An Analysis of Bob Jones University’s Position Paper on Calvinism, Arminianism and Reformed Theology

Dr. Robert Congdon

As a follow-up to Lou Martuneac’s article of November 14, 2019, entitled “This is Not Your Father’s Bob Jones University,”[1] I have been asked to review Bob Jones University’s position paper on “Calvinism, Arminianism and Reformed Theology.”[2] The following is a brief analysis of that paper.[3]

After reading BJU’s position paper, I feel that it reflects a style commonly employed by many New Calvinists[4]. Their writing typically skirts issues to avoid offense or exclusion, while maximizing inclusivity. They achieve this by allowing the reader to supply his or her own theological definitions rather than offering clear-cut ones that would reveal Calvinist views. The fact that BJU’s paper appears to use a similar strategy concerns me.

I see this tendency throughout the paper. For example, it contains the term “exercise faith” four times. A standard dictionary definition of “exercise” is “an act of bringing into play or realizing in action.”[5] While this term could apply to an action resulting in salvation, fundamentalist Christians typically select a phrase such as “receive Christ by faith as your Savior” in this context.  Once upon a time, BJU used phrases such as “believe,” “put your faith in” and “ask Him into your heart,” to describe one’s salvation response.

As used by New Calvinists, the phrase “exercise faith” fits within the dictionary definition of “realizing in action.” Calvinism’s teaching on election is that one is regenerated prior to faith. Later on, that person "exercises faith" or “acknowledges” or “realizes” that Jesus is his or her Savior. Ligonier Ministries, a major outlet for New Calvinist teaching, says:

If the Lord has changed our hearts, giving us the disposition[6] to love Him, we will certainly exercise faith and persevere in it to the end (Phil. 1:6). But that we exercise faith at all is due to God’s sovereign grace.[7] 

A writer for The Gospel Coalition, a New Calvinist group, also uses this term, “exercise faith.”

Objectively speaking, faith is a gift from God (Eph. 2:8, although the “gift” is the whole work of salvation, not just the faith). Subjectively speaking, the person exercises faith in the gospel (Eph. 1:13). [8]

Interestingly, if you google the phrase, you’ll also find that Brigham Young University uses it:

To exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is to accept Him as Savior and live in accordance to His will through repentance and obedience to His commandments. Learning to act in accordance with one’s faith in Christ is fundamental to enjoying deep, life-changing learning. [9]

It is rather sad that a Mormon school offers a clearer definition of “exercising faith” than BJU!

Contrary to the Calvinist teaching of regeneration before an act of faith, the Bible teaches that a person hears the Scriptures (Rom. 10:17), after which the Holy Spirit convicts that person’s heart, revealing the sinful condition and the need for a savior (Rom. 3:23). The person then responds by receiving, accepting, and trusting Jesus Christ alone as Savior (John 1:12).

BJU potentially reflects a Calvinist viewpoint when it says, “God’s invitation of salvation is freely offered to all men . . . and available to anyone who desires to be saved.” [10] I take this to suggest that an unsaved person has a desire to be saved. But in my experience, and in the experience of others holding similar positions, it is not desire but rather the conviction of being a sinner in need of a savior that drives a person to ask for God’s gift of salvation.

On the other hand, I have read several New Calvinist statements implying that when one is elect, and therefore regenerated prior to faith, he or she develops a desire to exercise faith or to acknowledge or recognize Jesus Christ as Savior. BJU’s phrase could be interpreted in either way and is therefore ambiguous, potentially satisfying both Calvinists and Biblicists.

Similarly, consider 2 Peter 3:9:

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The Calvinist considers “all” to mean “all the elect,” while a Biblicist believes that “all” should be taken literally as referring to all human beings. Clearly, the Bible reflects this in its use of “whosoever will” in salvation passages (John 3:16; Rom. 10:13; Rev. 22:17). Again, BJU’s statement is very weak in its terminology. 

Further on in the position paper, BJU says that our sanctification “will be completed when we stand before God in our resurrection bodies.”[11] This appears to be drawing from Reformed terminology. The Biblicist position teaches that our sanctification will be completed when we appear before Jesus Christ, our Bridegroom, at the Bema. But the phrase, “stand before God” comes directly from Revelation 20:12 and refers to those at the Great White Throne Judgment.

Calvinists believe that all people from all ages, both saved and unsaved, will stand before God at this judgment event (Rev. 20:11-15). Here, God will assess who is elect and who is not. Biblicists believe that the Bema (2 Cor. 5:10) is a time of accounting (Rom. 14:12) with Jesus Christ, our Bridegroom, and not a judgment for “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus…” (Rom. 8:1). The English word, “condemnation,” is a translation of the Greek word for “judgment.”[12] Again, BJU uses weak and ambiguous phrasing.

BJU says, “We believe that Scripture presents certain great paradoxes concerning salvation which we gladly embrace as belonging to God . . .”[13] It’s curious that here BJU uses the word, “believe” but speaks of exercising faith earlier.

Interestingly, Calvinists often use similar phrasing about “paradoxes,” yet I do not find “great paradoxes” in the Bible with reference to salvation. Surely, this is the most elementary and crucial issue of mankind. Does God truly leave this issue as a paradox unresolvable by mankind? If so, then why present it in the Scriptures at all, rather than deferring it as a matter to be dealt with in eternity?

My booklet, An Alternative View of Election offers no “paradox” but a straightforward interpretation of the biblical use of the term “election.”[14]

Finally, BJU’s view on the “doctrine of the Second Coming and Reformed Eschatology” is worded in the New Calvinist style. Reformed Theology is very weak on eschatology. It blends the catching up of the church, the Rapture event (1 Thess. 4:16ff), with the Second Coming (Matt. 24:30; Rev. 19:11), claiming that these events occur together.

Similarly, BJU says that “we believe in the visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ at His Second Coming (John 14:3; Acts 1:11; 1 Thess. 4:16; Heb. 9:28; 1 John 3:2-3)”[15] Notice, they combine references associated with the Rapture (John 14:3; 1 Thess. 4:16; 1 John 3:2-3) with references associated with the Second Coming (Acts 1:11 and Heb. 9:28).

BJU appears to favor this combination when it declares that “we acknowledge that there are interpretative differences . . . related to the timing of this glorious appearing . . .” [16] They continue by referencing Titus 2:13 that specifically speaks of the “glorious appearing” as the Second Coming of Christ to the earth. This strategy subtly combines what the Biblicist sees as two distinct events into a single “glorious appearing.”

Interestingly, the BJU Seminary Catalog stated in the front matter that “The seminary faculty holds to...a pretribulational, premillennial approach to eschatology.”[17] By its very definition, “pretribulational” distinguishes the catching up of the church prior to the 7-year Tribulation from the Second Coming of Jesus Christ at the end of the Tribulation. What has changed since BJU’s Dean Stephen Hankins quoted this statement in an email in 2011? BJU’s present usage therefore reflects either carelessness or a Reformed/Calvinist interpretation of these verses.

BJU may not officially be a Reformed or Calvinist school. But its recent publications suggest an awareness and apparent endorsement of Reformed/Calvinist thought and teaching. Perhaps its lack of precision and ambiguous use of Scripture stem from ignorance or a poor understanding of the current meanings of these terms and phrases. If so, we could excuse it and ask that the school become more informed. If, however, BJU is following the pattern exhibited by New Calvinist writing, then there is a much deeper problem at work requiring immediate action to reverse this intrusion of Reformed and Calvinist theology.

Analysist: Robert Congdon

Director of Congdon Ministries International

Originally Published November, 2019.

---

[1] Lou Martuneac, “This is Not Your Father’s Bob Jones University” In Defense of the Gospel blog, Nov. 14, 2019.  https://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2019/11/this-is-not-your-fathers-bob-jones.html

[2] Position Statements, “Calvinism, Arminianism and Reformed Theology” (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University, nd.) retrieved from https://www.bju.edu/about/positions.php on 08/21/19.

[3] The above views reflect observations by the analyst acquainted with Bob Jones University and its many graduates but who is not an alumnus. This analysis is presented as a call to BJU to rethink its position paper and also to alert BJU students and alumni to a possible trend. Presenting this analysis is at the request of some BJU alumni.

[4] New Calvinism is a repackaged form of classic Calvinism that is presented in a form more appealing to the present generations. This analysis uses the terms “Calvinist,” “Reformed,” and “New Calvinist” as essentially equal when speaking of these doctrinal statements in the BJU paper. Today, New Calvinists represent the vast majority of Calvinists.

[5] “Exercise” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exercise on 08/21/19.

[6] Calvinism teaches that the “changed heart” is the result of regeneration before faith, thereby an elect person is now predisposed to love Christ and exercise faith about Him.

[7] “Faith and Assurance” Ligoner Ministries website, retrieved from https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/faith-and-assurance/ on 11/18/19.

[8] Eric McKiddie, “How to Call for a Gospel Response Like a Calvinist” The Gospel Coalition November 24, 2011, retrieved from https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-to-call-for-gospel-response-like-a-calvinist/ 11/19/19.

[9] “Exercise faith” Learning Model – Brigham Young University, retrieved from http://www.byui.edu/learning-model/5-principles/exercise-faith on 11/18/19.

[10] Position Statements, “Calvinism, Arminianism and Reformed Theology.”

[11] Position Statements, “Calvinism, Arminianism and Reformed Theology.”

[12] “κατάκριμα” Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977), 332.

[13] Position Statements, “Calvinism, Arminianism and Reformed Theology.”

[14] Available at www.CongdonMinistries.org website.

[15] Position Statements, “Calvinism, Arminianism and Reformed Theology.”

[16] Position Statements, “Calvinism, Arminianism and Reformed Theology.”

[17] BJU Seminary and Graduate Studies Catalog (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University), 38. This was confirmed in a private email from Dean Stephen J. Hankins, July 21, 2011.

It’s Called “Calvinism,” & It’s Not That Long of a Line

Nearly two years ago I heard a radio broadcast of a sermon by Pastor Steve Lawson.1 The message title is, The Long Line Continues.2 In the message Pastor Lawson makes frequent use of the phrase, “the doctrines of grace.” What does this phrase “the doctrines of grace,” mean? Very simply “the doctrines of grace,” is a new way of introducing a centurys’ old theology popularized by the French theologian John Calvin (1509-1564). That theology is commonly known as “Calvinism.”

What is Calvinism? Calvinism is best known for its emphasis on five distinct doctrines. These are technically known as the “Five Points of Calvinism.” The five points are commonly recognized and defined from the acronym T-U-L-I-P. Taking each in turn, the letters of the acronym stand for:

1. Total (Human) Inability
2. Unconditional Election
3. Limited Atonement
4. Irresistible Grace
5. Perseverance of the Saints

The whole of Calvinism rests on these five points, and they are inseparably linked. So that you have a basic understanding of Calvinism’s five points, following this article I will be providing definitions for each under the heading, Defining Calvinism’s TULIP? Here we will demonstrate the terminology that Steve Lawson, essentially representative of every Calvinist, uses to rename Calvin’s T-U-L-I-P.

• Total Inability is renamed, “Total Depravity,” or “Radical Corruption.”
• Unconditional Election is named the same or “Sovereign Election.”
• Limited Atonement is renamed, “Definite Atonement,” or “Particular Redemption.”
• Irresistible Grace is renamed, “Effectual Calling,” or “Sovereign Regeneration.”
• Perseverance of the Saints is named the same or “Persevering or Preserving Grace.”

I do not believe it wise to accept and/or adopt in our language the evolved labels for John Calvin’s theology. We do not want to allow for terminology that tends to cloud, confuse or camouflage the theology of Calvinism’s T-U-L-I-P.

Compounding Error Upon Error
A fundamental understanding of Scripture makes clear that Calvinism is held together by forcing into or extracting from the Bible things that are not there. Calvinism proper, therefore, has spawned numerous theological errors.  Among them for example Steve Lawson said, “They [the doctrines of grace] are completely counter intuitive…are entirely antithetical to the natural mind…We would naturally reason that you must first believe and then you will be born again.” Lawson is saying that to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved (John 3:16; Acts 16:31), is solely based on our own human reasoning.

The Calvinist believes man is so “dead in trespasses and sins” that he must first be regenerated: That is to say, be born again (initial justification), made alive by the Spirit of God, indwelled by the Holy Spirit, and given the new nature prior to and apart from personal repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21).3 Furthermore, even faith, according to Calvinism, is the gift that was given to him after he has been regenerated (Eph. 2:8-9).4 These are two examples of egregious errors rooted in Calvinism.

Just How Long is That Line?

Pastor Lawson gives the impression that Calvinism’s “long line” can be traced back to the Pentateuch, as far back as Genesis and throughout the Old Testament. He believes the “long line continues” through the New Testament, on to the church fathers, the Reformers and beyond.  He said,

“These teachers of the doctrines of grace [Calvinism] really began with Moses and Joshua and Samuel…. As we come to the New Testament we see Jesus Christ Himself…proclaimed and taught the doctrines of grace [Calvinism]…. Peter, on the day of Pentecost, began teaching the doctrines of grace [Calvinism]…the Apostle Paul became a chief author and architect of the doctrines of grace [Calvinism]….”

What we find, however, is that the “long line” of Calvinism is not so long after all. Calvinism traces directly from Augustine (4^th century). New Calvinists say Calvin merely re-iterated Augustine. Any placing of the five points of Calvinism to Genesis would be based on the idea that the church began in Genesis and continues to today.

Steve Lawson’s message sheds light on how he arrives at five-point Calvinism. What we find is in the answer to the question, “What is Rationalistic Fatalism?”

“Rationalistic fatalism is understandable in light of dictionary usage.  According to Franklin’s Dictionary and Thesaurus, ‘rationalistic’ is literally: ‘reliance on reason as the basis for the establishment of religious ‘truth,’ and ‘fatalism’ is the ‘belief that fate determines events.’ Of course, ‘fate’ is a cause beyond human control to determine. Looking at that statement in this light demonstrates that those referred to rely solely on reason rather than revelation as the basis for their theological moorings. The ‘circle logic’ of five-point Calvinism is just that for the whole system crumbles when a single link in the chain is broken. One must approach the system with reason rather than faith. That of course leads to the fatalism, which holds that God has predetermined the destiny of human souls and that all the witnessing, praying, and missionary effort in the world will not change the outcome.”5

Close:
Those who reject Calvinism should avoid falling into the trap of accepting and agreeing to the new terminology.  In any discussion about or debate over Calvinism, no matter how many times the term, “doctrines of grace” appears, we will refer to and reiterate the historic, unambiguous label, “Calvinism.” Calling the theology of John Calvin “the doctrines of grace” does not change the theology of what we know today as “Calvinism.” Our priority is to equip uninformed and/or unsuspecting believers to first recognize the so-called “doctrines of grace” as Calvinism, and then be able to reject it from the Bible.

Yours faithfully,


LM

Footnotes:

1) Steve Lawson: Professor of Preaching at The Master’s Seminary (John MacArthur, chancellor emeritus), member of The Gospel Coalition.

2) The Long Line Continues (Feb. 6, 2019 edition).

3) The key to understanding Calvinism’s irresistible grace is that the Holy Spirit regenerates the elected individual, thus, they can then receive the Word and exercise faith. This regeneration can occur years before exercising their act of faith. Some Calvinist’s define this regeneration as taking place at conception, others at physical birth, and others at some later time. But ALL Calvinist’s teach it occurs prior to and independent of any act of faith or any foreseeing by God of their eventual faith. When thought through, biblically to be regenerated, literally meaning to “be born again,” means that the elect one possesses or is indwelled by the Holy Spirit at that point. For further study see,
The Danger of Teaching That Regeneration Precedes Faith

4) The Danger of Teaching That Faith is the Gift of God

5) Dr. David L. Cummins, in an email to me answering the question, what is rationalistic fatalism.  Dr. Cummins response appears on pp. 261-262 of In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, 1^st edition only, 2006.

Related Reading:

After reading Bob Jones University’s position paper, I feel that it reflects a style commonly employed by many New Calvinists. Their writing typically skirts issues to avoid offense or exclusion, while maximizing inclusivity. They achieve this by allowing the reader to supply his or her own theological definitions rather than offering clear-cut ones that would reveal Calvinist views. The fact that BJU’s paper appears to use a similar strategy concerns me. I see this tendency through the paper. For example, it contains the term “exercise faith” four times. (Dr. Rob Congdon: An Analysis of Bob Jones University’s Position Paper on Calvinism...)

Oops! I Thought I Was a Four-Point Calvinist & An Alternative View of Election

New Calvinism’s Upside-Down Gospel

Defining Calvinism’s T-U-L-I-P?

Following is a succinct definition of T-U-L-I-P. Following each of the five-points we will reiterate the way Calvinists rename each of the five points.

T- Total (Human) Inability
The Bible teaches man’s human depraved nature, human depravity, – that is all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3: 23). All are sinners and separated from God.  Calvinism added the term “total” to the term human depravity, to indicated that apart from God’s intervention through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit prior to faith, man can never understand, accept, react, or respond spiritually in any way to God, His Word, and the work of the Holy Spirit. (Jer. 17:9; Romans 3:10-12; Eph. 2:1)

Lawson renames Total Inability, “Total Depravity,” or “Radical Corruption.”

U- Unconditional Election

For the Calvinist God has elected only a select group of the world’s population for Heaven, while all the rest enter this world headed to an eternal existence in Hell. Some Calvinists explain God taking an active role in bringing the elect to salvation, but as for the rest, He is completely passive toward, and essentially abandons them on the road to Hell. (2 Cor. 5:18-19)

Many Calvinists, however, teach that God elected some to heaven and some to hell – in other words, He did not just extend grace to some, the elect, and allow the others to follow their own path, independent of God’s electing them to Hell. It should be noted that most people believe in Calvinistic Unconditional Election or Arminianism, which allow them to reject God later after first trusting Him. It is important to realize that the Bible’s use of the term “election” always refers to service and never salvation; hence there is a third view of election, independent of both Calvinism and Arminianism.
Lawson retains “Unconditional Election,” or “Sovereign Election.”

L- Limited Atonement

Limited Atonement is the most controversial of the five points. Many in the Reformed camp back away from this point of Calvinism and call themselves four-point Calvinists. Many five-point Calvinists consider those who do not fully embrace a limited atonement as falling short of being a true Calvinist. The five-point Calvinist believes Christ died only for the elect; the shed blood of Christ and His atoning work on the cross were intended only for the select group chosen for salvation. This means Christ’s substitutionary death paid the penalty of sin only for certain sinners, and not for the sins of all mankind past, present and future. (Isaiah 53:6; John 3:16; 1 Jn. 2:2)
Lawson renames Limited Atonement, “Definite Atonement,” or “Particular Redemption.”

I- Irresistible Grace

Calvinism teaches that the Holy Spirit extends a special inward calling, but only to those elected to salvation. Through this calling the sinner is irresistibly drawn to Christ and the Spirit causes the sinner to cooperate. The lost man may have no desire for Christ, no interest in the claims of the gospel, but he has no choice in the matter. Because he has been unconditionally elected for salvation the Spirit puts the choice in his mind, removes any barrier or hindrance and compels him to respond to the gospel invitation.

Many indicated it is not necessary to respond to a gospel invitation. They describe an eventual realization that they are elect and rather than an act of response, they merely believe their spiritual interest and/or acknowledgement of Christ indicates they are elect. The Calvinist often uses the term “exercise faith” rather than trust in Christ alone for their salvation.

This irresistible grace cannot be rejected and does not depend on man’s cooperation. The ability of individuals to reject Christ’s offer of salvation answers Calvinism’s irresistible grace. The Bible teaches that man can be reproved over and over, and resist the working of the Holy Spirit in his heart. (Gen. 6:3; Prov. 1:24-26; 29:1; Matthew 23:37; John 5:40; Acts 7:51-52)
Lawson renames Irresistible Grace, “Effectual Calling,” or “Sovereign Regeneration.”

P- Perseverance of the Saints

There are two views on Perseverance of the Saints. The traditional position is found in Reformed confessions of faith. The non-traditional view is typically found in some Baptist and Evangelical circles. The common denominator is that the elect are eternally secure and will persevere in the faith. The way Perseverance commonly addresses those who fall away is to conclude they were never saved in the first place or will return eventually. In its most extreme form Perseverance is articulated (for example by John Piper and Kevin DeYoung) as the only way to ensure “final salvation,” of final justification, to reach heaven, i.e., glorification.

To the Calvinist, a person must persevere their entire life by doing good works and spiritually living to demonstrate at the Great White Throne Judgment that they are truly elect. Thus, all men will appear at the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev. 20:11-15). Notice they are judged by their works. You often read in Calvinistic writing that a person cannot truly know they are righteous or the elect until the day they die, but Scripture says you can know you have eternal life right now (1 John 5:13). For the true believer who has accept God’s gift of salvation by faith alone, he does not have to persevere but depends upon God to preserve Him as promised in Jude 1 and Jude 24.

Thus, a saved man’s eternal security, his assurance and position in Christ are not dependent on how he performs as a Christian. He is saved and secure because of what Jesus Christ has done for him. (John 10:28-29; Eph. 1:13; 2 Tim. 1:12; 1 Peter 1:3-9) Lawson retains “Perseverance of the Saints,” or “Persevering or Preserving Grace.”

Archival Series: We’re Not Convinced Kevin Bauder is a Help to Fundamentalism

“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…. 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.”1

Recently, I read the December 2, 2014 article at the FBFI’s Proclaim & Defend blog.  I refer to Pastor Matt Recker’s article Gratefulness for Kevin Bauder.2 What follows is a compilation of a discussion between several men and I who are within the membership of, familiar with and concerned about the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI’s) accommodation of Dr. Kevin Bauder.

The on-going pattern with Kevin Bauder has been an attitude more than willing to slam those who are “friends in the movement,” while making sure we are more than careful about what we say with regard to those who are not in our movement – especially if they are Calvinists and/or in the so-called “conservative” evangelical camp.

We understand Matt is acknowledging Kevin Bauder’s tenor as he (KB) expressed his differences with Matt, and I trust that this is the only reason for this charitableness toward Kevin. Matt took some heat at the pseudo- fundamentalist Sharper Iron over it, and handled himself well commenting there.  While we appreciate Matt Recker’s gracious spirit, we are certainly not convinced that Kevin Bauder’s style is a help to fundamentalism.

There are some within the FBFI who are looking for ways to reach the younger set who have departed the FBFI.  Kevin Bauder certainly has been catering to that crowd.  Others believe it is best to move on for the cause of Christ. Society seems to repeat this idea that we must cater to the younger generation that goes through a rebellious stage, and somehow accommodate their rebellion as something normal and acceptable. This is being carried over into the religious realm, specifically, fundamentalism with the attitude of the younger generation. IMO, it has been better for the angry young people to move away than remain among us. Those unwilling to appreciate, and to instead besmirch current and/or former generations of fundamentalists upon whose shoulders we stand, don’t deserve accommodation.

If the younger set is willing to reconsider their attitudes, in some cases repent of their vitriol toward the FBFI, its leadership from past generations,3 they would likely be warmly received in fellowship for the cause of the gospel of Jesus Christ. If not, no thank you, we don’t need them in their current state of mind and attachment to the non-separatist evangelicals whom Kevin Bauder frequently and warmly heaps “lavish praise” upon.

There is a new wave of New Evangelicalism sweeping through the NT church. From within fundamental circles Kevin Bauder has been the new wave of evangelicalism’s chief apologist. 

Dr. Kevin Bauder has influenced anger and resentment of the younger generation of preachers toward Fundamentalism.  He has, furthermore, encouraged their movement toward the spiritual dangers of the new wave New Evangelicalism.4 When these, from the upcoming generation, finally land in the New Evangelicalism of John Piper, and/or Al Mohler (some have already done so) we need look no further than Kevin Bauder who, from within fundamentalism, was given free rein to aggressively influence them in that direction.  

LM

Originally published Dec. 11, 2014

Related Reading:


Is Kevin Bauder the Right Choice to “Argue for Biblical Separation” in Fundamentalism?

Are We Recognizing the “NEW” New Evangelicalism?

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

Kevin Bauder Discussing: Al Mohler’s “Occasional Inconsistency?”

Footnotes:

1) Dr. Gerald Priest: Can We Be Even Clearer? (Let’s Get Clear on This, SI: March 8, 2010)

Since 2010 have we seen, “any significant difference between conservative evangelical and the fundamentalist institutions…disappear?” Of course, and we need look no further than the former Northland Baptist Bible College and Calvary Baptist Seminary (Lansdale) to see what the deadening effects that the Trojan Horse of so-called “conservative” evangelicalism has done to once formerly thriving fundamentalist schools. See,

The Closure of Calvary Baptist Seminary

NIU: Culmination of a Modern Day Tragedy

2) Gratefulness for Dr. Kevin Bauder

3) We must never forget that in 2009 it was Kevin Bauder, from his blog and SI, who initiated a series of unprovoked written attacks on the person and legacies of Drs. Bob Jones, Jr., and John R. Rice. See,

Kevin Bauder’s 2009 Rant & Tirade

“Again, [we are] very disappointed at the language Bauder uses against his fellow fundamentalists, evidently chiefly against Rice: ‘pugilistic and bellicose,’ ‘alpha males,’ ‘the big boys,’ ‘bullies,’ ‘chieftains,’ etc. Is this the kind of language a fundamentalist leader should use?”

4) Dr. Dave Doran has been a vocal influence, but to a lesser extent in recent months. In regard to the star personalities of the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism both Drs. Doran and Bauder have for years been willing to tolerate, allow for, ignore and excuse all sorts of aberrant theology, ecumenical compromise, cultural relativism and worldliness.