The Best of 2010

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

It is time for the 5th Best of IDOTG (2010) series. What qualifies an article for Best of status? A number of factors including a particularly credible theological piece or a review of significant events that affect the Christian (IFB) community. With well over 100 articles to choose from it is difficult to narrow the list to ten, but here are the Top Ten from 2010.

Northland International University’s Convergence with Evangelicalism: What Does This Mean For Impressionable Students?

“In April 2010 Matt Olson, Sam Horn, Les Ollila and Doug McLachlan traveled to the Grace Community Church (GCC) to meet with John MacArthur, Phil Johnson and Rick Holland. After a day of discussions the NIU men came away finding no reason not to have and increase fellowship with them. Inviting GCC’s executive pastor, Rick Holland, to speak in chapel confirms a new alliance for NIU with evangelicalism.”

John Piper to Feature Rick Warren at Desiring God

“John Piper hosts and endorses the ministry of Mark Driscoll who has preached at Robert Schuler’s Crystal Cathedral and is notorious for disgraceful filth speech in the pulpit. Now Piper adds Rick Warren to his approved list of keynote speakers. No one can understand or explain why Piper embraces Rick Warren except Piper himself. This is a huge disconnect from what Piper writes in his books. One must question that Piper believes what he writes in his own books.” (Continue to, John Piper, “I’m Going to Need Help to Know Why I Should Feel bad About This Decision.”

Sharper Iron Sizzles In and Over the Iron Skillet

“I would encourage the few current or potential advertisers who feel strongly about Fundamentalism to consider if SI is the best place to invest the resources God has entrusted to you. SI is a site that frequently allows for, promotes, and its leadership happily joins in on, the redefining, castigation and besmirchment of fundamentalism.... To any fundamentalists who still has their membership with or participates at SI: I understand that you feel you may be posting for the lurkers, posting to represent what the best of fundamentalism has to offer. That is very noble and primarily why myself and others used to participate at SI putting up with the moderator’s bias, shrill complaints and gang-tackling. There comes a time, however, when you have to consider whether or not you can post at a site that does not cherish the fundamentalism you do and instead of building up fundamentalism redefines and besmirches it with impunity.” For additional commentary on SI see, I Had to Ask, “How Does This Sharpen Me?”)

A two part series by Dr. Manfred E. Kober, Lordship Salvation: Forgotten Truth or a False Doctrine?

“If you were Satan, which doctrine would you want to undermine? Which area of theology would you pervert, to prevent people from being saved? An individual may be wrong about the doctrine of the church or deny the millennial kingdom and yet doubtless be gloriously redeemed. However, if a person is wrong on the doctrine of salvation, specifically, the prerequisites for salvation, he misses the very heart of the gospel. One would expect Satan to attack in the area of soteriology. Indeed, he has! The informed and discerning believer soon realizes that there is a battle raging among evangelicals and fundamentalists over the matter of the conditions for salvation.”

Kevin Bauder & Dave Doran to Join Mark Dever at Lansdale: Is This a Fundamentalism Worth Saving?

Anyone believing this cooperative fellowship with Dever is going to be the full extent “limited form of fellowship,” is mistaken. Dever is just the latest step toward greater compromise of genuine biblical separatism for expanding the boundaries of limited fellowship. Dever is the bridge that will take Bauder, Doran and those they are seeking to influence to completely embrace the entire T4G/Gospel Coalition community.

Salvation and Discipleship by Dr. Rick Flanders

One of the most hotly debated issues in the Lordship Salvation (LS) controversy revolves around the doctrines of salvation and discipleship. Most LS advocates see these as one and the same. LS advocates blur the lines of distinction, which creates an evangelistic message that conditions the reception of eternal life on a lost man’s upfront commitment to what should be the results of a genuine conversion in discipleship. Dr. Rick Flanders wrote an article in 2007 titled, Salvation and Discipleship that addresses this vital issue in the Lordship Salvation controversy.

Let’s Get Clear on This: A Response to Kevin Bauder’s “Cannonball” Cogitations: “Foremost Defenders of the Gospel Today?”

“In this series we have thoroughly reviewed Let’s Get Clear on This by Dr. Kevin Bauder who has become conservative evangelicalism’s chief apologist in and to Fundamentalism. We have discussed a series of disconcerting issues with the so-called conservative evangelicals. While all of the issues are highly troublesome there is a single great danger that trumps all of the others combined. In this article we are going to discuss conservative evangelicals and a segment of [Calvinistic] Fundamentalists, “converging around a particular interpretation of the Gospel.”

Do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, “Believe, Preach and Defend the [Same] Gospel?

“There is no universal ‘mutuality in the gospel’ among evangelicals and fundamentalists. ‘Evangelicals and fundamentalists are [NOT] united in their allegiance to the gospel,’ because there is a vast difference between what evangelicals and non-Calvinists in Fundamentalism believe to be the one true Gospel. It is irrefutable, and Kevin Bauder is well aware, that many men in Fundamentalism reject Calvinistic soteriology in the form of Lordship Salvation as a false, works based Gospel. It is, furthermore, indisputable that virtually every man in ‘conservative’ evangelicalism is a passionate advocate for Lordship Salvation, which Bauder is also well aware of. Men in Fundamentalism who reject Lordship Salvation as a false works-based message are as aware as Bauder is that evangelicals are almost universal in agreement on Lordship Salvation as John MacArthur defines it.”

Faith Baptist-Central Seminary Merger Talks Shelved: An Opinion Piece

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.

Can an Unregenerate Person Believe the Gospel?

“Those who insist that God must regenerate a person before that person can believe define total depravity as man’s total inability to respond positively to God. They believe that an unregenerate person cannot even understand and believe the gospel. This view is held by Reformed theology and strong versions of Calvinism…. Many biblical arguments show that man’s sinfulness does not require regeneration before faith…. To say that a person goes from being spiritually dead to eternally alive before he believes in Jesus Christ is both absurd and contrary to biblical teaching.”

“Pious Drudges” Evangelist Dwight Smith Responds to Dr. Kevin Bauder’s Now, About Those Differences, Part 23

It was my ninth grade year at Fourth Baptist Christian School in Minneapolis, MN. I had finished classes for the day and was just stopping by to see my youth pastor. He was a good youth pastor, and in many ways, one of the best that I would have. He took these few moments to disciple me. We chatted for a while and somehow began discussing the Bible.

In the course of conversation the Version Issue came up. He began waxing eloquent on the “pros” or “cons” of different Bible versions. Because of the training he was receiving from Central Baptist Theological Seminary, he believed that all Bible versions in spite of their omissions and additions were the Word of God. He failed to consider the possibility that the Devil just might be interested in polluting and distorting God’s Word, and he dismissed the concerns of those who by conviction held to the King James Version. As he was expressing his far reaching knowledge of Biblical languages, he stopped short and motioned for me to come behind his desk. When I did, he pointed to his open Bible where he had turned to Acts 8:37. I looked down to see where, with a black pen, he had completely blotted out these essential words. In the course of his discourse he said, “You see, Dwight, this verse is not in the original manuscripts.” Who knows what practical benefit he hoped to impart by believing and then teaching this to me. I didn’t think to ask if he had ever seen a copy of the original manuscripts. I didn’t know that he had received this “profound” information from some liberal, Christ-denying author. He was simply parroting what he had heard some seminary professor (naïve at best, deceptive at worst) say about the Bible. In his mind, it was only the logical step to completely mark out portions that “did not belong” in the Sacred Text. For these and a myriad of other Biblical reasons, I have chosen to hold to the Received Text and the King James Bible, and to reject the Westcott & Hort Text and all modern translations. This happened in the 1980’s. Apparently at Central, not much has changed.

The current president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Kevin Bauder, has been offering, for all who care to read, a wide smorgasbord of self-conflicting and Bible-deficient tomes. In part 22 of his series he dismissed the need to expound on 2 Thess. 3. This is a sad display of what happens when a man or institution turns to human reason instead of the Bible for their moorings. In his most recent installment, he levels another illogical attack against anyone who holds to the King James Bible and its underlying Received Text. To his credit, he did differentiate between those who simply hold to the above mentioned position and those who believe in double inspiration, or that one can only be saved from the King James Version, and a few other aberrations. However his most recent diatribe is flawed on several counts.

If there were time, we could show that his attack misses the point of why some brethren have come to these convictions. We simply believe that this issue is a part of defending the great doctrines of the Inspiration of the Scripture (I Timothy 3:16-17, II Peter 1:19-21), the Preservation of the Scripture (I Peter 1:23-25, Psalm 12:6-7), the Infallibility of the Scripture (Proverbs 30:5-6) to name a few. We believe that the Devil has, since Genesis 3, tried to alter, distort, confuse, and pervert God’s Word (Genesis 3:1, 4-5; Luke 4:10). We believe “That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). We believe that adding to or taking away from the Word of God is a direct violation of Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, Revelation 22:18-19 and brings the severest of God’s judgments. We believe that every generation has had and will have a perfect copy of God’s Word available to them (Isaiah 59:21). This is the point Bauder completely misses of why we hold to this conviction.

If we cared to, we could at length address Kevin Bauder’s cloaked love for and affinity to the founder of his institution, Richard V. Clearwaters. Bauder attempts to quote Clearwaters as being on his side of the argument. In fact, Clearwaters was not. He said on page 86 of his autobiography On the Upward Road, “All of the Bible is important. Jesus referred to even jots and tittles. We cannot say this part is important in the Bible and this part isn’t important. If we were to remove some part of the Bible at some time and place, it will be missed.”

Again on page 87 he stated

“Every word is important, a Biblicist will appeal to the words and all the words of Scripture.” On page 88 he declared, “If you violate one part, you violate it all. It’s all a solid unit put together. So I think a Biblicist gets to be a lonely person first of all because he is called a ‘literalist’ or a ‘worshipper of a black book’. He believes the whole Bible is inspired, every word and every jot and tittle…Many translators do violence to the Word of God. For instance ‘Through the blood of His cross’ Phillips omits the word ‘blood’, so that it reads, ‘Sacrifice of the cross’. These self-styled translators are diluting (polluting might be a better term) the Bible by twisting it to accommodate their updated theology.”

It doesn’t sound like Bauder and Clearwaters are on the same page.

If we so chose, we could highlight his misunderstanding or misrepresentation of a “middle of the road” position. He, along with others of his ilk, is trying to redefine terms such as Historic Fundamentalism, New Evangelicalism, Conservative Evangelical, etc. In other words, he is attempting to shift things to the left while claiming all along that it is just the center he is calling people toward. This sounds like some political double speak I’ve heard recently.

If we wanted, we could underline that, while he is for the time being president of a Theological seminary that claims to be Biblical in every way, and while he is allegedly instructing men in the ministry both onsite and online concerning pertinent Biblical topics, he does not cite one verse of Scripture, KJV or otherwise, to back up his arguments. This absence of an appeal to and from Scripture is a common characteristic of Kevin’s writings though the school over which he presides claimed Isaiah 8:20 as its founding and theme verse. We could underline this discrepancy if we wanted to, but we won’t.

If there were enough space, we could emphasize that he never once mentioned that this is a textual issue at its core. One would expect more intellectual understanding from the current president of a seminary. If there were more space, we would address this, but space is limited.

If we desired, we could note Bauder’s papal like edict to “in his opinion” tell us all when, where, and from whom to separate without one Biblical reason to do so. Again this seems strange coming from one who professes to know so much (23 installments at this point) about the matter of our “differences.” If we desired, we could note this, but desire is waning.

What we’d like to highlight is a couple of significant matters. First, Kevin Bauder, tells us that he prefers the King James Version, that he preaches and teaches from it, has memorized it and even quotes it. He declares the King James Version to be the Word of God, states that it is authoritative, and holds it in high esteem. However, when someone else says they too prefer the King James Bible, but for reasons other than Kevin Bauder’s, we are to separate from them. This is just arrogance!

Second and most interesting are the implications of his call for wholesale separation from those who believe the Bible. When naming several good churches and institutions, Kevin summarily lumps them into a hyper-fundamentalist category. Then he associates them in the same broad brush with Billy Graham and Harold J. Ockenga? He then declares that these “hyper-fundamentalists” should be separated from with more speed and more publicity than even the “grandchildren” of the above mentioned compromisers.

Just what does this mean, Dr. Bauder? There are thousands of young people who matriculate each year to Bible-believing schools such as Ambassador, Baptist College of Ministry, West Coast, Heartland, PCC, Crown, New England Baptist, Golden State, and others. Have they missed the will of God for their lives? Should the students attending these schools immediately sever their enrollment? Should they then come flocking to your bastion of life and “truth?” Should the pastors who support and preach for these institutions refuse to do so immediately at your word? What about the evangelists who hold to the King James Bible for reasons different from your own? Should the pastors who have them scheduled cancel their meetings on the spot? Should the missionaries who hold to a King James Bible position be dropped because they haven’t checked in with and been cleared for support by Kevin Bauder or Central Seminary?

And what of the many good men who have given us helpful, solid, and balanced information on such a crucial subject as the Word of God? Should men like Bud Calvert, Dell Johnson, Joel Mullinex, Rick Flanders, Ron Comfort, Sam Davidson, Kevin Folger, John Goetsch, Lloyd Streeter, and a host of other wise men be cut off, ignored, and rejected because they don’t line up with your line of thinking? How about the creationist, Henry Morris, who in his life not only defended creationism, but also the King James Bible? Should his writings and teachings on this subject be ridiculed and dismissed?

Should we follow your lead to separate from, ignore and disdain the “hyper-fundamentalists” who in spite of graduating from Central, came to their own personal conviction that the Received Text and the King James Bible should be embraced and the modern Eclectic Text and its offspring versions should be rejected? These would include such godly men as David Sorenson and Charles Surrett to name a few. Are you calling for separation from these men as well?

Are you implying that Bob Jones University should no longer host their long time friend Ian Paisley who wrote “My Plea for the Old Sword?” Though he is not even a Baptist he has enough sense to note the folly of embracing modern versions and their underlying false text.

Does this mean that you are even calling for those who worship at the altar of the French theologian John Calvin to immediately halt their study of his writings? After all, even he held only to the Traditional Text that underlies the King James Version. Kevin Bauder, just what exactly do you mean by this call for a full-blown separation from the proponents of the King James Version and the Received Text?

The irony of this whole matter is this. While Dr. Bauder is trying to tell Independent Fundamental Baptists to separate from those who simply believe the Bible and denounce the Devil’s attempt at perverting it; he is, along with others, leading an all out charge back into the realm of the New Evangelical camp! He has an undeniable affection for the conservative evangelicals, and claims they are not like their “grandfathers.” A compromiser is still a compromiser even if he is called a “conservative.”

Consider for a moment these “conservative evangelicals.” These are the ones who accept and overlook pedo-baptism (John Piper, Ligon Duncan). These are those who play rock music in their public worship services and teen gatherings (John MacArthur, John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, etc. ad nauseum). These men associate freely with liberals and new-evangelicals such as Billy Graham (Al Mohler) and such as Rick Warren (John Piper). These are the conservative evangelicals who remain in a denomination that promotes women preachers (John Piper). These so-called conservative evangelicals who teach that the Charismatic sign gifts are active and should besought after today (Piper, Mahaney). All of these men and others, who Kevin instructs us to welcome with open arms, are constantly promoting the aberrant heresy called Lordship Salvation. One question being asked is, “Which is more grievous, to believe the King James Bible for reasons different than Kevin Bauder or to promote the Amillenialism of Mark Dever and his allegorical interpretation of Bible prophecy? This is just to scratch the surface of their errors, and yet we’re being lectured by an out of touch seminarian on why we should embrace these men and separate from those who just believe the old Black Book! What gives?

A well respected pastor friend of mine shepherds a church in a northern state. The former pastor of this church was a young Central graduate, who sat under the tutelage of Kevin Bauder. This former pastor was teaching about the Bible during a Sunday school class. Because of his aforementioned training and the unbiblical bias that accompanies it, he was teaching that the Words of God are here, there and everywhere, lost in the sea of extant manuscripts and various and sundry translations. Needless to say, this created confusion amongst the church members. Some of them began to question him and his conclusions. One converted Catholic church member held up his King James Version and asked, “If what you are saying is true, is this the Word of God?” The former pastor responded, “No!” That church member shrugged and said, “What’s the use?” Then he walked out and hasn’t darkened the door of any church since. If what the former pastor is teaching is true, why should he? Brethren, the answer of this former pastor is wicked unbelief, and it is time we call it just that!

Now when unbelief calls for separation from belief, and at the same time leads the naïve to unite further with unbelief, all under the guise of belief, someone should stand and clarify the matter. Kevin Bauder, let’s settle this here and now. Those of us who happen to believe that God did inspire his Word and preserve it for every generation; those of us who unashamedly hold to the Received Text and the King James Version of the Bible and reject all modern translations that flow from the Westcott & Hort Text; those of us who do believe that the Devil is and has been working to pervert, omit and add to God’s Words; we have long since been suspicious of your direction and motives. Now we know who you really are. If you and your friends want to leave us to hold hands with and draw those you seek to influence into the chilled night air of New Evangelicalism, the door is wide open and they will happily receive you.

Just don’t claim on the way there that you are standing in the old paths.

On September 6, 1977, Ronald Reagan spoke in his daily two minute radio broadcast on the subject of the Bible. What he said was fascinating. He showed such simple child-like faith in the Word of God that all would do well to emulate. As he showed the King James Bible to be the best-selling book in the entire history of printing, he questioned the newest attempts made to improve it and “make the Bible more readable and understandable.” He went on to compare the beautiful and accurate language of the King James Version with the cheap, inaccurate, and irreverent language of the modern versions. He concluded by saying,

“The sponsors of the ‘Good News’ version boast that their Bible is as readable as the daily paper – and so it is. But do the readers of the daily news find themselves moved to wonder, ‘at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth’? …Sadly the tinkering and general horsing around with the sacred texts will no doubt continue as pious drudges try to get it right. It will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right.”

Mr. President, another “pious drudge” in Plymouth, MN, has officially decreed that it has not been gotten right. In fact, according to him, folks like you and me should be immediately severed from his world. Mr. President, thanks for the warning.

Evangelist Dwight Smith – dwight@dwightsmith.org

Evangelist Dwight Smith Ministries

For Related Reading:

A Letter from Dr. R. V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauderby Evangelist Dwight Smith

“It is astounding to me that in many of your recent writings on a professedly fundamental, Baptist site, you seem to constantly extol the ‘virtues’ of evangelical Protestants while, at the same time, deriding the ‘vices’ of Fundamental Baptists…. I have observed an inordinate affection towards pseudo-intellectual teaching and a disdain for old-fashioned, confrontational, Bible preaching…. I am grieved when I see you lauding extreme Calvinists who are not even Baptists. Brother Bauder, they and their ilk are not responsible for founding the school called Central…. Dr. Bauder, all given appearances seem to indicate you are intentionally trying to lead those who follow your writings, the students of Central, and even Central itself away from the Testimony upon which it was founded and into the compromising orbit of protestant evangelicalism.”

Muddying the Clearwaters by Ps. Marc Monte

“Kevin’s charge that ‘the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp’ constitutes nothing short of slander. Perhaps Dr. Bauder does not know the fundamentalists I know. I can name scores of pastors who regularly and rigorously defend the gospel…. Dr. Clearwaters understood that the local church was charged with the propagation of the truth. He founded a seminary, not to undermine local church authority, but to bolster the prestige of pastors in their efforts of defending the faith.”

Kevin Bauder: It Won’t Fly With Those of Us Who Know

Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran to Join Mark Dever at Lansdale: Is This a Fundamentalism Worth Saving?

John MacArthur Refreshes Kevin Bauder’s Short Term Memory: “Conservative” Evangelicals Extended Christian Recognition to Roman Catholics

Site Publisher’s Note:
My personal preference for preaching/teaching and study is the KJV, believing it to be the most reliable version of God’s Word today. I do, however, allow for other believers soul liberty and autonomy of the local church to choose as they feel lead.

The Convergence of Fundamentalism and Non-Separatist Evangelicalism by Pastor Tod Brainard

Dr. Kevin Bauder is President of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Plymouth, Minnesota. Let me say first of all that as editor of The Projector, I have followed the ministry of Dr. Kevin Bauder and have appreciated his writings and ministry in past years. We have even printed an article or two of his in The Projector. I have no interest in getting into a brawl with Dr. Bauder or in carrying on a tit for tat discourse. However, in recent time I have watched him move Central Baptist Theological Seminary from a Biblical Separatist entity to a conciliatory, accommodating entity toward men and ministries who are clearly not Biblical Separatists. This is quite revealing as the founder of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. R. V. Clearwaters, was a very strong, model Biblical Separatist. It seems that Dr. Bauder is now leading the charge for the acceptance and fellowship of those he calls, “Conservative Evangelicals.” Prior to the advertisement that Dr. Mark Dever will be speaking, along with Dr. Bauder [and Dave Doran], at Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, PA, he wrote this back in March of this year on his web-blog, In the Nick of Time:

“Conservative evangelicalism encompasses a diverse spectrum of Christian leaders. Representatives include John Piper, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, Bruce Ware, Bryan Chapell, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, John D. Hannah, Ed Welch, Ligon Duncan, Tom Nettles, C. J. Mahaney, Norman Geisler, and R. C. Sproul. Conservative evangelical organizations include Together for the Gospel (T4G), the Gospel Coalition, the Master’s Seminary, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (at least in its better moments), and Ligonier Ministries. These individuals and organizations exhibit a remarkable range of differences, but they can be classed together because of their vigorous commitment to and defense of the gospel...

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.

Frankly, conservative evangelicals do seem to take doctrine more seriously today than many Fundamentalists do. Not that the Fundamentalists are unwilling to discuss doctrine! Many of them are at this moment arguing for a “biblical” doctrine of the perfect preservation of the King James Version or of the Textus Receptus. Others have speculated that the work of redemption was not completed until Christ carried His material blood into the heavenly tabernacle, there to abide as a perpetual memorial before the presence of the Father. Still others have engaged in shrill campaigns of anti-Calvinism while defending theories of human nature that almost beg to be described as Pelagian. Such Fundamentalists are too numerous to be dismissed as aberrations—indeed, their tribe seems to be increasing.

Conservative evangelicals have oriented themselves by fixed points of doctrine. They have scoured apostasy from the world’s largest seminary. They have debunked Open Theism. They have articulated and defended a Complementarian position against evangelical feminism. They have rebutted the opponents of inerrancy. They have exposed and refuted the New Perspective on Paul. They have challenged the Emergent Church and laid bare its bankruptcy”.

The “Conservative Evangelicals” have a great articulator in Dr. Bauder. Dr. Bauder gives a positive overview of the movement but says nothing as to their position on ecumenism and Biblical Separation. Read again Dr. Bauder’s definition of neo-evangelicalism. According to his definition, New Evangelicals of the past would qualify as “Conservative Evangelicals” today. Very Interesting. Can this be? Dr. David Beale in his book, In Pursuit of Purity, states “According to (Harold J.) Ockenga’s definition ( of new-evangelicalism which phrase he coined), new evangelicalism differs from Fundamentalism in three major areas: (1) a repudiation of the doctrine of separation; (2) a summons to greater social involvement; and (3)a determination to engage in theological dialogue with liberalism.”1 How is it that according to Dr. Bauder, “Conservative Evangelicals are not New Evangelicals”, yet the founder of New Evangelicalism labels the three major areas of difference from Fundamentalism that current “Conservative Evangelicals” identify with? I do not buy Dr. Bauder’s statement. Dr. Bauder’s “Conservative Evangelicals” repudiate the doctrine of separation, they are for greater social involvement, and they are determined to engage in theological dialogue with liberalism as is seen by their associations with what are considered liberal religious organizations.

In addition, as early as 1956, Christian Life magazine carried a descriptive article on New Evangelicalism and listed eight general features of the movement: (1) “A friendly attitude toward science”;(2) “A willingness to re-examine beliefs concerning the work of the Holy Spirit”; (3) “A more tolerant attitude toward varying views on eschatology”: (4) “A shift away from so – called extreme dispensationalism”; (5) “An increased emphasis on scholarship”; (6) “A more definite recognition of social responsibility”; (7) “A re-opening of the subject of biblical inspiration”; (8) “A growing willingness of evangelical theologians to converse with liberal theologians.”2 It sounds very much like “Conservative Evangelicals” to me. Or are they New Evangelicals? Nowhere in these eight things is there a reference to “peaceful co-existence with apostasy.” Rather, the new-evangelical wanted the opportunity to dialogue with liberalism.

In addition, Dr. Bauder makes the strong assertion that Conservative Evangelicals have “scoured apostasy from the world's largest seminary.” Is this not Puritanism, rather than separatism? When I read of Dr. R. Albert Mohler and Dr. Timothy George signing the Manhattan Declaration in September of 2009 in cooperation with Roman Catholics and the National and World Council of Churches’ members, my first thought was, “This is cooperation with apostasy!” With one sweep of the pen, however, Dr. Bauder has declared that Conservative Evangelicals are not new-evangelical and that Conservative Evangelicals have “scoured” apostasy from the world’s largest seminary without providing any proof. What Dr. Bauder seems to be alluding is that staying in and “scouring” rather than separating from apostasy really does work after all! He is ignoring the history of past attempts to “scour apostasy” by giving tacit approval of what these men have supposedly done, that is, staying in and not coming out from among them yet without giving any real proof this has actually happened. History has always proven that “trying to clean out apostasy while staying in” leads to apostasy not to purity. I would encourage all to read the late Dr. Ernest Pickering’s books, Biblical Separation: The Struggle For a Pure Church and The Tragedy of Compromise. (Note: Dr. Earnest Pickering was past president of Central Baptist [Theological] Seminary)

Separation is God’s answer to apostasy in any generation!

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, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” (II Cor. 6:14 – 7:1).

Dr. Bauder does often speak on separation issues, yet seems to have blind spots regarding separation from disobedient brethren and ecclesiastical separation.(Matthew 18:15-18; Romans 16:17-18; I Cor. 5:1-13; II Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15; Titus 3:9-10). Is there absolutely no separation issue here with “conservative evangelicals?” Read on.



 Mark Dever, The New Darling

Dr. Mark Dever has become the new darling of those who profess to be Fundamentalists. Dr. Dever is considered to be “scary smart” by his close associates and has a charming personality. There is no question that he is a brilliant scholar and considered to be conservative in his understandings of the Gospel and an apologist for the same, though many are concerned of his commitment to Reformed dogma. However, when it comes to doctrinal issues such as Biblical Separation, he is way off the mark of Scripture. Dr. Mark Minnick, Pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, SC, and a professor at Bob Jones University, was on Dr. Dever’s radio program in Washington nearly two years ago to debate the issue of ecclesiastical separation and that of separation from disobedient brethren. It is clear from that interview that Dr. Dever does not share Fundamentalist views on ecclesiastical separation or secondary separation. In addition, let it be known that Dr. Mark Dever also serves on the Board of Directors of Southern Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. Though this Seminary is considered by some to be “conservative,” it is funded and supported by the compromising Southern Baptist Convention. Space does not permit a full examination of the compromises of the current Southern Baptist Convention but they are well documented.

Dever’s Alliances

[See below for an important site publisher addendum]

Capitol Hill Baptist Church, (Mark Dever is Pastor there), is a member of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention which is affiliated with the following three national associations: American Baptist Churches, USA; Southern Baptist Convention, and the Progressive National Baptist Convention.3 The American Baptist Churches, USA and the Progressive National Baptist Convention are both members of the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches which are both blatantly apostate. In addition, the American Baptist Churches, USA and the Progressive National Baptist Convention maintain affiliation with the Baptist World Alliance which in turn maintains ecumenical relations with the apostate Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (Roman Catholic Church). It does not take a person long to realize that Mark Dever’s associations and that of his church reveal associations with apostasy. If I am playing Ring-Around-the-Rosie and I join hands with Mark Dever, and Mark Dever joins hands with the District of Columbia Baptist Convention, and the District of Columbia Baptist Convention joins hands with the American Baptist Churches, USA, Southern Baptist Convention, and around to the Baptist World Alliance and the World Council of Churches and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, sooner or later we come full circle and we realize that we all are holding hands together.

To say that my hand-holding of Dr. Dever is a separate issue from Dr. Dever’s hand-holding with compromising associations is disingenuous and deceptive.

Dr. Dever writes eloquently on many Biblical subjects, but rejects Biblical Separation. He is like many of our time who like to have the appearance of holiness, but deny the basic premise of holiness, the doctrine of Separation! The late Carlton Helgerson, who served on the New England Chapter of the Billy Graham Crusades, wrote this after separating from New Evangelicalism,

“From Genesis to Revelation the doctrine of a moral law of God, namely the Biblical Doctrine of Separation is there. More is said in the Bible on this subject than on salvation. In fact, the Doctrine of Separation is involved in the doctrine of salvation. God’s Word clearly teaches separation from alien religions, from idolatry, and from apostasy. Furthermore, it teaches that true believers separate themselves from professing believers who are disobedient. But this new religion, calling itself evangelical, not only ignores the doctrine but treats with scorn those who adhere to it.”.”4

Helgerson further remarks,

“Its attitude toward the doctrine of separation is that it is outmoded, unrealistic, and incompatible with the contemporary emphasis on love (editor: Christian Unity). Pride of intellect is characteristic of this movement. It looks to the demonstrable, takes the position that the only passages of Scripture to have validity in our day are those which the human intellect can recognize as worthwhile

Division is Betrayal of the Gospel?

Mahaney, Mohler, Duncan, Dever

Mark Dever, C. J. Mahaney, and R. Albert Mohler were contributors to a document issued Together for the Gospel (T4G) which lists the imperatives of the movement. They write; “We deny that any church can accept racial prejudice, discrimination, or division without betraying the Gospel.” 5 Who can argue that the church should accept discrimination and racial prejudice, but to say that “division” betrays the Gospel is to say exactly what the New Evangelicals said in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. Division over error is how the Gospel (which by the way includes the whole of Scripture, not just salvation truth) is kept pure and protected for God’s glory, yet we are led to believe that “division” betrays the Gospel. Unity at all costs is the heart throb of New-Evangelicalism.

Witnessing the Convergence of Non-Separatist Evangelicalism (old name New Evangelicalism) with Fundamentalism

There is a joining together of former Fundamentalists discontented with Biblical Separation, tired of the “old Fundamental prohibitions” and those who were never Biblical Separatists, but somewhat conservative in their doctrine, open on eschatology, open on social drinking, and open on music that blends a decent message with the music of the corrupt culture. They are meeting in the middle, so to speak. Their common ground: Rejection of Biblical Separation. Basically, they are saying, “Accept me on my terms: Don’t criticize who I hang out with, what I listen to, what I watch, what I drink, where I go, who I follow, what associations I maintain. Those are under ‘Christian liberty’ and, therefore, are off limits.” I ask you, is this Biblical?

If we say we believe in the authority of the Scriptures, then we must also believe that it authoritatively speaks to all areas of life and godliness. It stands to reason that limited or watered down authority is not a sovereign authority. The Non-Separatist Evangelical reins in the authority of the Scriptures and limits it to certain areas it deems as core doctrine. However, daily life is considered under the realm of personal tastes, rather than under the domain of the authority of the Word of God. The Non-Separatist Evangelical has so compartmentalized his or her life that they only apply God’s authoritative Word to certain areas deemed what I call “God zones;” refusing to apply them to those areas deemed “My life zones!” This, of course, is the height of arrogance and self-love and reduces the Scriptures to nothing more than a salad bar where we pick and choose what we like and leave behind what we don’t like!

Having a Form of Godliness

Corrupt self-love is the heart of apostasy. II Timothy 3:1-9 indicates that in the last days perilous times shall come. What will be the key note of the last days? Self-love and the satisfaction of self! Professors of faith in Christ will demonstrate in the last days the characteristics of being: “lovers of self, covetous (loving things that we do not possess and willing to do anything to have them), boasters (self-praise), proud (self-love), blasphemers (loving what God hates), disobedient to parents (loving my self-will over and against the authority placed over me), unthankful (loving what I have without being thankful for it), unholy (loving the profane), without natural affection (having unnatural concepts of love for children, spouses, animals, fellow man, the environment, etc), ...lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (that is the practice of Biblical separation!). Dear reader, can the Bible be any clearer? Separation is God’s answer to the corruption of apostasy, yet that very truth is what is being rejected by the Non-Separatist Evangelical.

In my opinion, Dr. Bauder is seeking to administer the morphine of “Conservative Evangelicalism” to ailing Fundamentalism to finally put it to sleep.

What is lost in the passing of Fundamentalism? Lost is the Biblical truth of going outside the camp to Christ, bearing His reproach, contempt, abuse and shame. We are laying down our arms to pick up the olive branch. Militant, Separatist Fundamentalism is anathema to the Non-Separatist Evangelical and, in their estimation, the sooner it is buried the better. Dear Reader, all I can say is, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus!”


Reprinted by permission: The Projector, Fall 2010. Ω

1) David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850, Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1986, p. 262.

2) Beale, pp. 256 – 266.

3) http//dcbaptist.org Look under Capitol Hill Baptist Church and its affiliations. “Google” American Baptist Churches, USA and Progressive National Baptist Convention and see their ties to the National Council of Churches, World Council of Churches, Baptist World Alliance, and the Roman Catholic Pontifical Council Promoting Christian Unity.

4) Pastor Carlton Helgerson, The Challenge of a New Religion, Burlington, MA: The Church of the Open Bible, 1971, p. 11, 19

5) http//t4g.org/uploads/pdf/affirmations-denials.pdf See Article XVII

Site Publisher’s Note:
It has come to my attention that there may be several errors in this article on the biography of Dr. Mark Dever. Yesterday I addressed one of them. Today, however, I’d like to offer additional details for your consideration.

1) On the District of Columbia Baptist Convention- I have confirmed that Mark Dever and/or his church are not a member of this organization. In fact, there is a story in Christianity Today (2002) where Dever himself makes this very clear. You will find the link to that interview in the thread below.

2) On the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS)- Mark Dever is not a member of the SBTS board. Mark Dever is, however, noted at sites such as Wikipedia as a long-standing member of SBTS’s board of trustees.

3) On the radio program in Washington- Mark Dever does not have his own radio broadcast that I am aware of. In May 2008, however, Mark Dever conducted a 9Marks interview with Dr. Mark Minnick. I tried to provide a link to that interview, but according to several online sources it “could not be found or has been intentionally disabled by the content owner.”

I have alerted the author of this article to these biographical concerns. He has informed me that he is doing additional research to either reconfirm what he has written, revise or retract what may be in error. I appreciate the contact from several men who have with a good motive and spirit brought these things to my attention.

For related reading see:

Conservative Evangelicalism’s Distortion of the Doctrine of Separation, by Dr. Lance Ketchum

“In recent years we have had men rise up out of professed Bible believing Christianity (commonly referred to as Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism) to propose that Scriptural separation is not intended to maintain local church purity (Ecclesiastical purity) relating to doctrinal purity and practice, but merely intended to maintain purity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore they propose that local churches should not separate over other lesser important doctrines such as issues of Church polity, Pneumatology, or Eschatology (to mention a few areas they propose as lesser important areas of Truth). I believe this is little more than another level of an attempt to keep Bible believing Christianity culturally relevant in a national and world culture where true Bible believing Christianity is being rapidly relegated into cultural obscurity.”

Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran to Join mark Dever at Lansdale: Is This a Fundamentalism Worth Saving?

Excusing the Brother for the Sake of His Sister: Is This the New “Fresh Application” of Biblical Separation Principles?

A Letter From Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder

John MacArthur: A New Book on Lordship Salvation

Dr. John MacArthur has begun promoting a new book SLAVE to be released January 2011. I watched a YouTube video in which MacArthur announces his new book. I am troubled even by the way in which he promotes the reason for the production of this book.

“Studying the New Testament I discovered a distortion of truth when it came to the word ‘doulos.’ The book Slave is about the hidden word that unlocks the believer’s identity. There had been a conspiracy to cover up a truth that is so essential to the New Testament that without it we misunderstand our relationship to Jesus Christ.”1

MacArthur asks us to believes that after 2,000 years with the New Testament (NT) in our hands he alone has uncovered some hidden truth, that was distorted or concealed through “conspiracy, a cover up.” We are being asked to believe that no pastor or teacher before him in NT history has made this discovery in the Bible. Claims like that ought to raise a red flag of caution among believers even before cracking the cover of this new book.

With MacArthur having changed the terms of the Gospel, in the form of his Lordship Salvation theology, this book has all the promise to be another abuse of Scripture. Since John MacArthur has already changed the terms of the Gospel, there is virtually no possibility his new discovery will square with the whole counsel of God. From his sermon Slaves for Christ2 MacArthur said,

“When you give somebody the gospel, you are saying to them, ‘I would like to invite you to become a slave of Jesus Christ…give up your independence…give up your freedom, submit yourself to an alien will, abandon all your rights, be owned by, controlled by the Lord’. That’s really the gospel.”

Nowhere in MacArthur’s definition of the gospel above, what MacArthur claims to be the good news of Jesus Christ, God’s saving message to the lost is the sinfulness of man, the cross of Christ, His resurrection or faith/believing referenced at all. He speaks of the gospel (salvation) in terms of discipleship and these are two very different doctrines. This is the theme you are going to find in his new book.

“The crux of the Lordship debate is over the requirements for salvation, not the results of salvation…. A change of life through submission to the lordship of Christ should come as a result of salvation. It is antithetical to the Scriptures to take what should be the RESULT of salvation and make the resolve to perform those things in discipleship the REQUIREMENT for salvation…. Lordship Salvation places demands on the sinner for salvation that the Bible does not. A new life through submission to the lordship of Christ should come as a natural result of salvation, but the Scriptures never identify submission as a requirement for salvation, justification.” (IDOTG: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation)

Slave will be another major apologetic for Lordship Salvation’s man-centered, works based corruption of the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3). Slave will be another in the line of books in which MacArthur, just as he did in The Gospel According to Jesus, redefines discipleship of the believer and twists those things meant for the born again child of God into evangelistic appeals to the lost.


LM

Addendum:
Kevin Lane has posted an article on the new book by John MacArthur. May I suggest you read, The Bible X-Files at On My Walk.

If you are considering purchasing a personal or gift copy of In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation please consider doing so through Bob Jones University’s Campus Store

For a brief exposé on one of the chief errors of LS see, Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page of John MacArthur’s The Gospel According to Jesus and/or John MacArthur’s Discipleship Gospel

1) You Tube Promotional Video

2) Slaves for Christ quote is taken from 1:06 of the video.

Our Children Learn Not Only What We Teach Them, but by What We Tolerate

In its history Northland International University (NIU), the former Northland Baptist Bible College, has not been in a situation requiring a strong call to separate. In the early days Northland was a refreshing voice because of it’s good conservative stands, refreshing Northwood’s feel, friendly campus, servant’s heart, with a love for revival and the Lord Jesus Christ. Students were being discipled with a demerits system in place and properly emphasized for correction and growth. There are many fine pastors and Christian workers serving the Lord today because of Northland’s ministry to them.

“Our children learn not only what we teach them, but by what we tolerate.”

According to NIU alumni Dr. Les Ollila (NIU Chancellor) said that over and over to the student body. With decisions made in recent weeks at Northland a new kind of teaching and tolerance has come to the campus.

In 2005, because of Rick Holland’s inclusion as a speaker, Dr. Ollila pulled out of the God-Focused conference. It is believed that NIU president Matt Olson insisted Ollila withdraw. Just five years later Dr. Ollila along with Matt Olson, Sam Horn and Doug McLachlan reach out to and travel across the country to meet with John MacArthur, Rick Holland and Phil Johnson. Then Ollila/Olson/NIU have this same man (Rick Holland) speak in chapel to impressionable young people.

What changed between 2005 and 2010? It wasn’t Rick Holland. He is today what he was in 2005: an advocate for Lordship Salvation1 and the founder of the Resolved Conference, which merges preaching with the world’s CCM/rock culture and extreme Charismatic style worship.2 NIU embracing MacArthur, Johnson and putting Rick Holland in its chapel pulpit confirms they are willing to teach Lordship Salvation, teach/tolerate a neutered form of biblical separatism, tolerate and allow for the worldly culture of events such as the Resolved Conference.

Regrettably, in just five years, Les Ollila has changed. NIU is being transformed by its president, Matt Olson, and administration decisions. With and because of their change the historical trajectory of NIU has been radically altered.

With the changes at NIU many share concerns over ministry, direction and leanings of NIU. There is a declining interest in maintaining fellowship by many former alums, good Christian leaders and lay workers. Many who have some relationship with NIU are contacting the administration to express their concerns. Others will quietly pull away and encourage their young people to look elsewhere for a Christian college. Now unfortunately, because NIU’s administration wants it both ways their friendship base will have to change just to maintain status quo not to mention growth.

Many alumni view what Northland is doing today as completely contrary to what was taught not long ago. Students were told that they will become in the future based on two things: the friends you have and the books you read. Is it any wonder they have done what they have? If you live long enough, you will have to change your friends or change your doctrine. NIU is changing its friends for new ones in Evangelicalism. Certain doctrines, separatism in particular, is not far from being compromised for the sake of their new friends.

Why do men who claim a heritage and commitment to separatist Fundamentalism take the initiative to reach out to evangelicals who openly repudiate biblical separation in principle and in application? Is it possible that these alleged fundamental separatists want to retain the label they are comfortable with, but have lost the will to contend, to wage the battle for fidelity to the God-given mandates? Is it possible they will redefine the principles and application of separation to accommodate the need to tolerate, allow for and excuse aberrant doctrine and ecumenism for the sake of fellowship with evangelicals?

Have self-described fundamental separatists decided to move toward a safe, non-confrontational middle ground at the expense of fidelity to the Word of God on separation to be accepted and respected by evangelicals?

So called “conservative” evangelicals have not and show no inclination of moving toward a Fundamentalist’s commitment to biblical separation. Someone is moving, someone is changing, and it isn’t the evangelicals.

With recent revelations we are learning a great deal about Northland’s new trajectory. NIU will try to placate alumni and donors while it moves further away from its historic stand. Matt Olson’s recent open letter to Friends in Ministry was just such an attempt that in the opinion of many was an abject failure. If Northland maintains this new direction and discussions among concerned persons are any indication of a national response, I fear Northland’s best days are behind it and the worst is yet to come.

Northland’s new trajectory has a historic parallel. The devastating effects of introducing Evangelicalism’s philosophy and practices into a biblical Fundamentalist setting are no more stark than the demise of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College.3


LM

For previous articles in this series see-

NIU’s Convergence With Evangelicalism: What Does It Mean for Impressionable Students?

NIU Presents Executive Pastor of Grace Community Church to It’s Student Body

1) An Example of Lordship Salvation’s Man-Centered Message

2) The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness, by Dr. Peter Masters

3) Discussion Over the Closing of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College

“Although Pillsbury struggled for a number of years to recover itself from the devastating effects of hob-nobbing with Evangelicalism, it never really dealt with (in any real tangible way) its ruined reputation. Although it was repeatedly brought before them by many friends of the college, they never really did what was necessary to regain the trust of the pastors and parents who send students.”

IDOTG Now Available Through Bob Jones University’s Campus Store

The management of Bob Jones University’s Campus Store recently informed me that they are now carrying In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.

I encourage everyone who has not yet purchased a copy of IDOTG to make their purchase through BJU’s Campus Store. Portions from every sale of IDOTG will be directed to missionary programs through the University. Go to IDOTG at the CAMPUS STORE to purchase a copy today.

You will also find IDOTG on the shelves at the Campus Store in the Theology section. You might consider purchasing a copy as a gift for a friend, your pastor or a relative. Please do so through the Campus Store.

God bless you,


Lou Martuneac

Kevin Bauder Reassigned and Relieved From Administrative Responsibilities

Dr. Kevin Bauder has been reassigned to a newly created position as Research Professor of Systematic Theology. Kevin Bauder “will be entirely liberated from administrative responsibilities.”1

Kevin Bauder’s Fundamentalism worth saving has proven to be a call to embrace the so-called “conservative” evangelicals. To fellowship and co-minister with Evangelicals Bauder has been writing to influence his readers to allow for, tolerate and excuse their aberrant doctrine, worldliness, disdain for biblical separatism and ecumenical compromises. As one writer noted,

“Dr. Bauder does often speak on separation issues, yet seems to have blind spots in regard to disobedient brethren and ecclesiastical separation. (Matt. 18:15-18; Rom. 16:17-18; 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; Titus 1:9-10) Is there absolutely no separation here with ‘conservative’ evangelicals’? Dr. Bauder is seeking to administer the morphine of ‘Conservative Evangelicalism’ to ailing Fundamentalism to finally put it to sleep…. Militant, Separatist Fundamentalism is anathema to the Non-separatist Evangelical and in their estimation, the sooner it is buried the better.”2

Dr. Gerald Priest rightly defined the tone of Bauder’s articles on the Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism discussion.

“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…. 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?

On learning of Bauder’s reassignment one pastor said he is more concerned than ever because Bauder’s power is not linked to any ability to gather a large student body or preach dynamic messages. His power is in his pen. More time for him to engage in writing may bring more problems.

Central acknowledges that funding a man to exclusively research and write “involves a substantial financial commitment.” Because of Bauder’s redefining biblical separatism3 to brush aside the obvious reasons to restrain oneself from promoting and embracing Evangelicalism, because he redefines biblical separatism to legitimize fellowship and unity with Evangelicals, because he castigates Fundamentalism with impunity, my hope will be that funding for his new position will dry up quickly.


LM

1) Central Seminary Creates Research Professorship

2) The Convergence of Fundamentalism and Non-Separatist Evangelicalism by Pastor Tod Brainard, The Projector, Fall 2010. (To appear at IDOTG in the coming days.)

3) Kevin Bauder has strayed far from and is trying to influence the current and next generation away from the application of the principles biblical separatism of his CBTS predecessors Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters and Dr. Ernest Pickering.

For related reading see-

Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran to Join Mark Dever at Lansdale: Is This a Fundamentalism Worth Saving?

Do Fundamentalists & Evangelicals, “Believe, Preach and Defend the [Same] Gospel?”

Kevin Bauder, “It Won’t Fly With Us Who Know…”

Excusing the Brother For the Sake of His Sister: Is This the New “Fresh Application” of Biblical Separatism?

A Letter From Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder

John MacArthur Refreshes Kevin Bauder’s Short term Memory: “Conservative” Evangelicals” Extended Christian Recognition to Roman Catholics

Northland Int’l. University’s Convergence with Evangelicalism: What Does it Mean for Impressionable Students?

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

In September I announced and discussed Rick Holland, executive pastor of John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church, speaking in chapel to the undergraduate student body of Northland International University.1 In recent days I am hearing of and from pastors around the country who once they heard/read about Northland’s opening its student body for the ministry of Rick Holland have contacted the NIU administration, NIU’s president Matt Olson in particular.

Why Was Rick Holland Invited by NIU?
In my first article on NIU I wrote,

“When a man’s shoes are pointed west, he is headed west; pointed east, he is headed east. When you look at a man’s friends, fellowships and conferences he attends; whom a man opens his pulpit, chapel ministry or seminary to, whom he shares platforms with, it tells you something about him. It tells something about an institution. It tells you what he and the institution is now or what they soon will be.”

In April 2010 Matt Olson, Sam Horn, Les Ollila and Doug McLachlan traveled to the Grace Community Church (GCC) to meet with John MacArthur, Phil Johnson and Rick Holland.* After a day of discussions the NIU men came away finding no reason not to have and increase fellowship with them. Inviting GCC’s executive pastor, Rick Holland, to speak in chapel confirms a new alliance for NIU with evangelicalism. That decision means one of two things about the discussions in the meeting at GCC:

1) The Gospel was not discussed or,
2) NIU’s official position and the position of its leadership is that Lordship Salvation, as John MacArthur defines it, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

No one who understands that Lordship Salvation (LS) is a works based corruption of the Gospel, and that it frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21) would ever allow a man who preaches that message to speak in chapel to young people in Bible College.2 Those who recognize the danger and egregious errors of John MacArthur’s LS would have all the compelling biblical reason they need to “withdraw” from, “mark” and “avoid” the leadership of Grace Community Church (MacArthur, Johnson, Holland, et. al.)

The Influence of Impressionable Students
NIU’s administration will defend hosting evangelicals like Bruce Ware in the Doctor of Ministry program, suggesting the men enrolled are mature and established in the ministry. Maturity, however, does not guarantee immunity against error. NIU has, furthermore, presented Rick Holland to a student body of young impressionable undergraduates. Rick Holland is a preacher of LS’s works based, man-centered message. The worldly CCM/Rock culture of the Resolved conference3 is the brain child of Rick Holland. By allowing Rick Holland to preach in chapel before the undergraduate student body NIU endorsed and stamped its approval on his doctrine and practices. Exposing NIU’s undergraduate students to Rick Holland signals that NIU’s administration and board believes Lordship Salvation to be the Gospel, would defend Lordship Salvation as such, and furthermore finds the “extreme charismatic-style worship” of the Resolved conference to be acceptable.

Whom an institution reaches out to and endorses before its student body tells a great deal about what the institution is now or soon will be.

Certain guest speakers and lectures that NIU is reaching out to and presenting to its student body indicate that it is shifting in the direction of evangelicalism in doctrine and practice. When you open your arms and your pulpit to evangelicals you open wide the gate for Calvinism, Lordship Salvation, non-cessationism, ecumenical compromise and worldly methods of ministry all of which, to various degrees, evangelicals bring with them to your ministry and expose your people to. NIU is exposing the student body to men and methods that will influence them to become what evangelicals are in doctrine and in practice.

Many pastors and parents are under the impression that NIU is an Independent Fundamental (Separatist) Baptist Bible college. I do not believe parents are sending young people to NIU to have them put under the influence of Evangelicalism.

Certainty of Fallout
Certainly the NIU administration knew there would be fall-out from their decision to embrace and begin working in cooperation with evangelicals. I am also certain they anticipated the possibility there would be some loss of support and enrollment as a consequence. What I am also certain of is this: The new convergence between NIU and the GCC is not going to end with Rick Holland speaking in chapel. John MacArthur is the bridge to the more disconcerting men and movements in evangelicalism. In time NIU will be opening its chapel to them as well.

Concerned pastors are contacting Matt Olson about this obvious shift in direction for NIU. Pastors and parents are asking themselves if they can in good conscience continue their relationship with NIU. Some have decided to sever long-time relations with NIU and therefore will no longer send students to or host NIU representatives. Others are on the verge of similar decisions.

If a parent rejects Calvinism, Lordship Salvation, the world’s anti-god Rock culture in the form of CCM, ecumenical compromise and loosening standards of biblical separation they will pray for leading to a college where their young person will not be encouraged and/or influenced in the classrooms and chapel to tolerate, receive, adopt and become those things.

If you are one of the concerned over NIU’s new direction, you might pray for and contact the administration to encourage them to rethink and reconsider the path they now trod. IMO, this path is going to lead NIU, and of greatest concern, its students into expanded compromise of biblical truth in principle and application for the sake of fellowship with evangelicals.

A Closing Appeal to Elder Statesman:
Where are the men who are well-known, highly trained and respected in Fundamental circles? Why are the voices of men who recognize the dangers that lay before this and the next generation silent? You know what the problem is, where it is coming from and where this new trend of compromise will all end up. You have the answer from Scripture and a life of personal experience from which to draw and teach. Yet, you say nothing; why? Is there not a cause? Other men who identify with Fundamentalism are using the Internet to influence the young to follow them in a dangerous direction. Star personalities of Evangelicalism are on the Internet wooing impressionable young people. Like the Internet or not, fundamental believers are getting much of their theology reshaped by who and what they are reading on the Internet and the evangelicals own almost all of it.

“Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears,” (Acts 20:29-30).

While you remain silent the next generation is being swept up by the current craze to embrace a brand of evangelicalism, which has at its root neo-evangelicalism and shows signs of resurgence. If the next generation drifts far off the pathway of fidelity to the Scriptures in principle and application and you wonder how it could have happened- look to your silence.


LM

Please continue to the next in this series, Our Children Learn Not Only What We Teach Them, But By What We Tolerate

*Interesting to note that men who claim to be Fundamental Baptists and separatists are reaching out to Evangelicals, who disdain biblical separation in principle and/or application. Fundamentalists going out of their way to Evangelicals to increase fellowship and cooperation between them. Evangelicals are not moving toward, reaching out to Fundamentalists. This pattern of movement will be discussed in a future article.

1) NIU Presents Rick Holland, Executive Pastor of Grace Community Church to Its Student Body

“When Northland adopted its new name, Northland International University, it was IMO a sign telling the Christian community that Northland would be moving in a new and different direction, which is just now coming into full view.”

2) Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page

3) “One of the vaunted new conferences is called Resolved, after Jonathan Edwards’ famous youthful Resolutions (seventy searching undertakings). But the culture of this conference would unquestionably have met with the outright condemnation of that great theologian. Resolved is the brainchild of a member of Dr John MacArthur’s pastoral staff [Rick Holland], gathering thousands of young people annually, and featuring the usual mix of Calvinism and extreme charismatic-style worship. Young people are encouraged to feel the very same sensational nervous impact of loud rhythmic music on the body that they would experience in a large, worldly pop concert, complete with replicated lighting and atmosphere…. Worldly culture provides the bodily, emotional feelings, into which Christian thoughts are infused and floated. Biblical sentiments are harnessed to carnal entertainment. (Pictures of this conference on their website betray the totally worldly, showbusiness atmosphere created by the organisers.)” (Dr. Peter Masters: The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness)

Excusing the Brother For the Sake of His Sister: Is This the New “Fresh Application” of Biblical Separation Principles?

The principles of separation as God communicated them to man through Inspiration are eternal, timeless truths. These truths have certain, non-negotiable applications in any generation. God said,

“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).

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them,” (Eph. 5:11).

Those are the Inspired principles that carry with them a clear application. There is no subjective decision to make. God meant, for all time, that believers are not to unite with unbelievers. God meant that we are to “reprove,” i.e., expose, rebuke, not be partakers in works of darkness or partner with those who do. Unless the intent is to force those passages into conformity with an agenda or contemporary trend there is no other way to redefine or reinterpret them to negate their clear and obvious meanings. When God said,

“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).

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple,” (Romans 16:17-18).

There are applications of the principles of separation that transcend all labels. We have the Lord’s immutable mandates for how we, as a body of believers, are to address the disobedient and teachers of contrary doctrine among us.

When we find men who name the name of Christ hob-knobbing with unbelievers, who compromise the Gospel, who give Christian recognition to the enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18) they are in rebellion against God’s Word. When we follow the mandates to “admonish him as a brother” to convince him that he has erred and he refuses that admonition, remains unrepentant we are mandated to withdraw from, have no company with, mark and avoid him. We are obligated to obey the Bible commands toward the disobedient no matter what label, camp, denomination or seminary they are known by or identify with.

With the signing of the Manhattan Declaration1 so-called “conservative” evangelicals Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan and Kevin DeYoung (as well as a number of lesser-knowns in evangelicalism) irrefutably compromised the Gospel. To reiterate, they have rejected the admonition of brethren who love them in the Lord and remain unrepentant.

Pastor Dave Doran wrote (11/4/10) that his, “central concern is that faithfulness to the biblical principles of separation demands fresh application of those principles to the present challenges we face.” Is this how one begins to redefine the application of the eternal “biblical principles of separation?” Is this how one begins to accommodate contemporary trends for fellowship with men who have a track record of ecumenical compromises and doctrinal aberrations? I have identified several mechanisms being floated to redefine the application of separation. They are:

1) Redefining Separation for Alleged “Academic Contexts”
“Do the Scriptures allow for two sets of standards for the definition and application of biblical separatism? Is there one standard for the God ordained mandates for believers in a local church and a different, moderated, redefined standard for believers in a ministry under the auspices of a local church?” (Is There a Second Definition for “Separation” in Academic Contexts?)

2) Unity Around a So-Called, “Pure Gospel”
This, of course, is uniting under Calvinistic soteriology in the form of the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel. The trend appears to be as long as there is agreement on Calvinistic soteriology allowances will be made for aberrant doctrines and unholy ecumenical alliances.

“Have we and do we as Fundamentalists practice ecclesiastical separation because of concerns for a pure church or a pure Gospel? Does it matter which it is and is there any appreciable difference between the two? Is it possible this may be a purposeful narrowing of the definition of ecclesiastical separation, which if widely adopted by Fundamentalists would result in a paradigm shift in our practice of and fidelity to the God-given mandates?” (A Pure Church or a Pure Gospel: Does It Really Matter?)

Certain men in fundamental Baptist circles have reduced the criteria for cooperative efforts and ecclesiastical unity to “purity” to the gospel (exclusively to the LS interpretation) rather than the faith, the body of Christian truth, once delivered. Thus a mechanism is in place to allow for cooperation with everyone they can place in the so-called “pure gospel” box, while at the same time widen the sphere of aberrant doctrines, worldly methods of ministry and ecumenical compromises they will tolerate and excuse among their new friends in evangelicalism.

3) Separation From Those Who Deny “Essential” Doctrines
Certain Baptist men are assuming the role of chief arbiters for what will be defined as “essential” doctrines. The issue here is not whether we believe in principle and application that the Bible is the Word of God from cover to cover, every book, chapter and verse. Decisions are being made, however, on what will be reduced to non-essential Bible doctrines to allow freedom to pursue fellowship with evangelicals. These decisions are being presented to this and the next generation to influence them toward filtering the Scriptures through a prism fashioned by men like Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder to close the loop on what should be considered the essentials for cooperative fellowship and ecclesiastical union with evangelicals.

“Believers and churches must separate from those who deny essential doctrines of the faith.” (Dave Doran: Contemporary Challenges for Biblical Separatism.)

When you read the articles by and watch the movement of men like Dave Doran, Kevin Bauder, Tim Jordan2 and schools like Northland International University3 you begin to recognize, which doctrines have thus far been reduced to non-essentials. Doctrines such as:

• Separation has become a non-essential in spite of an apparent resurgence of new evangelicalism’s refusal to apply the obvious principles of separation from unbelievers and the disobedient.
• Cessationism of the Charismatic sign gifts.
• “Love not the world” (1 Jn. 2:15) will not be an essential when you can wink at and excuse the CCM/Rock-n-Roll concerts such as John MacArthur’s Resolved Conference.4
• Eschatology becomes a non-essential such as amillenialism, which is Mark Dever’s position who also said, “You are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular millennial view.”

When men who claim a heritage in biblical separatism allow for, tolerate and excuse these things they have become non-essential doctrines.

“This ‘essential doctrine’ doctrine is invented for the purpose of fitting in with more people. It isn’t at all some kind of development of doctrine from scriptural exegesis…. It’s popular for selling more books, for being bigger, for opening up more speaking engagements, for a fake peace…. This is a subtle, new, and dangerous attack. I am reading the same kind of attack coming from professing fundamentalists. We should get our doctrine from the Bible. It’s ironic, but evangelicals and now fundamentalists are saying that, if it isn’t stated in scripture, we should allow liberty….” (Kent Brandenburg at his JackHammer blog, The “Essential Doctrine” Doctrine Is Just Being Assumed with No Proof, Oct. 2010.)

We do not raise a question on a man’s belief in the verbal, plenary Inspiration of Scripture. We do, however, question why in this debate over fellowship with evangelicals that new lines of definition between essentials and non-essentials are drawn. This is not meant to be a clear, definite analogy, but it is worth asking: Does the Bible contain the Word of God, or is the Bible the Word of God?

4) To Castigate and Discredit Fundamentalists as “inconsistent.”

“…Kevin [Bauder] 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.” (Dr. Gerald Priest, in reaction to Bauder’s Let’s Get Clear on This, March 2010).

Some fundamentalists have been known to have some untidy alliances. Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran and some who have been influenced by them have begun translating that into justification for allowing evangelicals the same untidiness. Of course they do not clarify that the ecumenical compromises of the evangelicals are intentional, frequent and directional, while the sad associations with the extremists in fundamentalism are typically infrequent, often un-intentional and incidental. At the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron5 Frank Sansone posted the following comment, which gets to the heart of the current strategy.

“His [Doran’s] comments [in Preserving Movements or Practicing Truths] on Vaughn speaking with Schaap and the Baptist Friends Conference are a separate issue from the T4G resolution. To use that connection to criticize the ACCC for the T4G resolution sounds an awful lot like the little boy caught in disobedience who excuses what he does by saying ‘but my sister did bad things too.’ Whether the sister did bad things is irrelevant to the issue at hand, namely, the brother’s disobedience.

Bringing up the sister’s errors does not excuse the brother’s errors-

and it does not invalidate the one pointing out the brother’s errors… The one-time connection of JV and JS at a conference does not make for a pattern. Is it concerning? ABSOLUTELY!!! Does it rise to the same level as an ongoing movement [evangelicalism] that has consistently showed itself to be negligent in the area of Biblical separation? Not yet…. Should some speak up about JV and JS at the Baptist Friends Conference? Sure. I think it needs to be addressed - and Dr. Doran has rightly addressed it in other places. However, it is wrongheaded to use one error as a cover for another error.”

Let the Bible say what it says without the trappings of logic, redefinition or a “fresh application” to fit contemporary trends. Let us, without partiality, apply the principles of biblical separatism and hold accountable men who run rough-shod over the principles in their practice. Let us reject the new trend toward bringing up the sister’s errors to excuse the brother’s errors.


LM

1) The Manhattan Declaration

2) Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran to Join Mark Dever at Lansdale: Is This a Fundamentalism Worth Saving?

3) NIU Presents Grace Community Church Executive Pastor Rick Holland

4) “Resolved is the brainchild of a member of Dr. John MacArthur’s pastoral staff [Rick Holland], gathering thousands of young people annually, and featuring the usual mix of Calvinism and extreme charismatic-style worship. Young people are encouraged to feel the very same sensational nervous impact of loud rhythmic music on the body that they would experience in a large, worldly pop concert, complete with replicated lighting and atmosphere.... Worldly culture provides the bodily, emotional feelings, into which Christian thoughts are infused and floated. Biblical sentiments are harnessed to carnal entertainment. Pictures of this conference on their website betray the totally worldly, showbusiness atmosphere created by the organisers.” (Dr. Peter Masters: The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness)

5) I Had to Ask: Does This Sharpen Me?