Bob Jones University Embraces Franklin Graham's Ecumenical Movement: Have You Finally Seen Enough?

Prior to the arrival of Steve Pettit it could arguably be said that Bob Jones University (BJU) had retained much of its fundamental and separatist legacy. In a single statement Dr. Beale captures what has become of BJU since the arrival of Steve Pettit. He wrote,

After being the premier Fundamentalist academic institution for eighty seven years, BJU elected Dr. Steve Pettit in 2014, as the president who steered the University out of separatist Fundamentalism into the inclusive, Broad Evangelical Movement. (Christian Fundamentalism in America, p. 179, 530).

In the past two years we have documented how Steve Pettit and the board have accelerated a strategy of doctrinal compromise and inclusivism with non-separatist evangelicals. Last week we saw a new and quite possibly most disturbing event in memory.

BJU has formally joined the Rev. Franklin Graham in cooperative ministry. Steve Pettit orchestrated a joint ministry with Graham's Samaritans Purse Operation Christmas Child (OCC). You can familiarize yourself with OCC here.

BJU announced it had raised $23,200 on behalf of Graham's OCC. Photos were posted by Pettit of students packing Christmas boxes for Graham's OCC.

With this event any pretense that BJU remains a fundamental separatist school is stripped away. BJU has gone beyond embracing an "inclusive broad evangelical movement," and has openly embraced ecumenical compromise.

Some might ask, "Who doesn’t want children to have gifts at Christmas and the gospel shared with them as well?" This is the reasoning we have heard from some, but does that justify becoming involved with ecumenism?

Evangelist Dr. Bob Jones, Sr founder of BJU answered that question in his lifetime saying, "It is never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right." If that adage still appears in the halls and classrooms of the university it should be removed. Clearly it no longer carries any weight with Pettit and the administration. 

Franklin Graham has continued to follow in his father's ecumenical footsteps.  Here are examples.1

• In 1998, Franklin Graham conducted a crusade in Adelaide, Australia. Joining Graham were Archbishop Leonard Faulkner of the diocese of Adelaide. Forty-nine Roman Catholic churches were actively involved in the crusade.
• In a 1999 Franklin Graham said his father's decision to cultivate broad ecumenical participation in his crusades, including cooperation with the Roman Catholic church, was "the best thing he ever did." He went on to say, 'If Billy Graham is willing to work with everybody, then maybe we should too' " (The Indianapolis Star, June 3, 1999).
• In April 2000, the vice-chairman of the Franklin Graham Festival in Lubbock, Texas was Paul Key, evangelism director for the Catholic Diocese of Lubbock. Key is the author of a book titled 95 Reasons for Becoming or Remaining a Roman Catholic, which has been touted as a Catholic answer to Martin Luther's 95 Theses.
• In June 2002, Franklin Graham conducted a "festival" in Cincinnati, Ohio in which five Roman Catholic parishes of that city participated. In preparation for the crusade, those parishes conducted week-long training programs to prepare Catholic counselors to deal with those who came forward in response to Graham's invitations.
• In 2004, Roman Catholics participated in a "festival" conducted by Franklin Graham in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
• In 2005, Roman Catholics participated in another Franklin Graham "festival" in Corpus Christi, Texas.
• In an April 2, 2005 interview with Katie Couric on NBC's Today show, Franklin Graham praised the late Pope John Paul II, and said they preached the same gospel.
• In 2005, Franklin Graham attended the enthronement of Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican. (His father was too ill to attend.) Franklin's preacher sister, Anne Graham Lotz, represented the Graham family and organization at Pope John Paul II's funeral.

Franklin Graham is promoting a 4-City God Loves You Tour for 2022. Promotional materials include this statement, "We are profoundly grateful for the thousands of churches of various denominations across the U.K. that have stood alongside us and continued praying for the tour.” Under the web page "About the God Loves You Tour" we read, "Franklin is continuing the life long work of his father Billy Graham.... Just like his father, Franklin is working with local churches...." 

Those examples dispel any notion that Franklin Graham has distanced himself from the ecumenical spirit of his father. Steve Pettit raised money for OCC knowing Franklin is as much an ecumenical as his father, Billy Graham, ever was.

Franklin Graham gives Christian recognition to apostates, the "enemies of the cross of Christ," (Phil. 3:18). His ecumenical compromise is forbidden by God's Word (2 Cor. 6:14; 2 John 9-11).2  BJU’s cooperative ministry with Franklin Graham is a tacit endorsement of ecumenicalism.

Could the $23,200 have been distributed to fundamentalist missionaries on foreign fields to provide toys and the biblical plan of salvation to children and their families? Of course it could and the option was readily available. Instead funds that were raised have gone to a man and ministry that works in cooperation with the Roman Catholic church. Steve Pettit could have chosen the Gospel Fellowship Association (GFA), which was founded by Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. to accomplish the very same goals.3 A check could have been given to the GFA office that sits across the street from the BJU campus. Students could have packed boxes for GFA missionaries to distribute to lost children on foreign fields where they serve. Yet Pettit raised $23,200 from the BJU faithful and handed it over to an ecumenical organization. 

To once again quote Dr. Beale, “...Dr. Steve Pettit... [has] steered the University out of separatist Fundamentalism into the inclusive, Broad Evangelical Movement,” (p. 179). Having joined hands with Franklin Graham an objective observer has to conclude that Pettit's vision is to transform a separatist fundamentalist institution into an ecumenical big tent ministry.

Cooperating with Franklin Graham was an act of sinful disobedience to the Word of God. It is an egregious example of ecumenical encroachment at BJU that was heartily endorsed by Steve Pettit. With the pattern in view it is reasonable to question, "How long before Franklin Graham will be standing on the platform at BJU to address the student body?"

Have You Finally Seen Enough?

"Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his own soul: he heareth cursing, and bewrayeth it not," (Proverbs 29:24.)

In one of our recent articles we said, "This is Not Your Father's BJU." In just seven years Steve Pettit has erased virtually everything that for 87 years identified BJU as a separatist fundamentalist university.

I'm asking the alumni. I'm asking BJU's board of directors and trustees. I'm asking any of you who invested your lives, family and treasure. I am asking pastors and Christian leaders. I'm asking every friend of BJU who has to date remained silent these seven years.

• Have you finally seen enough to awaken, to raise your voices in protest over the ruination of BJU'S legacy? 
• Have you finally seen enough to raise the alarm, call for the dismissal of Steve Pettit? 
• Have you finally seen enough to resign from BJU's board? 
• Have you finally seen enough to cease from sending students to and/or financially supporting BJU? 

Pastor Travis Smith published an article that speaks to the silence. 

Some reading this devotional might be among the well-meaning believers who have served on boards or senior staff. You have “tacitly partnered” with leaders who were plotting a subtle departure from the course and principles of your institution’s past. You listened in silence as the founding fiber of that institution’s past, and its legacy were “cursed” and besmirched. ("I'd Rather 'Sing Like a Canary in a Coal Mine,' Than be a Silent Judas")

Read Pastor Smith's brief article. Meditate on Proverbs 29:24. Then, in light of what is happening to your beloved BJU, ask yourself, Have I finally seen enough? 

Yours faithfully,


LM

Footnotes
1) Way of Life & Teaching the Word

2) When Al Mohler signed the Manhattan Declaration Kevin Bauder wrote to give Mohler cover for it. See the Occasional Inconsistency article.

3) Gospel Fellowship Association
 
Related Reading

Roman Catholicism Isn't the Only Thing Come to BJU

Over a mere two weeks BJU gave its Bible Conference offering to an ecumenical organization headed by a new evangelical, and rented the university for a Roman Catholic to take the platform. 

If BJU Ever Changes...I Pray The Lord Closes Its Doors

BJU Compromised Spiritual Sanctification for Secular Pragmatism

BJU Lurches Further Into Evangelicalsim

BJU Moves Closer to Pseudo-Fundamentalism

Save the Storks board chair is Herb McCarthy. For 16 years Herb McCarthy was VP of Crusades for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Save the Storks is ecumenical3 in its associations.

One Man's Journey Down BJU Memory Lane

My next and greatest mentor was the late Founder and President of Bob Jones University, Dr Bob Jones Sr.  My first recollection of him was the opening message he preached at the beginning of my first year as a student at BJU.  I had been used to mild mannered sermons, preached by mild mannered preachers, but when I heard Dr. Bob preach for the first time, it took my breath away.  He was like a mad man, running all over the platform, hollering and screaming like a banchie Indian.  I’d never heard anything like him.  It was electrifying, mesmerizing and captivating.  I couldn’t take my eyes off him.  I listened intently on every word that came out of his mouth.  When the invitation was given to accept God’s call to preach, I was out of my seat like a flash of lightening and down the aisle I went, never to regret the decision of that night.  That was my introduction to the greatest spiritual mentor of my life. 

As I went from building to building on campus, I noticed sayings written on wall plaques and placed on walls throughout the campus buildings.  At first, given my ignorance of scripture, I thought they were Bible verses, but soon learned that they were sayings of Dr. Bob Sr., many of which continue to stir me on to this day.  For instance, “Do right till the stars fall;” has kept me from getting in trouble time and time again, and two of my all time favorites, “Never sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate”, and “It’s never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right,” have kept me on track for the last 60 years.

As a preacher boy, I attended the “Preacher Boy Class” that met every day of the week, and was led by Dr. Stenholm; however, when Dr. Bob Sr. was on campus, he always spoke to the preacher boys.  When I was there, there were 1100 in the class, and our greatest memories came from the quiet, reserved teachings of Dr. Bob Jones Sr.  I spent four years there and thank God everyday that I was privileged to do so, and what I learned over those four years, sitting at the feet of Dr. Bob Sr., were the most precious years of my educational experience.

Would to God that he was alive today to set straight what’s going on at this present time at BJU.

Larry Huffhand

The Hufhand Report, Nov. 26, 2021

Related Reading

"If BJU Ever Changes...I Pray the Lord Closes Its Doors."

This is Not Your Father's Oldsmobile & Neither is BJU

BJU: A Failure to Stay the Course

An Analysis of BJU's Position Paper on Calvinism...

Archival Series: Where Have All the Bible Colleges Gone?

With the rapid departure of Bob Jones University from "separatist Fundamentalism into the inclusive, Broad Evangelical Movement," the closure Northland International University,1 the latest in a string of Bible college closures,2 let’s turn our attention to a timely article from October 2011 by the late Dr. Clay Nuttall.  Here now is, Where Have All the Bible Colleges Gone?

We should begin with this question: “Is the day of the Bible college over?”  In the past, this phenomenal movement produced huge numbers of ministry servants who then flooded the mission fields and filled the pulpits of our land.  Many of those people have already retired or have been promoted to Glory and received a “well done” from the Master.  A lot of well-known mission fields benefited from the service of these men and women who have left a major mark on mission history.  Men trained in Bible colleges were used of God to build some of the largest and most effective local churches we have known.

It has been argued by some that the quality of Bible college students is no longer sufficient for the day we live in.  The culture may be different today, but the Word of God has not changed; and that was the heart of the Bible college movement.  Most of these institutions came into existence for the sole purpose of training pastors and missionaries.  Theirs was meant to be a foundational training, and there always were institutions that could provide advanced training for those who chose specialized service.  The idea that a Bible college education was not good enough to prepare people for ministry is seriously flawed, if not downright arrogant!  A look at the thousands of servants who were trained, and the ministries that have been established, definitely settles this question.

This is not about the fact that some of those schools failed; the same is true of every movement.  Even our Lord had one disciple who flunked the course!  Not every Bible college graduate made a serious mark on the ministry, but the same is true of any level of training.  A degree, after all, is no guarantee of success.

HOW DID THIS ALL HAPPEN?
As the years have passed, many Bible colleges have faded from the scene.  There are a lot of reasons for this: some were poorly constructed and failed because of finances, leadership, and constituency.  Some of them merged with other schools, while others left their original goal of training missionaries and pastors and broadened into other fields.  Many in this category continued their new direction until they were no longer even Bible colleges, either in practice or in name.  They had every right to follow this path, but the progression demands some honesty.  If a school is no longer a Bible college, or doesn’t really want to be one, then the right thing to do is to move on.  If they are not Baptist, if their main driving ministry is not the Bible, then the best thing to do is to openly confess their new goals.

Confusion arises, however, because of those who claim to hold onto the old even though they have chosen a new direction.  To claim that they still are now what they had been leaves much to be desired. 

There is nothing wrong with admitting that the change is based on funding, enrollment, or even prestige in academia; there is something wrong with a shell game.

 Over the last forty years, I have heard those who have obviously moved away from the Bible college model argue that they still teach the same doctrine and still have the same statement of faith; that is absolutely irrelevant because of what is really being taught and allowed in the classroom.  My favorite saying is, “We teach more Bible now than we did when we were a Bible college!”  Of course you do, because you reached your goal of a larger enrollment; but being one of the “big boys on the block” doesn’t mean you still have the same theology you once taught!

THE PURSUIT OF INTELLECTUALISM
Now we arrive at one of the major reasons why the Bible college has been left behind. As our movement has progressed, there has been increasing pressure for us to become respectable in our academics, like the “elite.”  Both old and young fundamentalists have become enamored with the intellectuals and want to be like them at all costs; they even talk like them and walk like them.  This is the same mistake that Israel made when they wanted to be like the other nations around them who had kings.  So, where there once was a true Bible college, now the leaders mainly want to be respected by the intellectual pagans.

The journey from Bible college to a pursuit of prestige and intellectualism always takes a toll, and this sad declension is almost always represented by a change in theology.  It is not always deliberate; in some cases, it may occur out of ignorance of a biblical theology.  The journey always demands a change in leadership; and when the new main leaders are not biblical theologians, the slide becomes more rapid.  The truth is that sometimes this change is deliberate, even as it is in churches that have left the Bible and Baptist out of their identification.  It is not that the leaders are heretics, but rather that they are swept away by motives that differ from their foundational standard.

It appears that the further an individual or institution moves on this journey in order to have the respect of human leaders, the further they also move from a theology that is biblical.  Every change has its cost, and those who protest this maxim only prove the point.  I am not opposed to higher education; much of my ministry has been there.  I am opposed to teaching and defending error.  Of course, some Bible colleges have problems with academic and theological issues. That is to be expected because we are all human.

GONE?  NOT EVERYONE!
While dozens of Bible colleges have gone out of business, and some have moved on to other areas of emphasis, others have stood firm in their majority purpose of training men and women for the mission field and church ministry.  The great thing is that God today is raising up new Bible colleges that have returned to the foundational goals of training.  While these schools have gotten their share of criticism, they have come to life to fill a gap left by those who have gone on to different things.  One of those new colleges gets my thumbs-up; it is Grace Baptist Bible College of Winston Salem, North Carolina.  Not only has it successfully put together a program that looks like that of the Bible college of old, but a number of well-respected saints in our movement have come to join its ranks.  Perhaps God will raise up some more of these fine institutions to take the place of the departed.


SHEPHERD’S STAFF
Clay Nuttall, D.Min, October, 2011
A communication service of Shepherd’s Basic Care
For those committed to the authority and sufficiency of the Bible
Shepherd’s Basic Care is a ministry of information and encouragement to pastors, missionaries, and churches. Write for information using the e-mail address, Shepherdstaff2@juno.com

Related Readings:
1) NIU Closes: The Pattern of Demise 

NIU a Gift? Thanks, but No Thanks

May the "Northland Heart" Perpetuate

2) What Do NIU, Pillsbury, TTU Have in Common?

Closure of Calvary Baptist Seminary: Predictable & Repeatable

Calvary Baptist Seminary: They Are Accountable and Won't Own Up To It

Piedmont/TTU: A Predictable Pattern of Merger With Only ONE Survivor

God's Sovereignty: He Can Be Trusted

Since I first mentioned my cancer diagnosis in February many have reached out to me with kind expressions of hope and encouragement. I was diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma (left kidney) stage 4, which had spread to my left lung and liver. I shared that news here in Embrace Trials, Hold Joy, God is Near You.

Today, I can provide an update. On Wednesday I had a CT scan. This morning my oncologist called with the results. She said, 

"The scan looks great. Everything is stable. No new spots. Nothing is bigger and nothing is smaller. Should continue with the same therapy, maybe increase the dosage every 3rd or 4th day. All in all a good result."

For this my wife and family are grateful. While my cancer is incurable we are happy that my life expectancy is being extended. My quality of life, the chemotherapy side effects, has also much improved over time. In fact up until the weather recently turned I was able to get in a few rounds of golf. I hope to hit the slopes this winter as well.

In October I was found to have developed a skin cancer on my left hand. A minor surgery was performed to remove it. The good news is that they got it all, and had not spread. 

While my cancer is incurable, the chemotherapy has thus far reduced the size of the tumor and slowed its inevitable spread. Two previous CT scans showed the tumor had been reduced in size by approximately 50%. My wife Liz and I thank God for His loving kindness toward us as we walk this path He has entrusted to us.

Incidentally, in April I suffered a mild stroke and contracted bi-lateral Bells Palsy. All that right on the heels of the cancer diagnosis and chemotherapy issues. It was a vortex of issues one on top of another. I began to feel like Wylie E. Coyote waiting for the next anvil to drop.

I was born again in April 1979. From that day to this I knew that when I leave this corruptible body I would be in Heaven. The only thing I did not know was how I was going to get there. It appears, unless the Lord supernaturally heals my body, that question has been answered. 

Through all of this the Lord has given me many opportunities to tell of His goodness and witness to lost folks I otherwise never would have met. I want you all to know that when you face adversity, when life takes a turn that you had not anticipated God is in the midst. He is working out His perfect plan for your life and you do not need to be afraid of it. You can trust Him and find joy in trials. I am being prepared and perfected to enter into His presence.  It is our glorification we are all being prepared for and we need not fear it. 

Thanks again for your expressions of concern, encouragement and kindness.

Kind regards,

LM

Archival Series: “Why These Schools Collapsed & What Does It Mean for [BJU]?”

Today [June 18, 2020] I am drawing your attention to a message given by Dr. Will Senn given at the FBFI Annual Fellowship on June 12, 2019. His message title is, What are the Qualities of True Christian Fellowship?1You will appreciate the relevance of the latter part of his message as it has a direct bearing on our discussions about the changing face of Bob Jones University (BJU).

Where the message begins to move toward what is applicable to BJU begins at -20:50. Later the message hones in on specifics that precisely addresses what is happening at Bob Jones University (BJU). To appreciate the impact of what was said you must listen to the balance of Pastor Senn’s message from -17:20 through the end.

Dr. Will Senn

Dr. Senn begins closing his message with an illustration from a graduate class he was teaching at International Baptist College & Seminary (Spring 2019).  His concluding remarks are drawn from the students’ answers to the final exam he had given them. Their assignment was, “I am giving you five colleges where the doors are now closed…. You’re going to make an oral presentation…. Why did they close?” (-17:20) Dr. Senn’s assigned the final.

“Why did Clearwater close, Northland close, Pillsbury close, Calvary Baptist Seminary close, Tennessee Temple close…. why did they fall, what happened and what can we learn? I want you to do the research. I want us to learn something from history because it will have a current application and future application as it relates to our fellowship.”

Dr. Senn then assigned the students a second portion to the exam.  He said, “You’re going to take the lessons learned and I am going to ask you to put yourself in the context of addressing five current Christian schools where if you had the opportunity to talk to their boards what would you say to those board members from the lessons just learned?”

The five current schools assigned were: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Faith Baptist (Ankeny, IA), Maranatha Baptist University, Bob Jones University and International Baptist College & Seminary.

The student answers are as revealing as they are factually correct. Dr. Senn read samples of the reasons students arrived at for the five schools closing, for example:

•    Guard against sports becoming the focus of the school, rather than the focus being disciple making, loving Christ and other type of school.

•    Maintain sound doctrine; do not compromise to broaden the school’s base of support.

•    The need for the school to solicit input and support of the pastor and churches that are sending their students to the school.

•    Be true to your mission statement. Do not try to be something that you are not.

•    Southern Baptists and other evangelicals have their own well established and attractive schools. They are not looking for new schools, but are content with their current choices.

•    Sports programming can become overbearing and expensive especially if you seek to compete in higher divisions.

The excerpted student answers above (there were thirty in all) boiled down to a summary statement. Dr. Senn prefaced their summary, “Why these five schools collapsed and then what would you say to the other five schools that I love?” Their summary statement was,

Every failed school veered from its conservative and historic base to accommodate a new base…and each time it was the death knell of the school.


BJU president Dr. Steve Pettit was in the auditorium under the sound of Dr. Senn’s message. From that day to this it appears virtually none of those student admonitions made a dent with Steve Pettit and his mission for BJU. Does Steve Pettit think he can veer from the university’s base to accommodate the SBC and evangelicals and the university will survive it? If that is Steve’s plan then he is not learning from history the lesson that the five closed schools learned the hard way.

Drs. Horn & Pettit

During the tragedy that became Northland’s closure objective observers knew that Matt Olson, with Sam Horn “veered from its conservative and historic base to accommodate a new base.” Today, objective observers recognize that Steve Pettit and Sam Horn “veered from [BJU’s] conservative and historic base to accommodate a new base.” BJU’s “conservative and historic base” recognize what Pettit and Horn together have done. The base has been alienated, their admonitions ignored.  Consequently much of the base has abandoned the school, plus the SBC and evangelical students Steve Pettit is trying to attract, “are not looking for new schools, but are content with their current choices.”

At this blog I have in various forms been writing statements like this, “For NIU the lesson from TTU [Clearwater, Calvary Seminary] and Pillsbury is the same, ‘You can’t come in and turn a hard right or left and expect to have your alumni with you’.”2Today we can take that statement with some editing to read as follows, “For Bob Jones University the lesson from NIU, TTU, Pillsbury, Clearwater and Calvary Seminary is the same, “You can’t come in and turn a hard right or left and expect to have your alumni with you.”

Closing with Dr. Senn, 

“You can’t build that [SBC, evangelical] relationship fast enough. So what happens is your pushing the good people out, the Calebs and Joshuas. And you start listening to the ten spies.”

BJU is well on its way to joining the five failed schools. You cannot alienate your core constituency and expect them to remain loyal. On its current trajectory BJU should not expect to survive Steve Pettit’s presidency.

LM

Originally published June 18, 2020.

Footnotes:

1) What are the Qualities of True Christian Fellowship?

2) What Do Pillsbury; TTU & NIU Have in Common? (October, 2012)

Related Reading:
Dr. Bob Jones, Jr, “If BJU Ever Changes...I Pray the Lord Closes Its Doors.” 
Ironically it is through the actions of BJU graduates, Steve Pettit (80’) and Sam Horn (86’ 88’ 95’) that the school has lost its ‘strong fundamentalist stand.’ Going forward, unless some radical intervention takes place, it will be through BJU graduate Steve Pettit that the university’s doors are destined to close.

Sam Horn in Historical Perspective: Northland & Bob Jones University

The Northland/BJU pattern is virtually the same, casting off its fundamentalism, separatist roots, and the common denominator is Sam Horn. BJU is learning what the colleges learned the hard way when they went down the road of embracing evangelicalism.  And that lesson is: You cannot turn a college to a hard right or hard left and expect to have your alumni with you. 

The Closure of Calvary Baptist Seminary: Predictable & Repeatable (August 2013)

Is NIU “UnChanged?” NBBC Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity

What tires objective observers is letters like those from Les Ollila and Matt Olson where they…use subjective imprecise language to quell any concerns…. 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 starker than the demise of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College.

NIU Closes: Continuation of the Pattern of Demise (April 2015)

This is the predicted result of Matt Olson’s Experiment with the “new wave” of new evangelicalism. It was clear that the school would not survive Olson’s changes. Matt Olson and his team [Sam Horn] had pounded the nails into the coffin of a once fine, fundamental, Baptistic, separatist school. 

This Pastor’s Perspective on the Closure of Clearwater Christian College (June 2015)

From the front pew it has been my sorrow to observe CCC’s decline over the past 13 years.  From a college with a strong following of biblical fundamental pastors and churches, CCC appeared to have lost her way.  Many reasons will be given for the doors of CCC closing.  Some will cite economics, a dwindling number of conservative churches, low student enrollment and competition from other colleges. Although all of the above no doubt contribute to the demise of CCC; I suggest from my vantage point that the leadership of the college over the past 10 years steered the college away from its founder’s purpose, philosophy and vision.



Bob Jones University: Compromised Spiritual Sanctification for Secular Pragmatism

On October 22 Bob Jones University (BJU) posted a promotional video for their production of A Midsummer Night's Dream. The screen shot at right is taken from the 1:20 video. Update 11/07: Over the weekend BJU removed the video from their Facebook page.

Since the installment of Dr. Steve Pettit as BJU president in 2014 we have witnessed and documented (see links below) a slow march away from the university’s biblical separatist legacy. The university has chosen a path of compromised spiritual sanctification for secular pragmatism.

NIU Student 2013

Dr. David Beale recently published Christian Fundamentalism in America in which the following appears.

“After being the premier Fundamentalist academic institution for eighty seven years, BJU elected Dr. Steve Pettit in 2014, as the president who steered the University out of separatist Fundamentalism into the inclusive, Broad Evangelical Movement,” (p. 179, 530).

BJU has departed from any reasonable understanding of historic separatist fundamentalism. Unless BJU is recovered there are only two possible outcomes. 1) Become increasingly like Cedarville and Liberty, or 2) Follow NIU, Pillsbury, Clearwater, TTU and Calvary Seminary (Lansdale) into closure.

Yours faithfully,

LM

UPDATE (Nov. 7): 

1) The BJU administration has removed or blocked the video from its Facebook page we link to above. 

2) Dr. Kevin Schaal posted an article at the FBFI Proclaim & Defend blog.  In it he cites the section from Dr. Beale’s new book, which we have noted above. We appreciate the FBFI finding its voice over what is transpiring at BJU. The balance of Schaal’s article, however, essentially blunts the impact Beale's sharp and precise statement.

Related Reading:

This is Not Your Father's BJU

Alumni and friends of BJU have reached out to Steve Pettit about the direction he is taking the university. On hearing the reproof of friends Pettit and the administration have chosen not to change, and instead stepped on the gas-pedal. The trajectory the university is set upon can have only one of two outcomes, neither good.

Why These Schools Collapsed & What Does it Mean for BJU?

“Why did Clearwater close, Northland close, Pillsbury close, Calvary Baptist Seminary close, Tennessee Temple close…why did they fall, what happened and what can we learn? I want us to learn something from history because it will have a current application and future application as it relates to our fellowship.”

Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. "If BJU Ever Changes...I Pray The Lord Closes Its Doors

Many of the alumni…and long-time friends of BJU have seen enough of how the school is moving toward ecumenical inclusivism to abandon the university.  It appears there is little left to do other than: 1) Watch the university continue on an ecumenical trajectory or 2) as one alum said, It “…should be taken back by all who invested their lives, students, and for many…their fortunes in the place.”

BJU Lurches Further Into Evangelicalism

Further we must refuse to surrender resources to those institutions, agencies, and churches who are moving. It is not wise to continue to send our children to colleges, give our money to agencies, or support churches that are in transition while we wait to see where they will land. By then it is too late! Look at where their feet are pointing! At some point there must be separation from this disobedience. It is the only tool which God has given to us to police ourselves and to maintain the priority and purity of our position.

An Analysis of BJU's Position Paper on Calvinism, Arminianism & Reformed Theology

After reading BJU’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.

A Failure to Stay the Course by Pastor Travis Smith 

For more than 15 years I have observed a pattern of change at Bob Jones University that is all to familiar. Like a ship slowly, imperceptibly drifting from its course, the university is adrift from the disciplines that shaped the character of generations of Christian students in its past.

Archival Series: Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page

In each of the three editions of Dr. John MacArthur’s The Gospel According to Jesus there is a single page that summarizes one of the most egregious errors of the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel.

The page I refer to appears in the original and revised versions (pp. 218 and 252 respectively). In the 20th Anniversary edition, you will turn to page 250 and read,

“One of the most comprehensive invitations to salvation in all the epistles comes in James 4:7-10... The invitation in 4:7-10 is directed at those who are not saved...”

This is the passage Dr. MacArthur refers to as an “invitation to salvation.”

“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up,” (James 4:7-10).

At this point I want to remind my readers that the crux of the Lordship Salvation controversy is with the requirement for salvation, NOT what should be the natural results of a genuine conversion. In this section on the James passage John MacArthur is making his application to, “those who are not saved.”

Is the epistle of James, “directed at those who are not saved?” The epistle begins, “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. My brethren, count it all joy…,” (James 1:1-2). “Brethren” appears approximately 190 times in the New Testament, and when does appear it is used almost exclusively in reference to born again Christians.

Dr. MacArthur views the carnality that James addresses as though it proves these “brethren,” were never saved in the first place. He views them as “sinners…unregenerate…in desperate need of God’s (saving) grace.” MacArthur’s answer to the problem is that they need to be born again. He goes on to delineate what he believes are the ten “imperatives” for the reception of eternal life. The saving message to “sinners,” the “unregenerate,” according to MacArthur is,

“...submit yourself to God (salvation); resist the devil (transferring allegiance); draw near to God (intimacy of relationship); cleanse your hands (repentance); purify your hearts (confession); be miserable, mourn, weep and let your laughter and joy be turned to gloom (sorrow). The final imperative summarizes the mentality of those who are converted: ‘Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord’.”

If MacArthur’s statement was shared as instruction to Christians on how they should live wisely as born again disciples of Jesus Christ that would be a fair application of what he wrote. He is, however, stating what he believes are the necessary conditions of saving faith that results in a lost man becoming a Christian.

What we have in this single page (250) of The Gospel According to Jesus is the Lordship’s classic error of failing to distinguish between the doctrines of salvation and discipleship. Lordship Salvation frontloads faith with a commitment to do the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) one would expect of a mature born again Christian to become a born again Christian.

Do we find salvation by the grace of God through faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8-9) anywhere in James 4:7-10? No, we do not, because James is addressing “brethren” some of whom behaved as “carnal” Christians.

The example from page 250 of The Gospel According to Jesus typifies and exemplifies the error of Lordship Salvation. The crux of the Lordship controversy is contained in the three paragraphs of that single page. That one page is all one needs to know about John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation to realize he has changed the terms of the Gospel into a non-saving, man-centered message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates the grace of God.

“I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain,” (Gal. 2:21).

LM

Site Publisher Addendum (01/02/14): 
This article has been among the top three most read and recommended articles since 2008. We must never forget that Lordship Salvation (LS) is an egregious error and assault on the Gospel of grace. LS must be exposed, refuted and its advocates marked so that they may be avoided (Rom. 16:17-18).

For additional reading on the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel please proceed to any of the following articles.

John MacArthur’s Discipleship Gospel

How Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance?

Lordship’s “Turn from Sin” FOR Salvation

Can God Given Faith Be Defective?

Is Lordship Salvation a "Barter" System?

John MacArthur’s Mandatory Performance Guidelines for “Lordship” Salvation

Ominous Signs of Lordship’s Coming Storm

An Example of Lordship’s Man-Centered Message

Dr. Ernest Pickering, “The Separatist Cause is Not Advanced by Featuring Non-Separatists”

On Tuesday, February 8 [2011] the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron1 (SI) site posted an excerpt from Dr. Ernest Pickering’s Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. The excerpt was submitted by Brother Kevin Mungons of Baptist Bulletin and Regular Baptist Press. In his introductory remarks Mungons wrote,

“Several bloggers have recently addressed the subject of separation, suggesting that current leaders such as Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, and Tim Jordan are moving to a position that contradicts the teaching of an earlier generation of fundamentalists…. Disappointed with the rough-and-tumble disagreements of his era, Pickering concluded his seminal Biblical Separation with a critique of fundamentalism’s well-documented foibles—advice that would have saved us a lot of grief, had we listened. A portion of the book’s conclusion follows.” (bold added)

We can all appreciate the outstanding teaching within the pages of Dr. Pickering’s Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. Sharper Iron did not include any portion from Dr. Pickering’s classic that speaks plainly to the efforts of Drs. Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Tim Jordan and Matt Olson to embrace, feature and cooperate with non-separatist evangelicals. Dr. Pickering’s advice to them would have saved us a lot of grief, had they listened.

Today we will consider whether or not certain present day Fundamentalists, who claim a heritage in and militancy to authentic biblical separatism, are acting contrary to the teaching of and have drifted from the moorings that Dr. Pickering defined for biblical separation. Following is a timely subsection from Biblical Separation that addresses an application of authentic biblical separation.  The subsection is titled, Whom to Invite to Your Platform.

“Some leaders operate on the principle that they will use speakers who are well-known even though they may be shaky in their convictions in some areas-because they have special abilities that are helpful and thus can be a blessing to their congregations. The wisdom, however, of following this course of action is very doubtful. For instance, the president of a separatist school may be asked to consider using some outstanding Bible preacher in his chapel or Bible conference. The man may have expertise in the Scriptures, be fundamental in doctrine and possess a tremendous gift of communication. He may also be one who goes everywhere, evidencing little discernment in the choice of places he ministers, speaking one week at the separatist college and perhaps the next at a Bible conference controlled by new evangelicals or their sympathizers. Some see no harm in using such a man. They look only at the messages he delivers from the platform which, in themselves, may be without fault.

But a man is more than his pulpit message. He brings to the pulpit a lifetime of associations, actions and perhaps writings. He comes as a total person. Is he in his total ministry the type of person you would want the young people at the separatist college to emulate? Perhaps you, as an adult, mature believer, could make the necessary adjustments in thinking and divorce what he is from what he says. Most of the youth would not be able to do that. The same would be true of most church members. They would be influenced by the man’s example as well as by his preaching. If he is a compromiser, his example would be harmful, and the college president would be at fault for setting him up as such. The separatist cause is not advanced by featuring non-separatists.” (Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, Implementing Separatist Convictions, Whom to Invite to Your Platform, p. 229.)

This week Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder have joined non-separatist SBC pastor Dr. Mark Dever on the platform with Tim Jordan at the Calvary Baptist Seminary, Lansdale (CBS) Leadership Conference. They are sharing the platform with Dr. Dever and working in a cooperative ministry effort with him. Mark Dever is an SBC pastor, teaches at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which is a leading institution for New-Evangelical compromise and the home of the Ockenga Institute2 and he sits on the board of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (home of the Billy Graham School of Evangelism & World Missions).

Mark Dever brings to the platform with him, amillenialism. Additionally, he brings all of the baggage of the Southern Baptist Convention with him to the platform. Knowing all of this CBS invited Dever to their platform. This week, without reservation or seeing any need to justify speaking there, Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder happily share the platform with the man who brings that baggage with him to it. Is this the manner of biblical separation that Dr. Pickering taught or practiced?

In 2010 Dave Doran and Matt Olson featured non-separatist evangelicals in their church, seminary and college pulpits.3 From 1979 Dr. Pickering warned against compromise and fellowship with non-separatists.

“The separatist cause is not advanced by featuring non-separatists.”

Words fitly spoken to men and SI, who are reaching out to and advancing the cause of non-separatist so-called “conservative” evangelicals. Convicting words from a Fundamentalist on the principles and application of authentic biblical separation. We see men who would be accommodating rather than militant, appeasers rather than separatists, unifiers at the expense of fidelity to the doctrine. Dr. Pickering’s commentary clearly reveal Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Tim Jordan and Matt Olson practice that which is antithetical to his teaching on a specific application of separation- platform fellowship. They have moved to a position that contradicts the teaching of an earlier generation of Fundamentalists, Dr. Ernest Pickering in particular.

In recent days Dave Doran wrote very clear, unambiguous statements indicating what would constitute for him grounds to withhold fellowship from brethren. These are documented in The RAP on Mark Dever series.4 However, when faced with Dever’s obvious crossing the boundary that Doran set for himself, it is as if he (Doran) suddenly developed amnesia. He refuses to apply his own principles for separation. This begins to make one wonder why believe what Dave Doran writes or says about separatism, when his being at Lansdale with Mark Dever this week confirms that he personally ignores what he writes/says about separation. I see Dave Doran (as well as Bauder, Olson, Jordan) moving his fellowship increasingly toward non-separatists. I see a pattern of selective application of the timeless principles.

There is a disconnect between what Dave Doran writes on separation and what he does in practice.

Alleged separatists in IFB circles will keep walking the pathway of compromise. They are on this winding road to have their fellowship with non-separatist evangelicals. They are on the same slippery slope that men like Jerry Falwell chose years ago. They must believe they can succeed where Falwell, and many other lesser known who took the same steps, failed. They are headed, by choice, in that direction. Just like Falwell, van Impe, et.al., they are going to wind up in some kind of tragic “theological wasteland.”

What does Dr. Ernest Pickering say to men who claim to be separatists and unchanged in separatist convictions, who are increasingly featuring and cooperating in ministry with non-separatist evangelicals?

“The separatist cause is not advanced by featuring non separatists.”

Dr. Pickering’s message from Biblical Separation is clear. The actions of Bauder, Doran, Olson and Jordan to embrace, feature and converge with non-separatist evangelicals demonstrates movement away from and what is contradictory to the teaching of earlier fundamentalists, in particular Dr. Ernest Pickering.

There is still time for the evangelicals’ apologists, who still circulate in Fundamental circles, to listen to Dr. Pickering’s advice and to heed his admonitions for biblical separation for the sake of a pure church. Lord willing these self-described biblical separatists, some who claim to be unchanged militant separatists, will rethink the direction they are headed toward and cease from influencing impressionable young people to follow them into compromise with so-called “conservative” evangelicals.

With the prayers and admonition of God’s people those men might be recovered and reverse course before much longer. I am hopeful they will one day repent and invest the balance of their lives undoing the damage they are presently doing to authentic biblical separatism. The kind of militant, consistent, balanced separatism that Dr. Ernest Pickering defined in Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church.


LM

Originally published February 2011.

Site Publisher Addendum:
In the next we will excerpt portions from another of Dr. Ernest Pickering’s works. In that article we will once again recognize certain men in IFB circles are acting in ways that undeniably “contradicts the teaching of an earlier generation of fundamentalists.”

Footnotes:
1) For various discussions in regard to SI please visit, Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet

2) The Ockenga Institute in honor of early new evangelical leader Dr. Harold J. Ockenga (1905-1985) a founder and the first president of Gordon-Conwell, member of the board of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. This new evangelical inspired Gordon-Conwell is where Mark Dever chooses to teach and cooperate.

3) In 2010 Dave Doran hosted in his seminary or church pulpit Michael Vlach, Conrad Mbewe and Bryan Ferrell. Matt Olson at NIU hosted non-separatists Rick Holland, Wayne Simien and will feature another non-separatist SBC theologian, Bruce Ware, in a summer module.

4) The RAP on Mark Dever, Part 1

Related Reading:
Dead Man's Curve

Dr. Rick Arrowood: Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism

1994 & 1995 FBFI Resolutions: Southern Baptist Convention

“Those who call for cooperation in pulpit ministries between Fundamentalists and Southern Baptists either misread the nature of the conservative movement in the Convention, or themselves have compromised the cause of Biblical separation.” (Dave Doran, 1994).

“…we [Doran, Olson, Jordan] do not see how independent fundamental Baptists can make common cause with Southern Baptists.” (Dave Doran, Tim Jordan, Matt Olson, 1995).

Is NIU “Unchanged?” NBBC Position Statement on Issues in Contemporary Christianity

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

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

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

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.