    Thanks again for the reply.

    I think we put way too much thought and stock in history. When can learn from it, but I am not terribly concerned with what was or was not done decades ago. I think our concern should be with what the inspired, immutable Word of God says about separatism and live by those mandates in any day or age.

    Rightly apply the Word of Truth to our lives no matter what the cost, even when it means you can’t hold hands with the evangelicals.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  20. Josh wrote:

    Lou I totally agree. The history of fundamentalism is not authoritative, the scripture is. I think it might be helpful though to stop referring to SI as pseudo-fundamentalist. I have no vested interest in SI. As a matter of consistency and integrity though, fundamentalism was always broad enough to allow for covenantal presbyterians and arminian KJVO baptists. Just something to think about. You don't want to be like the one you are criticizing.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Josh:

    Glad you understand my take on Scripture being the sole and final authority.

    I have to split up the following into two parts because blogger has character count limits.

    I have no intention of dropping “pseudo” from SI. It has a long history of allowing members and its moderators to participate in bashing Fundamentalism and their concerns while they at SI run interference for and gush with lavish praise over the so-called “conservative” evangelicals. It is irrefutable that SI is bent on promoting the star personalities, fellowships and concerns of evangelicals. Any legitimate criticism and the SI moderators attack the messenger. SI moderators have for years gang-piled me who reject Calvinism, LS, and the rush to embrace evangelicals. Just in the last week the SI leadership hammered two men who did not appreciate one of the SI Filings which lead to one publicly quitting SI. Dave Doran hurled ad hominem attacks at unnamed fundamentalist(s) using the phrase “pathetic and disingenuous” to describe those who opposed to and/or were relieved the merger of Faith and Central did not go through.

    This was of course happily received, promoted and encouraged by SI and Jim Peet in particular. When two other SI members called SI to the carpet over this, they were set upon by Jim Peet, comments vanished and the men were rebuked.

    You can read one of the resignation letters to Blumer over that, which is titled, SI’s Deplorable Moderator Actions Run Off Another

    There will be another pastor publicly quitting SI posted here in just a few days, same reasons, but much more detail and history.

    Last, not long ago Blumer at the site described SI as a site for fundamentalists of the evangelical variety, but later he pulled it when I wrote to congratulate him for finally being honest about what SI is in existence for, which is evangelicalism. Even though he changed that statement, it was and still is the MO of SI. Hence, for all of the above and much more that I can’t take time to develop, SI is a pseudo- fundamentalist site.

    BTW, I was very active at SI for over 3 years before I publicly quit at SI and from my blog on my own terms on June 8, 2009. See- Quit SI

    They banned me after I quit because they got their feelings hurt over my not warmly welcoming a comment from Greg Linscott at my blog. Greg can confirm this order of events if I ask him to. If anyone wants to question that departure from SI as I described it I have an e-mail from Blumer proving I first quit then they banned me afterward over Greg’s coming to comment at my blog. Anyone at SI, including Blumer and Peet, who claims that I was banned before I quit is lying and he knows it, but they don’t care about truthfulness on this incident. And if they perpetuate that story again I’ll be happy to publish Blumer’s e-mail so that they can apologize and retract their disinformation.

    Continue to next...

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. continuing from the previous...

    BTW, this is the very reason Jim Peet had a meltdown in the Doran SI Filings thread. The two men put him in the hot seat asking for clarification if I quit or was banned. They were questioning Peet about our (Dwight Smith and myself) departure over SI's legendary bias. The men objected to Jim Peet leaving a cloud of doubt, without stated evidence or verifiable justification, hanging over two godly men, Dwight Smith and yours truly. They wouldn’t accept Peet’s innuendo. Poof! Comments deleted and they were rebuked with the SI mantra dodge mechanism of “off topic,” don’t question the moderators’ decisions. (I archived the thread before SI deleted the evidence of what transpired and forwarded it to one of the men for his personal files) Simple reason for the deletion and rebuking the tow men, Jim Peet does not want to reveal the true order of events over my departure from SI.

    I could not care less if they ever wanted to ban me- before during or after my departure. I was not there for the biased SI moderators I stayed as long as I did ONLY for the lurkers. But I do not appreciate the misrepresentation, cover-up and innuendo from their moderators, Jim Peet and Blumer.

    In my 3+ years at SI I posted over 1,100 comments, wrote two main page articles for them and opened I do not know how many discussion threads with several going to the 20 page limit. I took 3+ years of the abuses only for the sake of the lurkers. I know what SI is and what it stands for.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  24. If you want clarification on LS and Central, the best place to read is here:

    http://www.centralseminary.edu/about-central/position-a-philosophy/242-ethos-statement-on-salvation-a-sanctification

    BTW: The "eye" isn't meant to be evil. It's actually a reminder for me of how fortunate I was not to have more serious injury when I was involved in a motorcycle accident just over 2 years ago. That is how my right eye looks today after plastic surgery. God was gracious to me and my family.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Greg:

    Should I take that to mean you don't know Central's position or do not want to discuss it if you do? Are you done?

    Does this mean you are not going to answer my question to you on LS? I trust you can be transparent just as I would be on the same question.

    Repeating from way above-

    FWIW, the typical experience when asking a Calvinist in fundamental circles [that would be you, Greg] what his position is on the LS debate he will not give a clear answer. I am hopeful that you are not one of these.

    So, let me ask you: Do you accept the LS interpretation of the Gospel as a legitimate expression of the nature of saving faith and do you believe, preach and defend that (LS) interpretation of the gospel?

    Please advise.


    Lou

    PS: Sorry about the injury to your eye; did not know that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I am not ducking anything with Central. That statement accurately represents the position of the school in regards to LS. There is not unanimity on the topic amongst the faculty, though it is quite apparent none would see the issue as you do as far as response and opposition.

    As far as my own position, one of the most influential books early on in my theological development (circa 1991) was The Gospel According to Jesus. While I may not word everything in quite the same language as MacArthur did, I certainly did not see anything worthy of opposition. I'll leave it to you to determine if that makes me a LS advocate. I do think there are times where Scripture emphasizes one area, and elsewhere another. I think that Scripture gives a general expectation of active progressive sanctification subsequent to initial conversion. I also think that there are occasional exceptions where the effects of that process may not be readily observable to people (such as "just" Lot in 2 Peter 2:7). However, I fully concur with the Central statement when it says "The absence of any visible manifestation of new life indicates the absence of regeneration and, hence, the absence of saving faith."

    As far as the accident: http://greglinscott.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/hi-im-greg-linscott-and-im-a-candidate-for-plastic-surgery/

    ReplyDelete
  27. Greg:

    I did not mean to suggest you ducked the question on Central, but on a re-read I can see how you drew that conclusion, my apology.

    Based on your wide acceptance of how John MacArthur defines what is known as Lordship Salvation, you would therefore be an advocate of the same. That is you would believe, preach and defend Lordship Salvation interpretation of the gospel. Is that fair?

    There are scores of ministers in Fundamentalism that reject LS a false interpretation of the gospel. That is why many of us resent Bauder’s broad brushing all of Fundamentalism into agreement with the evangelicals on the gospel when he knows that the evangelicals almost universally accept LS, as JMac defines it, as the one true gospel.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  28. For all Readers:

    For a succinct definition and example from John MacArthur on Lordship Salvation that verifies it is a works based, non-saving message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21), I invite you to read, Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page

    This article historically receives more hits than any at this blog. It is also one of the new additions to the revised and expanded edition of my book In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.

    Many of you who are uncertain what the controversy over LS is will be helped by reading this brief article. It will erase any lingering doubt that LS has corrupted the nature of saving faith.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  29. Universally accepted in evangelicalism? That seems inaccurate to me, Lou. Just look at the mass evangelistic efforts of evangelicals. How do you draw that conclusion?

    As far as your assessment of what I preach and believe- fine. I don't personally use the term, and as I said, I do think that there "practical" exceptions. I would use the term "Calvinist" more frequently. But I will not argue with you regarding your assessment.

    The question I have for you, then, is if this message is preached by some and tolerated in institutions like Central, what exactly do you mean when you say you oppose it like you oppose the Roman system? If it is as sinister as you say, isn't even toleration a problem? I mean, if a school did not advocate,but simply allowed for transubstantiation or prayers to saints or Mary or obtaining grace through adherence to sacraments, wouldn't that be just as objectionable?

    I submit that you overspoke. You may disagree, and disagree vehemently, with LS and those who teach (or even tolerate) it. However, you can operate with them to a degree you would not with a committed Catholic. I very much doubt that you would employ a quote from Pope Benedict to favor your argument as you did with John MacArthur, purveyor of false gospel that you conceive him to be. In fact, the way you oppose RC seems to be almost a foregone conclusion- you certainly don't spend much time distinguishing yourself from its errors as you do the LS position.

    I'm not doubting your stand against RC. I am simply observing that you see LS proponents differently than you do practicing RCs. You operate under a presumption that Rome is apostate. With LS proponents, even as you oppose them, you recognize there is enough of a similarity in foundational gospel principles that there is at least a conversation to be had. You recognize that churches with contrasting views on the LS issue fellowship in ways that would be unthinkable with a RC congregation.

    Or am I misunderstanding?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Greg:

    Universally accepted in evangelicalism? That seems inaccurate to me, Lou.”

    My quote was, “…evangelicals almost universally accept LS…” Please be careful not to misquote or miss a qualifier like that. It is important and that is why I used, “almost.” Similarly, that is why I never say all Calvinists are in LS as well. I know a number of Calvinists who reject LS.

    Now, name for me any man in leadership and/or on the platform of T4G that openly rejects Lordship Salvation. If you have that name link me to where he has published an open repudiation of LS. I’m giving benefit of the doubt that there may be one or more, I don’t know for sure, but it is IMO beyond a doubt that LS is, if not 100%, very nearly universally accepted among the evangelicals and I specifically mean the T4G, Gospel Coalition and Desiring God outfit.

    So, in your next comment submission please provide the name/names of a T4G platform personality or workshop speaker who openly rejects LS. I’d be very curious to know if there is such a one.

    In fact, the way you oppose RC seems to be almost a foregone conclusion- you certainly don't spend much time distinguishing yourself from its errors as you do the LS position.

    Because RC is not finding its way into Fundamental circles and it is unimagined able that a Bible-believing church in our circles would welcome RCC theology. FWIW, I grew up in the RCC the first 23 years of my life.

    On the other hand the spread of LS in our circles has been insidious. That is why I am doing what I can to inform believers of the dangers of LS, who are its prime instigators and equip them to not just recognize LS, but put a biblical defense against it so that they might warn others also.

    Thanks,


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  31. Greg:

    "With LS proponents, even as you oppose them, you recognize there is enough of a similarity in foundational gospel principles that there is at least a conversation to be had."

    The only conversation goal I would have with LS advocates would be to convince him of gross error on the gospel, i.e., the nature of saving faith, how a man is justfied, call on him to repent of it and pray that the Holy Spiort deliver him from it.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  32. I don't think it's necessary to name one from the group you mentioned, because I don't think they are necessarily indicative of Evangelicalism. In fact, nationally speaking, far more people would be familiar with someone like Joel Osteen or Billy or Franklin Graham than they would a Mark Dever or John MacArthur. We won't even bother to begin to list musical celebrities. Look at Christianity Today. It's hardly been dominated by the names and organizations you mention. Though they may be growing in significance, there is far more to Evangelicalism than the narrow segment you target.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Still, you would not post a statement like this of the Pope, I imagine:

    -----------
    I think Dr. Ernest Pickering, another soldier in the early fight to resist the teaching and spread of Lordship Salvation, answered this best when, in his review of MacArthur’s TGATJ he wrote,

    “John MacArthur is a sincere servant of the Lord, of that we have no doubt.... We believe in his advocacy of the so-called lordship salvation he is wrong. He desperately desires to see holiness, lasting fruit, and continuing faithfulness in the lives of Christian people. This reviewer and we believe all sincere church leaders desire the same.... But the remedy for this condition is not found in changing the terms of the gospel.”
    ---------------

    Source: http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2010/07/lordship-salvation-forgotten-truth-or.html?showComment=1279033495260#c2740616820586384221

    I'm not saying you don't oppose. I'm saying your approach indicates that you do (for all your protesting to the contrary) see a difference between RC and LS advocates.

    ReplyDelete
  34. C’mon now Greg.

    It is the very T4G, so-called “conservative” evangelicals that are at root of the controversy in our circles. Bauder and Doran are heaping lavish praise on them. Doran has hosted three evangelical at his pulpit and seminary in the last year. Bauder especially wants to open the door for greater fellowship with them, but of course he is brushing aside their charismatic theology, worldly methods of ministry and ecumenical compromises to have that fellowship. The so-called “pure gospel” that Bauder and Doran want to raise as the rally point of fellowship and cooperation the T4G types is Calvinistic soteriology in the form of LS.

    So, give me the name of any T4G leader/speaker who openly rejects LS. Surely there must be one, but I don’t think so.


    Lou

    PS: Interesting mention of Billy Graham. We do remember that Mohler chaired the Billy Graham crusade in Louisville; right?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Not sure what Mohler/Graham has to do with the issues at hand.

    I don't know of any of the group that you mention. Then again, I don't share the opposition to the position that you do.

    The point I was trying to make when I noted your exaggeration ("universally accepted") is that Evangelicalism is bigger than the narrow slice you are focusing on. As this conversation even indicates, Fundamentalism encompasses a great deal as well.

    Getting back to my point, as lines are being drawn in Evangelicalism (such as the distinctions being made between T4G/GC types and those more pragmatic and purpose driven, so are they being drawn in Fundamentalist contexts over issues such as those discussed here, in pertinent threads at SI, and statements like the one that prompted said SI thread. In this discussion, all I was trying to observe by quoting you is that it is not only Central's faculty attempting to define who they will and will not cooperate with at certain levels. Whatever else we might say here, I do think that is one apparent point that has been made and illustrated.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Greg:

    Thanks for all the commentary. I’ll touch on a few of them.

    You wrote, “I'm saying your approach indicates that you do (for all your protesting to the contrary) see a difference between RC and LS advocates.”

    I do recognize a difference, but as I said above the RCC is not infiltrating our circles, unless of course we continue to embrace Al Mohler, then the door for it is opened just a little because of his cooperation with Billy Graham’s crusade and signing the Manhattan Declaration with RCC priests.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  37. Greg:

    You wrote, “The point I was trying to make when I noted your exaggeration (‘universally accepted’) is that Evangelicalism is bigger than the narrow slice you are focusing on.”

    There you go again, please don’t misquote me, I wrote “…evangelicals almost universally accept LS…” Thank you.

    Anyway, the “narrow slice” of evangelicalism that is being presented to our circles as worthy of increased fellowship with is the so-called “conservative” evangelicals such as populate T4G. That IS the slice that is the cause of controversy and debate. That is why I focus on that narrow slice. This is very similar to my 2+ years of battling the Grace Evangelical Society faction of the Free Grace movement. It was the GES, Hodges, Wilkin faction that was trying to poison the church with their “Crossless” gospel reductionist heresy. There are other factions in the Free Grace camp, but GES is the danger.

    Also wrote “Not sure what Mohler/Graham has to do with the issues at hand.”

    What is has to do with it is this. I take every opportunity to remind my readers that men like Bauder are willing to tolerate, allow for and excuse the raw ecumenism of Al Mohler for the sake influencing men in our circles to embrace and fellowship with men like Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, et. al.

    Calvinistic men in our circles are willing to pursue greater cooperation with, attend and endorse the ministry and fellowships (T4G) of men like Al Mohler who is willing to cooperate with unbelievers and the disobedient among us. Why? Because they crave the fellowship with evangelicals who are like-minded around Calvinistic soteriology and will excuse even Mohler’s sponsorship of a Billy Graham crusade and signing the Manhattan Declaration to pursue that fellowship.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  38. Greg:

    You wrote, “lines are being drawn in Evangelicalism (such as the distinctions being made between T4G/GC types and those more pragmatic and purpose driven…

    I don't think I'm misreading you so I'll ask: Do you want to stand by that?

    Piper (T4G/GC) is hosting Rick Warren (PD) at Desiring God. Maybe you should rethink your comment above. This move by Piper puts him clearly in the New Evangelical camp. See- John Piper, “I’m Going to Need Help to Know Why I Should Feel bad About This Decision? I gave him that help in the article.

    Now the next consideration: Is Mohler going to be real chummy with Warren on the platform as well? Or will he pull out of DG over it? Your thoughts? Would you bow out if you found out you’d be sharing a platform with Rick Warren? I’m just curious.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  39. Quick story- when I was a deputation missionary I was scheduled to participate at a missions’ conference at a large church on the east coast. Shortly before I found out they had brought in a special speaker, a known evangelist with questionable, ecumenical ties. What did I do? Best I could gracefully uninvited myself with my board director’s knowledge and blessing. I was not about to share a platform with an ecumenical compromiser even if it meant losing the chance for financial support.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Lou,

    When you say "...men like Bauder are willing to tolerate, allow for and excuse the raw ecumenism..." and such...

    (By the way- I'm not intending to misquote you, here or elsewhere. the original source is readily available in the thread.)

    ...you do not allow for the differences in the way that you and Bauder are approaching the matter. Kevin has said countless times that separation is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Your approach seems to be more along the lines that it is. Kevin's affirmation of someone like Mohler is limited. He affirms things that ought to be appreciated and learned from, even as he maintains a distinct distance. The positive occasions he has spoken have not resulted in any visible, active partnerships. He is striving to separate consistently where the issues divide them.

    One of the things Kevin is known for/notorious for (depending on who you talk to) here in Minnesota is instituting a policy that prevented incoming students relocating to the Twin Cities to attend Central from joining or regularly attending Bethlehem Baptist (Piper's church). This was not something formally in place before he became president of Central. It seems to me that those kind of things aren't factored in when charges like yours are leveled. If he was truly desirous of "leaving a door open," why implement such a policy?

    Pursuing your sidebar question: I wouldn't have to struggle with whether or not I'd share a platform with Warren, because I can't envision a scenario where I'd have liberty of conscience to speak for Piper. While I can appreciate him personally, and have utilized some of his materials in ministry, even, I think there is wisdom in maintaining distance from him for several reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hi Lou & Greg,

    Wow this thread got long fast!

    I have a couple of comments which I hope will move the commentary ahead a bit, and not stifle conversation.

    Greg, you made a couple of points that caught my eye.

    I submit that you overspoke. You may disagree, and disagree vehemently, with LS and those who teach (or even tolerate) it. However, you can operate with them to a degree you would not with a committed Catholic.

    Lou has responded briefly, but perhaps I can answer as well.

    First, it would be seldom that a committed Catholic would post something that would be useful for the purposes of pointing someone to unadulterated truth. In this there is a vast difference between the likes of MacArthur and those who populate the Vatican. MacArthur knows his audience, and he knows the reasons he's popular. I believe that he mostly wants to seek and serve the truth, but I do not believe this is the same with the Vatican.

    It's not that MacArthur is more legitimate, and therefore more reasonable to "partner" with... it is that he is willing to point to truth so long as it doesn't damage his ability to propagate his favorite theology. One might rightly say that similarly the committed Catholic would be right about a topic such as Abortion - though most probably for the wrong reasons.

    Also, as Lou mentioned, but more pointedly even biblically illiterate and impressionable Christians are not easy pray for RC theology because there is a unified front against that particular error in much of Christiendom.

    This brings me to the second point of yours that caught my eye.

    You said The point I was trying to make when I noted your exaggeration ("universally accepted") is that Evangelicalism is bigger than the narrow slice you are focusing on.

    You're right too! But the problem is that even the followers of the other men you mention, Osteen for example (one might add John Piper's new buddy Rick Warren as well) - even their followers know these people are not authorities on the Word. But John MacArthur, John Piper and the likes of Paul Washer are ROCK STARS. People can quote them at length and seemingly take their every word as equal to Scripture.

    Why does Lou argue so against these men and not RC proponents? Because they are rock stars, they should have been one hit wonders that the Church stopped listening too by the end of their first sermon but instead we have their extended works and all the resulting sermons imprinted on our minds forever... like a nasty Britney Spears song that you wish everyone would just forget.

    LS theology proponents take no prisoners, and those who get caught up in it are persuaded that to deny LS is to deny the Lordship of Christ and therefore prove themselves unsaved...

    As diabolical as RC theology is for enslaving the lost, LS theology is just the same for enslaving the Saved.The Gospel can set the Lost free, but with prayer and teaching we have but strong argument available to us to help enslaved Christians.

    It is a quiet and blunt tool sometimes, but I'm confident that the Lord can add His blessing even to this crude offering.

    In Christ,

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  42. Lou,

    Your comment I was not about to share a platform with an ecumenical compromiser even if it meant losing the chance for financial support.

    Really hits close to home right now. With my recent resignation from the ministry I left my career to serve with I chose truth over a fleshy confidence that I'd be able to draw an income from a growing and popular ministry.

    As the Lord has been faithful to you, I know He will also be so with my family.

    I'm sure He is pleased when a child of His chooses Him over a meal. Perhaps these small offerings of faith can be magnified in the boldness of those with more to risk for the Truth.

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  43. But Greg:

    Before I tackle your latest (later tonight) you wrote, “lines are being drawn in Evangelicalism such as the distinctions being made between T4G/GC types and those more pragmatic and purpose driven…

    In light of John Piper of T4G & GC hosting Purpose Driven’s high priest Rick Warren (PD) at Desiring God; do you want to stand by that? This move by Piper puts him clearly in the New Evangelical camp.

    I’ll get back to you later.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  44. Brian Ernsberger8/31/2010 6:08 PM

    Greg,
    You wrote a while back,
    "I also think that there are occasional exceptions where the effects of that process may not be readily observable to people (such as 'just' Lot in 2 Peter 2:7). However, I fully concur with the Central statement when it says 'The absence of any visible manifestation of new life indicates the absence of regeneration and, hence, the absence of saving faith.'"

    You want your cake and eat it too!

    You agree with Central's statement, yet you also believe that maybe they are wrong and there can be new life in someone who doesn't exhibit any outward sign of such. Which is it Greg? As you note Lot, there is not "any visible manifestation of new life" when you look at the Genesis account of Lot's life, yet Peter calls him "just." By Central's statement we would have to conclude that Lot is lost, yet we know otherwise. You give us a Bible example that disproves Central's statement,yet you concur with their statement. James 1:8 "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways" readily comes to mind right now as I ponder what you are saying.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Brian Ernsberger8/31/2010 6:47 PM

    Greg,
    You need to get your facts right about Central and Bethlehem Baptist. You stated,
    "One of the things Kevin is known for/notorious for (depending on who you talk to) here in Minnesota is instituting a policy that prevented incoming students relocating to the Twin Cities to attend Central from joining or regularly attending Bethlehem Baptist (Piper's church). This was not something formally in place before he became president of Central. It seems to me that those kind of things aren't factored in when charges like yours are leveled. If he was truly desirous of "leaving a door open," why implement such a policy?"
    Here is a link to an SI thread that shows Dr. Bauder stating otherwise. His comment is post #15 dated Oct. 30, 2009. http://sharperiron.org/article/fundamentalist-challenge-for-21st-century-do-we-have-future-part-3
    I will do a part two and post Dr. Bauder's post.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Greg Part two,
    Here is Dr. Bauder's "Official Clarification."
    "While I don't want to ignore Jim's exhortation to drop the subject, it might be useful to have an explanation of Central Seminary's policy on church attendance.
    Here is Bob Hayton's original statement and question:
    "I believe there is a rule that a member of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis (John Piper's church), cannot even take classes at Central. [At least that's how it was in 2003 when my brother looked into taking some classes from Central, then.] This is the kind of thing that turns young fundamentalists off. What are fundamentalists afraid of?"
    I am afraid that this statement is mistaken on several counts. Now, here is my explanation--an explanation that is a close to "official" as you can get.
    (1) We certainly will accept students from Bethlehem Baptist or from any other gospel-preaching church. Our student population is not limited either to Baptists or to Fundamentalists. We believe that our position is quite defensible and are more than happy to teach it to students who come from different kinds of evangelical backgrounds. If you come to Central Seminary, you will find yourself in class with people from a various sorts of evangelicals.
    (2) Our mission is not to help people leave Fundamentalism for any less biblical version of Christianity. So if a person is coming to Minneapolis as a new student, then we require that person to find membership in a church that meets certain criteria. Our mission is to train Christian leaders for ministry that embodies certain practical and theological values. As a seminary, we cannot accomplish that mission without the help of the local church. In fact, it is really the other way 'round--we are the helpers, and the local churches are the primary trainers. We deliberately partner with churches and pastors that share certain values. If a student chooses to separate from those churches, we take that as an indication that he has already rejected those values. A student who refuses to consider and experience the values that we hold is probably not going profit greatly from his experience here. Therefore, we believe that we are justified in requiring new students coming from outside the area to settle in a church that holds our values."
    More to come.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Brian Ernsberger8/31/2010 6:57 PM

    Greg stated,
    "One of the things Kevin is known for/notorious for (depending on who you talk to) here in Minnesota is instituting a policy that prevented incoming students relocating to the Twin Cities to attend Central from joining or regularly attending Bethlehem Baptist (Piper's church). This was not something formally in place before he became president of Central. It seems to me that those kind of things aren't factored in when charges like yours are leveled. If he was truly desirous of "leaving a door open," why implement such a policy?"

    Interesting, here is what Dr. Bauder had to say about this very thing on SI back on October 30, 2009. This will be segmented because of its length.
    "Official Clarification
    While I don't want to ignore Jim's exhortation to drop the subject, it might be useful to have an explanation of Central Seminary's policy on church attendance.
    Here is Bob Hayton's original statement and question:
    "I believe there is a rule that a member of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis (John Piper's church), cannot even take classes at Central. [At least that's how it was in 2003 when my brother looked into taking some classes from Central, then.] This is the kind of thing that turns young fundamentalists off. What are fundamentalists afraid of?"
    I am afraid that this statement is mistaken on several counts. Now, here is my explanation--an explanation that is a close to "official" as you can get.
    (1) We certainly will accept students from Bethlehem Baptist or from any other gospel-preaching church. Our student population is not limited either to Baptists or to Fundamentalists. We believe that our position is quite defensible and are more than happy to teach it to students who come from different kinds of evangelical backgrounds. If you come to Central Seminary, you will find yourself in class with people from a various sorts of evangelicals.
    (2) Our mission is not to help people leave Fundamentalism for any less biblical version of Christianity. So if a person is coming to Minneapolis as a new student, then we require that person to find membership in a church that meets certain criteria. Our mission is to train Christian leaders for ministry that embodies certain practical and theological values. As a seminary, we cannot accomplish that mission without the help of the local church. In fact, it is really the other way 'round--we are the helpers, and the local churches are the primary trainers. We deliberately partner with churches and pastors that share certain values. If a student chooses to separate from those churches, we take that as an indication that he has already rejected those values. A student who refuses to consider and experience the values that we hold is probably not going profit greatly from his experience here. Therefore, we believe that we are justified in requiring new students coming from outside the area to settle in a church that holds our values."
    More coming.

    ReplyDelete
  48. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Brian Ernsberger8/31/2010 8:56 PM

    Greg, here's the next part.
    "(3) One reason that this is important is because our students pay less than twenty percent of the cost of their education. The rest of their education is a gift from the Lord's people. Those who provide that gift have done so in the belief that we are committed to fostering a particular set of doctrinal and practical values in our students, so that those values can be perpetuated by our graduates. If we were to make it our mission to assist young leaders in abandoning our values, then we would have to face a crisis of conscience when we faced our donors and supporters. In other words, there is an ethical dimension to our policy on church membership.
    (4) The decision as to whether a church holds our values is left between the student and the pastor of that church. Central Seminary does not maintain a list of approved churches. We do not investigate churches. We do not intrude into churches except when we are asked. If a student wants to know whether a particular church is appropriate under our policy on church membership, we tell him to ask the pastor. If the pastor identifies with our values as described in the policy, then the student is welcome to take membership in that church. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that the policy affects certain versions of Fundamentalism as profoundly as it affects non-Fundamentalist evangelicalism.
    (5) We are not really interested in turning out students who are loyal to the Fundamentalist name or movement. For one thing, there is no Fundamentalist movement to be loyal to any more. For another, the various splinter movements of Fundamentalism are not loyal to one another, so it would be impossible for one of our graduates to be loyal to all of them. For a third thing, not all Fundamentalists are equally loyal to the Word of God--in fact, some non-Fundamentalist evangelicals are more loyal to Scripture than some celebrated Fundamentalists. The only way to avoid confusion is to be driven by values and principles, not by partisan loyalties. In order for that to happen, one must learn the values and see the principles put to work. We want our students to do exactly that--hence, the policy."

    So which is it? Can they or can't they be members at Bethlehem? Bauder says yes, you say no. hmmmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Brian,

    Just read point #2 in the excerpt you quoted. I do have my facts straight. The end result is what I said.

    Re: my "cake"- The Central statement also notes "We hold a variety of understandings about the immediacy of the visible manifestations of new life, the extent to which this life must be evidenced, and the degree to which lapses in visible growth might occur."

    As far as the rest, we are straying far from the original reason I commented here (which was that there are distinctions being made and people parting ways within Fundamentalism, indications of which were not limited to Central's statements), much less the point of Lou's post. I'm not saying I'm done, but I don't intend to pursue this much more strenuously. I have plenty of other matters requiring my attention.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Like I said, I have no vested interested in SI. I simply find it a distraction. Please don't forget that ever since the presbyterians left the fundamentalist camp, the various groups all contended for power as to who truly represented fundamentalism. The Jack Hyles brand was as strong as the John R. Rick which was as strong as others. They all claimed the same thing and thought less of the other camps. The truth is that they all shared what made them fundamentalists.

    Even if SI gangtackles certain people, aren't they just acting like so many have in the past? Again, I couldn't care less about SI. I am not even registered. I personally find the label a tactic used by the people you complain about over there.

    I don't see how it helps fundamentalism. That is all. No offence intended if you felt as much.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hi Josh:

    We’ll drop the SI issues here with this, but I appreciate your interaction on it. Next week I have a special exposé on SI written by another preacher who recently quit them. He was very active and I’ll let you read his take when the article uploads next week. For now, you can read Pastor Brian Ernsberger’s (same Brain as in this thread) who quit SI and published his resignation letter to Aaron Blumer. His reason for quitting typifies why many of us quit SI and others stayed away in the first place. Read SI’s Deplorable Moderator Actions Run Off Another

    Aaron appears to think he can woo some of the departed back; he is way too late and sorely mistaken.

    Last night a preacher sent me an e-mail advising me of this recent quote at SI, from one of its leadership, “SI is not trying to redefine Fundamentalism or doctrine.” Is he kidding or incredibly naïve? Since its inception SI has been trying to castigate and redefine Fundamentalism to appease a segment of angry YF’s (which is about all SI has left in their membership) and furthermore make fundamentalism compatible and tasteful for the evangelicals whom SI heaps lavish praise on.

    Even if SI gangtackles certain people, aren't they just acting like so many have in the past?

    SI moderators certainly do gang tackle and YES this is acting just like what they denounce from others in the past. Problem is: SI does not even realize that they (moderators and some vocal members) have become the very thing they detest.

    Well, the new SI resignation article will up next week.

    Take care and I appreciate your charitable participation here. Come back anytime.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  53. Greg:

    Borrowing from Paul who said, “this is the third time I am coming to you.” Earlier you wrote, “lines are being drawn in Evangelicalism (such as the distinctions being made between T4G/GC types and those more pragmatic and purpose driven…

    In light of John Piper of T4G & GC hosting Purpose Driven’s high priest Rick Warren (PD) at Desiring God; do you want to stand by that? This move by Piper puts him clearly in the New Evangelical camp.

    Furthermore, you have several of the star personalities of this so-called “conservative” evangelicalism scheduled to and will be speaking at the conference with Rick Warren. Personalities such as: Al Mohler, R. C. Sproul, Thabiti Anyabwile who are your T4G/GC headliners. Then you can add some of the lesser knowns such as Randy Alcorn and Kevin DeYoung. (Mohler’s well-known track record of ecumenical compromises removed any thought that he might have given some thought to withdrawing from the conference.)

    All of these men are going to join Piper and Rick Warren. Everyone one of us knows that not one of the conservative evangelicals will have one word of open admonition or rebuke for Warren at the DG conference. No more than they did for Piper at T4G for inviting Warren.

    So, again, how can a reasonable argument can be made that the “T4G/GC types” are drawing lines between themselves and “those more pragmatic and purpose driven?” The evidence testifies to the opposite.

    Greg, based on the present obvious example to the contrary, would you consider rethinking your earlier statement?


    LM

    PS: It is possible I will convert this to a main page article. I will be charitable, but I do want to use your quote and ask if this impression you articulated is widespread among the YF’s and encourage them to rethink it based on the evidence if it is.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Greg/All:

    In light of Piper hosting Rick Warren at Desiring God (DG) next month; do you think it might be wise and reasonable for Central and other seminaries in or circles to put DG off limits for their student body?

    Just wondering.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hi Lou,

    It may be wise, depending on the motives involved, but it can not be seen as reasonable.

    Compromise that is mitigated by out of character moments of separation is nothing more than applied hypocrisy.

    What surely would be wise and reasonable would be for these organizations to halt their plans for interaction and do what we see the Church do in Scripture. Acts 15. Meet and determine what the Scriptures say and then go forward based solely on this.

    Then they can rightly separate from those preaching error without it seeming like a crap-shoot.

    Just some thoughts,

    Kev

    *PS the captcha graphic for this post is "sinsini" yikes!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Lou,

    Again, you center on one point and make it indicative of everything.Regarding Evangelicalism, one could just as easily counter you with John MacArthur on Rick Warren (or even Driscoll). Regarding Fundamentalism, one could cite the wide variety of speakers within Fundamentalism that have hosted recently by Bob Jones University. Our perspective is relatively close and lines are being drawn- but walls aren't established. It will be interesting to see how these things develop.

    But put DG off limits? Many might disagree with me, but I say no. Personal anecdote: one of the key points in developing my approach to music (which is pretty conservative) was attending a few CCM events, including an arena concert with a big name band. Practically speaking the price of attending DG (which is north of $150) will be an obstacle for many struggling seminary students. But beyond that, I think it would be somewhat educational to not only see similarities (which are easy to focus on in printed materials) but differences. You're not dealing with young college students, anyway. A great deal of students come married, and many have children. If they wanted to "push the envelope," there are many other options they could pursue rather than Central.

    Take it FWIW. I don't pretend to speak for any group or segment. I certainly don't think I'm indicative of any "YF" movement. I'll be scarce these next few days, with Wednesday night services and church related matters taking most of Thursday.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Greg:

    I understand and appreciate all of the above. I also see that you have responsibilities with your own ministry and that certainly is a better way to redeem the time than blogging.

    You say, “…you center on one point and make it indicative of everything.”

    The ecumenical compromises of Mohler, Duncan, et. al., is the BIG thing in the debate (after Lordship Salvation for many us). It is the area with which the Bible clearly speaks to and we have self-described biblical separatists who have and are willing to tolerate, allow for and excuse for the sake of fellowship what the Bible does not.

    I may have one more on this theme for the attention of you and all, get to it later if you are able.

    One thought since you mention music: I am very conservative, prefer the traditional hymns and the very conservative type music from SMS, that sort of thing. You went to a CCM concert; yikes and gadzookes! My approach to music as a believer developed because I was not saved until 23 and until then went to untold numbers of Rock-N-Roll concerts in the 60’s-70’s. So, when I hear CCM, like from MacArthur’s Resolved conference, I hear the same sound, inferior to the Rock music their trying to imitate, but the same and I’ll leave it at that.

    $150 for DG? Highway robbery if you ask me. I do understand the difference between seminary and young college students. One of our traditionally fundamental Bible colleges way north of me and east of you has taken their young college students to DG, with faculty sponsorship, hasn’t it? Not good!

    A closing note to you for all: You have been a gracious guest and I appreciate that you’ve interacted with me and others here. Hope the time spent was edifying.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  58. Lou- the north of $150 is the cost for DG, not concerts I went to.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Greg:

    Yeah, I figured that out and made the edit to the original 60 seconds after the first.

    BTW, send me an e-mail I want to offer you something.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  60. To All:

    Aaron Blumer, site publisher of the pseudo- fundamentalist Sharper Iron (SI) has sizzled over and reacted to articles at my obscure blog Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet and criticism of SI elsewhere, such as in this thread.

    He has reacted to the legitimate criticism coming from various sources to the obvious bias and other verifiable issues with SI. Not unexpectedly he does not disclose vital facts that would be problematic to his team and site.

    See, SI Sizzles In & Over the Iron Skillet for full details.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  61. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Lou,

    The disclaimer is nothing new-

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060115193943/www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=1644

    http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/Nick/Nick001.htm (see the right hand sidebar column).

    ReplyDelete
  63. Greg:

    Thanks for the correction. I stand humbly corrected. Will delete the above.

    Thank you,


    LM

    ReplyDelete