Kevin Bauder to Choose Between Ernest Pickering and John MacArthur
Today, at Sharper Iron (SI), Pastor Don Johnson has
reiterated an important question to Dr. Kevin Bauder. (See an important update below) It was a question among three. At great length Kevin addressed Don’s latter
questions on Drs. Clearwaters and Dollar, which included attempts to redirect
elsewhere. The first, the primary question was not touched on at all by Kevin. Don’s original (unanswered) question to Kevin on Wednesday (2/20/13) was,
“How about Central Seminary? A past president published a pamphlet on the MacArthur [Lordship Salvation] issue and said that MacArthur was “changing the terms of the gospel.” What have you done about that? That would be Dr. Pickering, a man I highly respect and greatly admire. I don’t think anyone at Central needs to dig up this episode and make any statement of apology or amends, but if you are going to be consistent, surely you should push for something of the sort. Especially since you are much more tightly connected to Central than you are to the FBFI.”
Following is the exact quote in its full
context as it appears on p. 7 of Dr. Pickering’s booklet, Lordship
Salvation: An Examination of John MacArthur’s Book, The Gospel According to
Jesus.
 |
| Dr. Ernest Pickering |
“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.”
This morning Don
has asked Kevin, for the second time, to address directly Dr. Pickering’s statement
that John MacArthur, through Lordship Salvation (LS), was “changing
the terms of the gospel.”
“Now, I do note that you didn’t address the comment by Pickering regarding MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation – ‘changing the terms of the gospel.’ According to a paper published by Jeff Straub the pamphlet was originally published by Central Seminary. That’s a pretty serious charge - was it right or wrong? If wrong, has Central done anything about it?”
In yet another
lengthy comment by Kevin this morning, following Don’s reiteration above, he (Kevin) still has offered
nothing to Don’s now two requests for an answer about Dr. Pickering’s published statement
that John MacArthur was “changing the
terms of the gospel.”
“Gospel-centric” fellowship and “gospel-driven” separation is the new
mantra, the new way of determining fellowship and cooperative ministry for Kevin
Bauder, Dave Doran, Tim Jordan and Matt Olson.
Don’s question about Drs. Pickering, MacArthur and the LS controversy
puts Kevin is in a difficult spot because the rallying point, the magnetic
attraction for their gospel centric
fellowship is the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the gospel.
Lordship Salvation is the soteriology of virtually every evangelical from John MacArthur to John Piper. Kevin’s recent claim that he has a problem with the T4G men because of what he calls (without defining specifically) “a fairly strong version of Lordship Salvation” does not give him any middle ground for or escape mechanism from Don’s question. Lordship Salvation, as John MacArthur or any of the T4G men defines it, is a false non-saving message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3).
Lordship Salvation is the soteriology of virtually every evangelical from John MacArthur to John Piper. Kevin’s recent claim that he has a problem with the T4G men because of what he calls (without defining specifically) “a fairly strong version of Lordship Salvation” does not give him any middle ground for or escape mechanism from Don’s question. Lordship Salvation, as John MacArthur or any of the T4G men defines it, is a false non-saving message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3).
Imo, it is impossible
to find middle ground on this question. Either
Dr. Pickering was right in his review of MacArthur’s original edition of The Gospel According to Jesus or he was wrong
to say that MacArthur was “changing the terms
the gospel.” Kevin Bauder is going to have to choose between the two men.
Kevin Bauder is going to choose between faith only (Ernest Pickering) and Lordship Salvation’s faith plus commitment of life (John MacArthur) messages.1
You can read
Don’s first question above as I have cited it here. I am linking you to his second question to
Kevin Bauder on the Pickering statement.2
I want you and I to see together whether Kevin answer and if he does answer will
he give a clear, unvarnished answer. Actually,
Incidentally, at
SI Kevin closed today with, “Through
Sunday, I have almost nonstop responsibilities. It’ll take me a while to get
another serious post up.” We, therefore, will wait until next week for Kevin’s
answer.
LM
Article Update:
(2/23) Today, we have Don Johnson drawing Kevin’s attention once again to the
Pickering/MacArthur question. Within an extended
comment at SI Don directed the following to Kevin Bauder.
“On the other hand, I raised the issue of Dr. Pickering’s statement about MacArthur while he was president of Central - it seems to me to be a parallel issue. You [Kevin Bauder] haven’t addressed it at all. It is all very well to say that we must deal with sins of the past as a general principle, but the reason we sidestep them, it seems to me, is that 1) we think the issue is presently a non-issue because it is long in the past; 2) we think the issue is a non-issue for us because we weren’t a party to it; 3) we think that there are some aspects of the issue that were merited on the ‘sinning side’ (as it were). Are any of those the reasons why you keep avoiding the Central published pamphlet that said MacArthur changed the terms of the gospel?” (bold mine)
Footnotes:
1)
“The
message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot
both be the gospel; therefore, one of them is a false gospel and comes under
the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9),
and this is a very serious matter.”
(Dr. Charles Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life, p. 170.)
2) Don’s second of two questions to Kevin Bauder on Dr. Pickering’s statement that John
MacArthur was “changing the terms of the
gospel.”
Related Reading:
Summary of Lordship Salvation From A Single Page, of John MacArthur’s TGATJ.
Actually I think the choice Dr. Bauder faces in that question is different from what you present here. I think he would have to decide if the statement is of the same type as those statements by the FBFI he has put forward for criticism. If Pickering's statement (which seems to me more gracious on its face than those of the FBFI) isn't the same type as the FBFI statments, then he can dismiss it as red herring (perhaps unintentional) on the part of Pastor Johnson.
ReplyDeleteDavid Oestreich
Well Dave, if Kevin could have dismissed the question as a red herring he would have quickly, but hasn’t because it isn’t.
DeleteNo, I see much at stake for him on that Pickering, MacArthur gospel question by Don. Kevin has not only his presidential predecessor’s theology and integrity on the line, but even more importantly he is gong to have to come down on one side or the other on the Lordship Salvation debate as well. I suspect that these are the main reasons why Kevin has not so much as referred to the Pickering, MacArthur, gospel question over three days now.
IMO, the lengthy delay and lengthy answer to the other questions is what prompted Don to reiterate the question and remind Kevin that an answer is awaited.
If Kevin tries to dodge, word-smith away or altogether dismiss Don’s question I believe his (Kevin’s) integrity falls into serious and deserved ill repute.
LM
All readers of any further reply from Dr. Bauder shall construe as they construe.
ReplyDeleteTo the MacArthur/Pickering dichotomy you present, it has always seemed to me that much of the differences in articulation of the Lordship issue between thoughtful people (as I know MacArthur to be and assume Pickering to be) comes down to differences in perspective between monergism and synergism. I assume (perhaps wrongly--I'd be interested to know) Dr.Pickering was a synergist; and believe Dr. Bauder is a monergist.
So I don't think this is a determiner of theological or personal integrity issue.
D.O.
David:
DeleteIt most certainly is a matter of theology. As I noted above,
"Either Dr. Pickering was right in his review of MacArthur’s original edition of The Gospel According to Jesus or he was wrong to say that MacArthur was 'changing the terms the gospel.' Kevin Bauder is going to have to choose between the two men."
Dr. MacArthur defines the core of Lordship theology throughout his teaching, with statements such as, “Salvation [justification] is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” Dr. Pickering says that is wrong, and I agree with Pickering. MacArthur has changed the terms of the gospel. This is black/white, right/wrong. There is no middle ground. Kevin Bauder will either dodge this or give a clear, unvarnished answer, which is what is required or his integrity and character fall into ill repute.
From here we'll wait and see that he does with Don's question. I am going be off line most of the rest of the day.
LM
I didn't say it wasn't a matter of theology. I said theological integrity. One can be wrong and have honestly come to wrong conclusion that falls short of heresy and still have theological integrity.
ReplyDeleteDave:
DeleteSorry, if I misunderstood your meaning. As Dr. Pickering noted, John MacArthur’s LS is "changing the terms of the gospel.” There is only one saving message for the salvation of lost mankind. Dr. Pickering says that John MacArthur had changed the terms of the saving gospel. LS as MacArthur and/or T4G define is not merely arriving at a "wrong conclusion.”* LS is a serious error, a heretical interpretation the saving message of Jesus Christ.
LM
*Btw, as you might recall Kevin Bauder has recently declared that LS as the T4G men define it is for him )Bauder) a strongly worded Lordship Salvation.” Kevin offers no evidence of or comparison to another LS to prove his point. I am doing the research on this and I will have an article with my results on Kevin’s declaration on T4G’s alleged “strongly-worded Lordship Salvation.”
Lou - I don't have pickering's book, but where did he ever say anything so strongly as, "Lordship Salvation, as John MacArthur or any of the T4G men defines it, is a false non-saving message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ?" The quote you offer says nothing this strongly against MacArthur. That is why you are created a false dilemma here. You seem to reading your own vehemence into Pickering's words.
ReplyDelete-Jesse
With this I am going to close the debate over the theology of the gospel here. The crux of this article is that a specific, unambiguous question has been put to Kevin Bauder. To date he has not even so much as acknowledged it. More on that in the next.
ReplyDeleteTo demonstrate how sharp the divide is over what are the terms of the saving message of Gospel between Ernest Pickering and John MacArthur read the following. Then you will see that the question to Kevin Bauder is a major issue that cannot be swept aside. The following appears on p. 70 of my book, IDOTG. What follows from Dr. Pickering is from the same booklet in which he reviews MacArthur's TGATJ. The same booklet in which Don has brought to Kevin's attention that JMac has changed the terms of the gospel.
Begin Excerpt...
Dr. Ernest Pickering in his review of the original The Gospel According to Jesus stated,
“Salvation is free; discipleship is costly. Salvation comes by receiving the work of the cross; discipleship is evidenced by bearing the cross (daily submission to the will of God). Christ here is not giving instructions about how to go to heaven, but how those who know they are going to heaven should follow Him.”
Following is another quotation from the chapter entitled, “The Cost of Discipleship” in MacArthur’s The Gospel According to Jesus:
“Let me say again unequivocally that Jesus’ summons to deny self and follow him was an invitation to salvation, not . . . a second step of faith following salvation. . . . Those who are not willing to lose their lives for Christ are not worthy of Him. . . . He wants disciples willing to forsake everything. This calls for full-scale self-denial—even willingness to die for His sake if necessary.”
The latter portion of [MacArthur’s] quotation, “He wants disciples willing to forsake everything,” would be fine if John MacArthur stated it in the context of those persons who already believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, were saved by grace through faith, and sought to live as fully surrendered disciples of Christ. MacArthur, however, converts the cost of discipleship into a necessary expense in the form of an upfront commitment to discipleship for the reception of eternal life.
END Excerpt
LM
Today, Saturday, 2/23 we have Don Johnson drawing Kevin’s attention once again to the Pickering/MacArthur question. At SI don wrote,
ReplyDelete“On the other hand, I raised the issue of Dr. Pickering’s statement about MacArthur while he was president of Central - it seems to me to be a parallel issue. You [Kevin Bauder] haven’t addressed it at all. It is all very well to say that we must deal with sins of the past as a general principle, but the reason we sidestep them, it seems to me, is that 1) we think the issue is presently a non-issue because it is long in the past; 2) we think the issue is a non-issue for us because we weren’t a party to it; 3) we think that there are some aspects of the issue that were merited on the ‘sinning side’ (as it were). Are any of those the reasons why YOU KEEP AVOIDING the Central published pamphlet that said MacArthur changed the terms of the gospel?” (CAPS mine)
Pickering is certainly correct in his distinction of "salvation is free; discipleship is costly." How can somebody who is spiritually dead (Eph 2:1-2) agree to surrender all prior to regeneration? A willingness to live for Christ will only come through sanctification - this is after salvation.
ReplyDeleteI have heard some 5-point Calvinists accuse folks who do not agree with Lordship Salvation of teaching an almost "free grace" theology. "Get your ticket punched and live like you did before. You're eternally secure!" I believe LS folks are seeking to guard against this at the expense of the clear teaching of the Gospel - repent and believe. The mark of a truly saved person will RESULT in sanctification (Titus 2:11-14). Some folks grow in the knowledge of God better than others, but the heart of the person is my point. LS folks impugn those who disagree with them by insisting, in some cases, that ours is a cheap Gospel.
TylerR
The LS/Calvinists’ answer to the spiritually dead is not the convicting and convincing work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-11). Instead they appeal to the extra-biblical teaching that regeneration occurs prior to and apart from faith in Christ. I have addressed that issue in my book and at this blog. The best I have available on the subject, however, comes from Pastor George Zeller.
DeleteI draw your attention to the first of two articles by Ps. Zeller, The Danger of Teaching that Regeneration Precedes Faith.
See also my article, Lordship’s (Out-of-Order) Salvation
LM
I appreciate your work on LS; I've browsed through your site a bit this morning. I have dealt with LS a bit; I had a "discussion" with three folks in our church who advocated it. They admitted their concern was that the Gospel preached by non-LS folks was cheap. My response was to ask them to explain how they would present the LS version of the Gospel to a 9-yr old who asks about salvation. The result was a tortured, pseudo-theological explanation that confused even me. To their credit, they were not theologians, I just believe they were taken in by false doctrine. The dividing line is the ordo salutis. I'll probably order your book and take a look at it. I enjoy your blog; I noticed you are critical of the current crop of "big name" fundamentalists but favor Rolland McCune. I have his three volume Systematic Theology and it is probably the best set in my library. He is simply excellent. I wish I could have had the opportunity to study under him.
ReplyDeleteTylerR
Tyler:
DeleteI hope you find my book helpful. Please use what you glean from it to help others be able to recognize and reject the errors of Lordship Salvation. Sadly, a great many do fall into the trap of LS.
LM
Lou,
ReplyDeleteI am glad someone like Bauder is being made to finally come out and clearly state what he believes on this issue. I wish more in Fundamentalism would do the same. Let's stop with all the hiding and stand for what we actually believe. I get the feeling that some care more about building broad constituencies than taking a clear stand.
Tyler R,
"Free grace" theology is not"Get your ticket punched and live like you did before. You're eternally secure!" That is a mischaracterization.
I see the issue here to be this: Does Kevin Bauder indeed agree with MacArthur or Pickering? Is it faith only or faith + anything else?
Jim:
DeleteI agree with you - I was repeating the characterization I heard. They were not discussing "free grace theology," but the allegedly "free" Gospel non-LS folks advocate. Poor choice of words on my part in the earlier post.
TylerR
Jim:
DeleteYou said, “Bauder is being made to finally come out and clearly state what he believes on this issue” Well, he hasn’t clearly stated anything yet. Frankly, based on several years of reading his articles and discussion with various men who are familiar with Bauder’s style I/they expect KB to take from the political liberal’s game book and post a long, wordy response in which he prevaricates (beats around the bush) his answer, never really answering at all but sounding oh, so good and scholarly, to the KB faithful. Actually, I will not be at all surprised if he takes a pass entirely on Don Johnson’s Pickering, MacArthur, and Lordship Salvation (LS) question.
Related note on, “...clearly state what he believes on this issue.” July 16, 2010 at Gordon Phillips’ blog we had Dave Doran engaged in a thread discussion. This was under Gordon’s article, There is a Difference and It’s a Game Changer.
In the thread I asked Dave to “come out openly [for or] against the interpretation of the Gospel commonly known as Lordship Salvation (LS).” Dave’s response was, “I have never read any of MacArthur’s books on the subject.” See, this article for details.
That was how Dave left it, except for a small series of personal attacks as he left the scene. Imagine it- no answer whatsoever on the hallmark theology of the most widely know, read and listened to advocates of LS. Dave Doran is leader of a seminary and was/is not able to give an opinion or discuss what LS is? This is the pattern among the new wave New Evangelicals (Bauder, Doran, Olson and Jordan) still circulate in some segments of fundamental circles. Lavish praise for the evangelicals, tolerant and ignore on any of their doctrinal aberrations, castigate fundamentalism with the broad brush and avoid any clear articulation of any hot potato issue. LS is the hottest of them all!
LS is the rally point for them with their LS counter-parts in the evangelical community. No matter how they answer the LS question they are going to alien at least one large segment of believers or another and I don’t think they want to do that with either. Therefore, it is nearly impossible to get any kind of clear, unvarnished answer from these men on Lordship Salvation when asked any precise, unambiguous question on the subject. They simply will not answer the LS questions. They’d sooner attack the questioner than answer the question.
To reiterate: In regard to Don Johnson’s question I believe Kevin Bauder will either prevaricate (beat around the bush) or never really answer the question at all.
Lou
PS: Kevin Bauder once knowingly misrepresented a vast segment of fundamentalists who utterly reject Lordship Salvation as defined by John MacArthur s well as every evangelical advocate of LS. See, Do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals “believe, preach and defend the [same] gospel.”
I have to believe Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder know exactly what Lordship salvation is. MacArthur wasn't the only author to ever put forth that idea. If they've been to T4G then they have no doubt heard it loud and clear.
DeleteI think part of the problem is that Fundamentalism has included those with a more Reformed stance. What happens though when some of these more Reformed men gravitate toward conservative evangelicals? Is there going to be a divide between the Reformed and non-Reformed in fundamentalism? Where will that leave those who are not Reformed but are moderately Calvinistic? It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.
For me, I think holding a free grace, non-Calvinist, non-Arminian type view of salvation puts me into a rather small minority. That said, it doesn't matter. We need to stay tethered to the Bible and Biblical theology no matter what anyone else does (fundamentalists included).
Lou,
ReplyDeleteI find part Kevin Bauder's now initial reply to Don Johnson's reiterated questions a little amusing. In his reply Kevin Bauder notes that he is looking for a copy of the pamphlet by Pickering. How is it that he hasn't found a copy yet? This pamphlet was published by Central Seminary, which is where Kevin Bauder works. This was a pamphlet by a then sitting president which, again, the seminary published and a copy can't be found!? Doesn't even the library possess a copy or two or three? Granted, Bauder did post his comment at SI at 10:26am this morning and he was out of town for the extended weekend and maybe he was too busy to get to the library before writing his comment. But he does give us the impression that he has at least made some initial effort to locate a copy of the pamphlet but to no avail yet. Hopefully he will find a copy soon and will actually answer Don Johnson's question rather than replying with the non-answer answers he has been giving of late.
Well Brian: I do agree with what you noted here. I have that pamphlet and would have been happy to send a copy to Don and Kevin. However, this has become a moot point. Don Johnson has decided to drop it. I'll say nothing more about Don's reversal from his earlier, multiple requests to Kevin that he answer that question.
DeleteLM
Lou,
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Mr. Bauder keeps using the "bait and switch" approach to Mr. Johnson's questions. He [Mr. Bauder] sure knows how to use a lot of words to not answer a question. He would make a wonderful politician!
Len Peeler
Len:
DeleteIt’s not really bait-n-switch. Many of knew from the star that Kevin Bauder was not about to put himself on an even playing field with Pastor Don Johnson. There was/is no way KB would allow Don Johnson to have any control of the discussion whatsoever. You are right that Kevin Bauder has been very political. We see the same kind of thing on FOX News when, for example, you watch Sean Hannity ask a liberal politician a direct question and no answer is given to that question. Hannity will work that guest for a direct answer. Don Johnson is no Sean Hannity and it clearly showed throughout.
Only in the last day or two I saw Don essentially throw up his hands in frustration trying over and over again and failing every time he tried to get Bauder to answer questions without redirecting redefining or ignoring questions put to him. IMO, Don was naive to think Kevin Bauder was going to give clear, unvarnished answers. Unfortunately all we saw in their exchanges was Kevin Bauder playing and using Don to his own advantage. The pattern was Don asks a question; Bauder would not answer without repeatedly asking for further clarification, redefining the question so that finally he could answer his own question to bolster his own agenda. Don would have done well to have not gotten into this futile exercise in the first place and I hope, by now, has realized he needs to drop out.
LM
Lou,
DeleteYour observation is right on target. Having followed this discussion and the previous ones concerning Matt and his new direction at NIU, it was well said that honesty is seriously lacking. The parallel with liberal vs. conservative politics is a good observation. I was wondering why it was taking so long for someone to mention it. These men who are moving will never engage in an honest, direct discussion. They can't because they know that they can't support their new positions from Scripture or from the rich history of the institutions they are now destroying. Brother Johnson is a sharp man but Bauder is crafty. I was disappointed to see Don back-off. I've known Matt for close to 30 years. His declarations of remaining "unchanged" reveal nothing less than a serious lack of integrity. I appreciate your efforts and those of others like Don who will at least stand up and be counted.
Thanks for the comments and encouragement. While Brother Johnson is a sharp man he would do well to cut this off.
DeleteLM
Just wanted to add a word here to clarify why I decided to back off on the Pickering question. While I brought it up to show up Kevin's inconsistency in demanding of the FBFI something that he won't do for Central, the fact is, I like Dr. Pickering and don't think there is anything to apologize for. I felt rather cheap trying to get him to apologize for something I agree with.
ReplyDeleteI think my point did illustrate his inconsistency, but what else can be said? You can't make a guy debate on your terms, he'll debate on his own terms.
It is also more than a little wearying trying to have a conversation when the other guy has to take three whole posts to answer one.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don:
DeleteThanks for that clarification. You added, "It is also more than a little wearying trying to have a conversation when the other guy has to take three whole posts to answer one."
Nevertheless, it was a valid question. You should have held him accountable and insisted on a direct, unvarnished answer, which from my chair you have yet to do with any any point that you've raised. Instead, he is maneuvering, forcing you to back down and/or he redefines your questions until he either neuters your questions or can answer them to his advantage. IMO, and that of others, you are getting non-answers, you are being used by him to incessantly attack the FBFI and certain of its members, and he is railroading the entire discussion to advance his own agenda throughout. This has not been a debate! You would do well to drop out, let him have his say, which he has been doing and will continue do no matter what you try to hone in on.
Final thought: Why do you participate at SI when all that is happening there is 1) to the detriment of the fundamentalism that you try to stand for and that SI is primarily conduit for 2) the advancement of the new wave of New evangelicalism that Bauder, Doran, Jordan, Olson as well as Andy Naselli, Bob Bixby, Ben, Dan Burrell and Steve Davis are advancing?
Your participation is an enabler of SI's agenda, and because of you, achieving in small measure.
LM
Don:
DeleteOne more thought. You might be hanging on at SI for influencing the lurkers.
Several men who are friendly to the fundamentalism that you and I appreciate have long since stop participating at SI. Like you, and I trust many of the others who quit SI, were there to in part trying to speak to the lurkers. I stayed at SI as long as I did to influence the lurkers, but I knew when it was time to get out. I quit them (on my own terms) once I figured it was more like the first cousin of pearl before swine to participate with the SI team and the angry former yf's that post there. I did not stay long enough to let them use me to keep their threads active, to advance their agenda and besmirch fundamentalism.
You may not like the sound of this, but you have been used and played by Kevin Bauder. Why do you think Bauder ignores or endlessly redefines your questions? I hope you have come to realize what is going on there by now and will stop being part of that fiasco.
By your participation you are keeping SI active and helping them advance SI’s revisionist history, their anti-fundamentalist agenda and promotion of the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism. Why don’t you join the men who have quit SI? You know the men I refer to, most of whom quit when I did around the time SI transitioned to the current look format. Others in recent months.
With the downward spiral of SI I wouldn’t be holding out much hope for capturing lurkers. SI hopes and I am sure are privately encouraging you to stay with them. They need you much more than you might realize.
Btw, if they truly appreciated your viewpoint why have they never invited or allowed your blog to appear in the SI Blogroll? Look at the make-up of the SI Blogroll, hardly the friends of authentic, separatist fundamentalism, is it? Doesn’t that tell you something?
Nuff said.