In Defense of the Gospel

Salvation and Discipleship by Dr. Rick Flanders, Part 3

2012-01-31T01:00:00.001-06:00

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

We are continuing with the series by Dr. Rick Flanders. If you are new to this series you might begin with Part One and then Part 2 for the groundwork.

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

Dr. Rick Flanders wrote an article in 2007 titled, Salvation and Discipleship that addresses this vital issue in the Lordship Salvation controversy. The article first appeared at the Baptist College of Ministry website and with the author’s permission it is being reproduced here as a multi-part series. I am hopeful every guest will read this series with discernment and prayerfully consider the plain teaching of Scripture as Dr. Flanders presents it now in this third of five installments.

DISCIPLES OF JESUS OUGHT TO BECOME BELIEVERS IN JESUS
As we have seen in the book of John, disciples of Jesus are not necessarily believers in Him. In chapter 2, His disciples are recorded as coming to believe in Him, and in chapter 6 many of His disciples are said not to believe in Him. To be a disciple of Jesus is to be committed to follow Him. To believe in Him is to trust Him for one’s eternal salvation. There is clearly a difference between the two, but it is also clear in the Bible that discipleship and salvation are not disconnected. First of all, those who follow Jesus as Master and Teacher ought at some point to believe on Him as their Savior. If one is truly committed to follow the leading, the teaching, and the will of Jesus Christ, he will be brought to the place where he sees his need to believe on Him.

Today there are many who seek to follow Jesus, but have not yet trusted Him completely for their own salvation. We should not think that there are no real disciples of Christ among those who have joined sacramental churches or affiliated with monastic orders or entered the Christian ministry, while not understanding the glorious truth of justification by faith in Christ alone. Many sincere religionists are disciples but not believers. However Christian discipleship was planned to lead to saving faith.

The men whom Jesus chose to be His apostles found that if they would follow the teaching of their Master they must recognize that His central teaching had to do with Who He is. “I am,” He said again and again, “the Bread of Life” (John 6), “the Light of the World” (John 8), “the Good Shepherd” (John 10), “the Resurrection and the Life” (John 11). He did not say that He gave them the bread of life; He said he was that Bread which satisfies fully and forever. He did not say that He was a light in the world; rather He claimed to be the Light of the World. He said He was the Shepherd of the psalm, Whom David had identified as Jehovah Himself. He taught that He Himself is Eternal Life. When the unbelievers asked in John 8:25, “Who art thou?”, certainly His disciples must have asked themselves the same question. The answer, of course, is that Jesus said He is God and the only Way of salvation. Those who were really following Him must accept these claims, and trust Him for their own salvation. They will either do this or forsake their discipleship.

This is what happened with Judas. He followed Jesus until he realized that following Him would mean worshipping Him as God and believing in Him for salvation. Although he probably did call Him Lord (as many vainly do who have never been saved—remember Matthew 7:21) in the three years he followed Him, the Bible never records Judas calling Jesus “Lord.” He is recorded only calling Him, “Master” (as in Matthew 26:25 and 49), which means Teacher. Judas was a disciple, but he never came to believe on Jesus as Savior, and eventually he betrayed Him. Discipleship should lead to saving faith, and refusing to believe on Christ requires the abandonment of discipleship.

BELIEVERS OUGHT TO LIVE AS DISCIPLES OF JESUS
Even though the definitions of a believer in Jesus and a disciple of Jesus are very different, it does not follow that individuals have a legitimate choice about which one they will be. People who have salvation in Christ have a moral obligation to follow Christ in discipleship. One of the most important calls to discipleship in the Bible is Romans 12:1, which shows us this truth very clearly. “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Notice that the call is addressed to believers (“brethren”). Saved people are called to discipleship in this verse. Notice further that the discipleship decision of dedication is voluntary even for believers (“I beseech you”). It is not automatic that a believer will follow discipleship. But then every saved person is morally obligated to give the Lord his total dedication (“by the mercies of God”).

All of Romans before chapter 12 is about the mercies of God by which we are saved. Now, because of them, we who have been saved are urged to live entirely for the One Who died for us. It is our “reasonable service.”

There is a sense in which a saved person (a believer) has a choice whether or not to live as a dedicated Christian (a disciple), and yet there is a sense in which he has no such choice. A Christian is morally obligated to follow Jesus all the way. Dr. John R. Rice used to preach about “What It Costs to Be a Good Christian.” This sermon was about discipleship. When a believer is not living for the One Who died for him, he is not a good Christian.

Living right is not an automatic result of being saved, although it is the duty of every saved person.

Salvation is the most important issue of life, but it is not the only issue. If it were, why would we need the epistles? Without questioning the genuineness of their salvation, Paul in his inspired epistles admonished believers to “Flee fornication” (1 Corinthians 6:18), “idolatry” (1 Corinthians 10:14), “the love of money” (1 Timothy 6:7-11), and “youthful lusts” (2 Timothy 2:22). The writers of the New Testament constantly call on the saved to repent of their sins, to be good Christians, to behave as disciples. Failure to live the Christian life does not prove that a person is not a Christian. Salvation does not settle all the issues of the Christian life, and wrong choices concerning other issues do not prove that the right choice has not been made about salvation. Surrender to God, love for others, honesty, purity, self-denial, submission to authority, and prayer are all issues true believers are to handle as disciples. When a believer is told that failure in discipleship proves that he isn’t saved, and that he needs to get “really saved” so that he will start doing right, the implication is that salvation is the only issue. If you are saved you will do right, some seem to say, and if you won’t do right you must not be saved. Misleading counsel like this can cause believers to neglect dealing with a sin problem while it confuses them about the plan of salvation! Believers must face the issues of discipleship without reverting to the issue of salvation if it has already been settled by faith in Christ.

In the book of the Acts, people became members of the church when they were baptized as believers (see 2:41-44). As the church grew, the membership was called “the multitude of them that believed” (4:32, 5:14). But these believers were also called “disciples” (6:1, 6:7, 9:1, 9:26, 9:36-38, 11:26). The reason is that when a person believes on the Lord Jesus and affiliates with His church (which every believer is supposed to do), he is “signed up,” so to speak, to be a disciple of Jesus. Will he succeed in this discipleship? We do not know for sure, but we know that discipleship is the only right life for a believer in Jesus Christ. Therefore church-members are called disciples, learners committed to following Christ.

Dr. Rick Flanders has an itinerant preaching ministry for revival. He can be contacted at drrickflanders@gmail.com. Dr. Rick Flanders Revival Ministries

See- John MacArthur’s Discipleship Gospel and Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page for related reading.

Salvation and Discipleship by Dr. Rick Flanders, Part 2

2012-01-30T01:00:00.002-06:00

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

We are continuing with the series by Dr. Rick Flanders. If you are new to this series you might begin with Part One for the groundwork.

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

1) Christ’s invitation to salvation is, “Come unto Me” (Matthew 11:28); His call to discipleship is, “Come after Me” (Matthew 16:24).

2) Salvation is about the cross of Christ (Matthew 16:21); discipleship is about your own cross (Matthew 16:22-24).

3) At salvation, you receive a gift, eternal life (John 4:10 and Romans 6:23); in discipleship, you give a gift, your body (Romans 12:1).

4) The salvation decision (putting faith in Christ for eternal life) must be made but once (John 5:24, 6:37-40, 10:27-28); the discipleship decision (commitment to obey Christ) must be made again and again (Luke 9:23).

5) Salvation is a sure thing (Romans 8:1, 8-11, 28-30, 33-39); discipleship is always in danger of failing (Luke 14:25-35).

6) Salvation is about grace (Ephesians 2:5-9); discipleship is about works (Revelation 22:12).

7) Eternal life is the result of salvation in Christ (John 3:16); eternal rewards are the result of successful discipleship (Matthew 16:27).

Salvation (eternal life in Christ) and discipleship (dedication to Christ) are simply not the same. When Jesus came preaching the Kingdom of God, He called people to follow Him as disciples (see Matthew 4:17-5:1). The term “disciple” means a learner. A disciple commits himself to his teacher, as an apprentice does, in order to learn how to do what the teacher does. As the term “student” is used of a learner in relation to his subject (as a “student of history”), the term “disciple” is used of a learner in relation to his teacher (as a “disciple of Socrates,” or of John the Baptist). Many answered the call of Jesus to discipleship (as we see in the first books of the New Testament), and some continued to be faithful to that commitment, although the majority failed to keep it. Successful disciples somewhere along the trail came to understand Who Jesus really was, and trusted Him for their salvation. Peter is an example of a disciple who, although he often failed in his discipleship commitment, eventually came to believe on Christ and was eternally saved. Judas Iscariot was a disciple who not only failed at discipleship (he “fell” from apostleship according to Acts 1:25) but also failed to believe on Christ and was eternally lost. The end of the chapter that records the desertion of so many of the Lord’s disciples brings relation between discipleship and believing very powerfully before us.

“From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.” (John 6:66-71)

Dr. Rick Flanders has an itinerant preaching ministry for revival. He can be contacted at drrickflanders@gmail.com. Dr. Rick Flanders Revival Ministries

Salvation and Discipleship by Dr. Rick Flanders, Part 1 (ReStart)

2012-01-29T18:00:00.001-06:00

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

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

In one of the clearest expressions of portraying discipleship as though it is the key to salvation MacArthur wrote, “Anyone who wants to come after Jesus into the Kingdom of God—anyone who wants to be a Christian—has to face three commands: 1) deny himself, 2) take up his cross daily, and 3) follow him.” (Hard to Believe, p. 6.)

That teaching by MacArthur exemplifies one of the egregious errors that gave the NT church the works based, man-centered theology of Lordship Salvation.

How can the Scriptures teach that salvation is a free gift of God if the human cost to become a disciple, that is, to be born again, is very great as Lordship Salvation advocates insist? Salvation is either the free gift of God, or it is costly to man. The Bible teaches that “the gift of God is eternal life” (Romans 6:23), but discipleship or following Christ is costly (Luke 14:26-27). (IDOTG, pp. 73-74)

The issue is, How can my sins be forgiven? . . . Through faith I receive Him and His forgiveness. Then the sin problem is solved, and I can be fully assured of going to heaven. I do not need to believe in Christ’s second coming in order to be saved. . . . But I do need to believe that He died for my sins and rose triumphant over sin and death. I do not need to settle issues that belong to Christian living in order to be saved. (So Great Salvation, p. 40.)

“As He spake these words, many believed on Him. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, If ye continue in My Word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:30-32)

His words were mysterious, and yet compelling and powerful. They were spoken in response to the arguments the Pharisees had made against His claims that day. It was the day He had rescued the woman taken in adultery from her condemners, and then had said, “I am the Light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”

After His critics objected to Him referring to Himself in such a way, He expanded on His claims. He said that He is from above, that God is His Father, that He is not of this world, that if they will not believe in Him they will die in their sins, and that He even has the right to use the divine name “I AM” in reference to Himself (read John 8:12-27). These were astounding claims, but somehow they were convincing and convicting to the hearers. Then He spoke of a day that was coming when these very critics would lift Him up on a cross.

“When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do those things that please him.” (John 8:28-30) Whenever Jesus spoke of His being “lifted up,” He was talking about being crucified (see also John 3:14-15 and 12:23-33). He said that the events surrounding His sacrifice at Calvary would convince even these hearers of His claims. His words were so powerful that many of those who heard him say them “believed on him.” Readers of the book of John recognize this phrase as describing the decision that saves the sinner and gives him eternal life. That’s what we see in John 1:12-13, 3:36, 6:47, and so many other passages that speak of believing on Him for everlasting life! The hearers believed on Him and were saved. To believe on Jesus is to depend on Him for salvation, to trust Him for deliverance from eternal condemnation, to rely on Him for the forgiveness of sins and eternal redemption. They had become believers in Christ, and therefore they were saved.

When He knew that they had trusted Him for their salvation, Jesus told them to “continue in my word” and become His “disciples indeed.” Then He promised them that if they would follow Him as His disciples, they would “know the truth” and the truth would make them free. This promise relates back to what they had heard Him say to the woman after assuring her that He would not condemn her (see verses 11-12): “Go, and sin no more.” When a sinner is rescued from the condemnation of sin, he can then experience deliverance from the power of sin in his life. He had just said that those who follow Him will not “walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” Release from condemnation ought to motivate the forgiven one to follow the Savior, and this life of commitment to Him will bring the power to overcome sin.

It is very important to understand the difference between believing on Christ for salvation and following Him in discipleship.

These concepts are certainly connected, but the book of John makes it clear that they are not the same. Believers will fail to live a holy life unless they understand discipleship, and they will lack assurance of their salvation if they confuse salvation with discipleship.

Have you noticed that a distinction is made in the Bible between believers and disciples? In John 2:11 we are told that Jesus did His first miracle “in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory, and his disciples believed on him.” Back in chapter 1, we are told about the men who decided to follow the Lord Jesus, and in chapter 2, verse 2, they are called “his disciples.” Having seen His miraculous power, these disciples “believed on him.” They became believers.

In John 6 we read about a time when “many of his disciples went back, and walked with him no more.” It happened after they heard Him make some bold statements about Himself and about receiving eternal life through Him (read verses 47-68). “Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” They had promised to follow Him as their Master and Teacher, but now they realized that He wanted them to depend on Him for their very salvation, and they just were not ready for this. When they complained, Jesus told them, “There are some of you that believe not.” They were disciples of Jesus, but not believers. The prime example of an unbelieving disciple was Judas the traitor, and the scripture says as much in verses 64 through 71. The unbelievers (including Judas) among them were real disciples of Jesus. It is the Bible, inspired by the Holy Spirit, that calls them His disciples. They were indeed disciples of Jesus, but they had never believed on Him as their Savior. Let us learn what the distinction is.

Dr. Rick Flanders has an itinerant preaching ministry for revival. He can be contacted at drrickflanders@gmail.com. Dr. Rick Flanders Revival Ministries

“Seven Years and Counting:” Is SI Counting Down?

2012-01-25T00:30:00.008-06:00

An issue arose that necessitates my having to interrupt the archival series by Dr. Rick Flanders, Salvation & Discipleship. That series will resume on Monday morning with the second in the five part series. On Tuesday, Sharper Iron (SI) site publisher, Aaron Blumer posted an article titled, Seven Years and Counting. I am going to hone in on two brief excerpts from the article then close with an appeal to people who care about and exemplify the best of Fundamentalism.

From the section, “Something we need”

“Speaking of accessible, thoughtful writing, consider this an open casting call for writers. Though we continue to find some pretty good stuff in the work of various bloggers as well as some print publications… SI could use more work that is exclusive and arrives at regular intervals.”

If you were to submit articles to reject and/or correct doctrines such as Calvinism and Lordship Salvation your polemic will not be published at SI’s front page. SI has never opened its Blogroll for any such bloggers. If you have an opinion and the nerve to raise legitimate concerns with the growing trend of new evangelical influences making inroads into Fundamental schools, colleges, seminaries and fellowships your article will never appear at SI’s main page. What has taken place in SI’s discussion threads affirms SI’s open hostility toward opinions such as I suggest above and assure they will never be allowed to appear at SI’s front page.

Post a thread comment at SI critical of the doctrinal aberrations and ecumenical compromises of evangelicals like John Piper, Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan and watch what happens. If you do not stand down you will be surrounded and suffocated by SI staff and certain members of SI. Still hold your ground and you will receive stronger warnings and/or threats of censorship and banishment from Aaron Blumer. Of course, SI moderators and members friendly to SI positions freely berate and chastise with impunity and encourage one another in it. Take a reasoned position against any of SI’s pet doctrines, personalities and fellowships, state your position with biblical conviction, without compromise and your voice in an article submission will never see the light of day at SI. Take a position on behalf of the best Fundamentalism has been, can be and still offers the church today your article will not be given so much as a column inch of SI’s front page.

No article has ever appeared in the seven years of SI that is thoroughly positive toward Fundamentalism and uplifting for Fundamentalists. None whatsoever! The open challenge to Aaron Blumer still stands. He once attempted, failed and has never been able to offer even one front-page example from the 7-year history of SI that was thoroughly positive toward Fundamentalism and uplifting for Fundamentalists. His inability to produce even one is easily explained, there is no such article whatsoever at SI. IMO there never will be such an example because the primary history and legacy of SI is to castigate Fundamentalism with the broad brush and run interference for contributors at SI who do so, most notably Dr. Kevin Bauder.

Irrefutably SI plays favorites on behalf of evangelicalism and is loosely organized against any legitimate questions and concerns over evangelicalism’s star personalities, doctrinal aberrations, worldliness and ecumenical compromises. The SI team has consistently gang-tackled members who raise legitimate concerns over the attacks on Fundamentalism, the drift away from fidelity to biblical separation among some who circulate in Fundamental circles or protest the compromisers in evangelicalism. The SI team has consistently practiced censorship by omission,* run interference for the conservative evangelicals and set upon those who try to flush out the issues within evangelicalism.

From the Section, “Identity questions”

“Along the way, critics have accused SI of having an anti-fundamentalist bias, of being a secretly neo-evangelical organization, etc. And we’ve always been interested in helping fundamentalism by challenging it, rather than simply lauding it. ”

“Accused” of and documented from the site itself that SI is highly biased against Fundamentalism. “Helping Fundamentalism?” SI wastes no opportunity, real or perceived to castigate, besmirch and demonize Fundamentalism. Certain personalities have been tried, convicted and given an Internet lynching with Aaron Blumer and Jim Peet presiding and participating. At the same time SI plays favorites with and runs interference for conservative and New evangelicals in the T4G, TGC camps.

No one I am aware of, especially this writer, has ever suggested SI is “secretly” evangelical because it is not a secret. SI is a place for evangelicals, which was previously acknowledged as such by Aaron Blumer at the site. Blumer described SI as a site for those, “who identify with conservative evangelicalism of the fundamentalist variety.” SI is without question a site for the promotion and advancement of evangelicalism.

Sharper Iron enables and facilitates evangelicalism’s insidious spread into once balanced, charitable Fundamental separatist schools and ministries.

Closing Appeal
SI needs people to disagree with them or the site would grind to a halt and Aaron Blumer knows this. Is Aaron’s appeal for contributors a subtle signal that SI may be on count down to extinction?

If it were not for Aaron changing SI rules for moderators to drop the role of impartial referee, to freely participate in threads to impose their positions and will SI would have come to a halt. Aaron and Jason Janz before him ran off just about anyone who once did or might have considered participating on behalf of the very Fundamentalism that has been the target of unceasing criticism and attack by the SI team and most of the few members still actively posting comments.

If you presently contribute even thread comments at SI you are enabling SI to continue its pattern of castigating Fundamentalism. You are keeping SI alive to heap lavish praise on and advocate the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism. Does your participation help SI to attract new readers and lead the unsuspecting toward the doctrinal errors and ecumenism of conservative and New evangelicalism? If even one is lost to evangelicalism’s compromises of doctrine and practice a genuine tragedy has occurred. If you keep threads alive by your participation you fuel the SI team and evangelicals wanna be’s in SI’s membership to propagate the egregious errors of evangelicalism, isn’t it possible you share some culpability for the losses.

LM

* One writer said,

“I call it CENSORSHIP BY OMISSION, where by silence, religious and historical ignorance and illiteracy is promoted. Why, this silence? As one editor told me: ‘because it would offend the Christian community among our subscribers.’ Even though factual and accurate history, it would offend them.”

This IMO is exactly the dilemma of Aaron Blumer at SI. If he were to allow for open criticism on SI’s front page of the obvious problems within the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism, back down his moderators from going after those who raise legitimate concerns with evangelicalism he “would offend the Christian community among [SI] subscribers.” Offending what is left of the SI membership, which is far and away pro-evangelical, is what Aaron is not willing to risk. If SI were to allow for sharp, legitimate criticism of evangelicals on its front page SI would fold for sure. Therefore, the disconcerting issues about evangelicalism are censored (silenced) by omission. (Censorship by Omission)

Site Publisher’s Addendum:
Rather than post a series of articles as footnotes I have opted to direct your attention to my secondary blog, Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet for further reading. There you will find supporting documentation. I also encourage you to read,

Is That The Voice of a “Proud [SI] Fundamentalist?”

I Had to Ask, “Does This Sharpen Me?”

Salvation and Discipleship, Part 1 by Dr. Rick Flanders

2012-01-24T01:00:00.002-06:00

In one of the clearest expressions of portraying discipleship as though it is the key to salvation MacArthur wrote, “Anyone who wants to come after Jesus into the Kingdom of God—anyone who wants to be a Christian—has to face three commands: 1) deny himself, 2) take up his cross daily, and 3) follow him.” (Hard to Believe, p. 6.)

That teaching by MacArthur exemplifies one of the egregious errors that gave the NT church the works based, man-centered theology of Lordship Salvation.

How can the Scriptures teach that salvation is a free gift of God if the human cost to become a disciple, that is, to be born again, is very great as Lordship Salvation advocates insist? Salvation is either the free gift of God, or it is costly to man. The Bible teaches that “the gift of God is eternal life” (Romans 6:23), but discipleship or following Christ is costly (Luke 14:26-27). (IDOTG, pp. 73-74)

The issue is, How can my sins be forgiven? . . . Through faith I receive Him and His forgiveness. Then the sin problem is solved, and I can be fully assured of going to heaven. I do not need to believe in Christ’s second coming in order to be saved. . . . But I do need to believe that He died for my sins and rose triumphant over sin and death. I do not need to settle issues that belong to Christian living in order to be saved. (So Great Salvation, p. 40.)

It is very important to understand the difference between believing on Christ for salvation and following Him in discipleship.

Birds of a Feather

2012-01-16T10:30:00.005-06:00

The future of every church, agency, and educational institution rests on its theological standard. It’s not about a historical statement of faith or whatever creed an organization claims to adhere to. As the years pass, those creeds become a façade, little more than a piece of advertising, while an organization’s real standard is about what they practice, teach, and represent. Maintaining a historical standard can be very difficult, and sooner or later all human organizations tend to leave behind either a portion of or most of such standards. One would expect that at that at the point of departure there would be an open admission of that change, but that usually is not the practice.

When a move away from an original position, it can be identified by several things. The most obvious has to do with whom they “fly” with, because birds of a feather do stick together. I am not talking here about general associations or being in the same room, so to speak. This discussion is about giving a place of participation and respect to those who have moved further down the road toward error and, ultimately, liberalism.

Turning the platform, classroom, or leadership over to someone who holds error is the same as approving the error, because you cannot avoid the identification. All one has to do is to follow the practice of accommodation, and you will know where a group is going theologically and, in the end, morally.

LOWERING THE THEOLOGICAL AND MORAL BAR

The problem of serious association is coupled with a second indication of a move to the left. This problem is a failure to clearly identify doctrinal and moral issues, as well as a defense of theological accommodation. A few illustrations will suffice. The trend toward looking lightly on the cults has become popular. The idea that Mormonism or Seventh Day Adventism is not a cult is by no means new, but now there is a move afoot to view them as legitimate church groups. Where someone comes down on this gives us a clear identification of where they are headed theologically; after all, the scholars have made this decision for us.

Eschatology seems to be the slippery slope for many. It is a simple matter for the sleight-of-hand agent to gain respectability and move from one error to another. This misdirection moves slowly, hoping not to be noticed. Joining hands under the table like this is one way for a group to hide their move to the left.

In moral issues such as abortion, sodomy, and the use of alcohol, the race to accommodation varies. Biblicists are often castigated for referring to abortion as murder, even though God’s Word is very clear on the subject. This softening of language is very telling. Even the word “sodomy” is forbidden amongst those who want the identification of sin to be made respectable. Alcohol use is a perfect example of how hard people will work to ignore scripture in order to make sin acceptable.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING

There is no such thing as a single stand-alone error; one error simply leads to another. When one gives credence to one error, all you have to do is look for the others. In front of me is an advertisement containing several names. At least four of the persons listed here are known for at least one theological error, while others are known for their accommodation of those who hold error. How could this happen to a self-proclaimed fundamentalist group?

The answer is in the third thing that identifies theological drift. The people involved in the above simply say that the error is not an error, or that it is only a small error and not all that serious. Even small moral and theological errors, however, are very dangerous. Once the small error is accommodated, it is not long until another more serious one finds a comfortable home. James puts the progression this way:

…but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. - James 1:14, 15

DENYING AND DEFENDING ERROR

Why would a professing fundamentalist deny or defend error? The answer can be found in the common hermeneutic that they use. The Reformed hermeneutic is flexible; it allows the interpreter freedom to adjust theology as he travels the road that leads left. This is the illustration I have used here before. The hermeneutic that allows you to leave the any-moment catching away of the church, called the rapture, is the same hermeneutic that allows you to choose any eschatological error all the way to denying that there is such a thing as a Millennial Kingdom.

The three things that identify the accommodation of error are a warning to all of us. We would do well to use care in the depth of our relationships, small and great, with those who have chosen respectable error.* We would do well to clearly identify erroneous theological and moral issues that lead to a chain of compromise. We would be wise not to follow those who have today’s plethora of popular theological errors. Accommodating error is unwise, and denying it is serious; but defending it is sinful at best. Let the bad examples of others be a good lesson to those of us who are committed to the authority and sufficiency of scripture.

SHEPHERD’S STAFF
February, 2012

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
Shepherd’s Staff is prepared by Clay Nuttall, D.Min

Site Publisher’s Note: If you find articles like this and others at the IDOTG blog please consider forwarding a link to your circle of friends and acquaintances.

*Related Reading:
Dr. Rolland McCune on, Kevin Bauder’s “Kinder-Gentler Motif...Will Not Carry the Day.”

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

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

1994 & 1995 Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Resolutions: Southern Baptist Convention

He [Dr. Mark Dever] serves on the Board of Southern Theological Seminary under the direction of Dr. Al Mohler. (Dr. Mohler signed the ecumenical Manhattan Declaration and watches over the Billy Graham School of Evangelism and Home Missions at Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY. [Mohler served as chair for the 2001 Billy Graham Crusade in Louisville])

•Dr. Dever also willingly teaches at Gordon-Conwell College in Massachusetts, long known as a leading institution for New-Evangelicalism and compromise.

•To add to the matter, Dr. Dever is quite reformed and a-millennial, which, of course, is a far-cry from the position promoted by the founders of Calvary, Detroit, Central and Northland.

•He has spoken it [sic] the past and is slated to speak in the future with Dr. C.J. Mahaney, one of the founders of the Together For The Gospel [T4G] Conference where he states that his desire is to start churches that are reformed in theology and charismatic in doctrine. T4G has attracted an assortment of our young men, exposing them not only to doctrinal error, but also a steady diet of Sovereign Grace Music. (Dr. Rick Arrowood detailing the current posture (as of time of writing Jan. 2011) of SBC pastor Mark Dever

Fruits and False Prophets – Matthew 7:15-20

2012-01-12T10:00:00.043-06:00

We began the new year with an article by Dr. Charlie Bing, which was Lordship [Salvation] and False Followers- Matthew 7:21-23. Regarding the subjects of that passage we learned,

“They are evidently related to the false prophets of [Matthew] 7:15-20…who would lead people away from Jesus as the narrow gate (7:13-14). The ‘Not everyone who says’ in verse 21 links to the ‘them’ in 7:20, as does the ‘you’ of verse 23. Jesus could also be speaking of those deceived by the false prophets. Outwardly this group displays good works (they look like sheep; 7:15), but their true beliefs are revealed ultimately in what they say.”

Today, we will consider Dr. Bing’s essay on the false prophets of Matthew 7:15-20

15“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”

This passage is often used to argue that a person’s works will be proof of his or her salvation. It assumes that “fruits” refers to visible conduct that can be quantified in such a way that others can pass judgment on that person’s salvation (“you will know them”). According to this interpretation, bad behavior proves a person is not saved; good behavior proves a person is saved. Is that what this passage teaches?

The Subject of the Passage

It should be noted first that Jesus is not addressing believers or professing believers in general, but false prophets and how to recognize them. To be exact, the test is not for judging the reality of another’s salvation, but for judging whether a prophet is from God or not.

The Focus of the Passage

Context clarifies the focus of the passage. These statements are from the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus Christ is explaining the highest standards of righteousness that characterize the kingdom. It is a righteousness that exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5:20). The Scribes and Pharisses were highly scrupulous in their behavior, so it seems unlikely that Jesus’ reference to “fruits” would focus on conduct. Likewise, the following passage in 7:21-23 mentions those who do great things in Jesus’ name, but Jesus ignores the significance of those professors’ works.

The prophets first appear deceptively as true believers (“in sheep’s clothing”). They are indiscernible from believers in what can be seen. They are evidently clothed in a façade of Christian behavior, which proves to be an inadequate basis of judgment. It is only what is unseen that later proves them false prophets.

The Test of the Prophets

The test that Jesus gives is not for the existence of fruit, but for the quality of fruit (v. 17). The false prophet may have fruits, but given time to ripen, they prove “bad” (v. 16). Likewise, a tree cannot be judged good or bad from its outer appearance, but from the fruit it produces (vv. 17-18). The true test of a prophet is whether his fruits are good or bad. But what does “fruits” refer to?

If “fruits” refers only to works, this creates a couple problems. First, many false religions produce teachers and adherents with good moral conduct and good works. Second, there would be a conflict with the following verses, 21-23, where the professors have good works, but the Lord says He never knew them.

“Fruits” must certainly refer to more than works; words must be in view. In Matthew 12:33-37 there is a similar discussion about fruits that shows they are one’s words:

33“Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. 34Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. 36But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. 37For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

This is how a person proves his true nature. Given time, what is beneath the deceptive façade is exposed in his words. Word express one’s beliefs, thus they are the basis for vindication or condemnation.

The Mosaic Law also prescribed the test of a false prophet. In Deuteronomy 13:1-3 the Israelites are told to ignore any miraculous works of a so-called prophet and judge him only by his words. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 18:18-22 the validity of a prophet of God ultimately depends on his words, whether they are true or false, fulfilled or not.

Conclusion

Words of a teacher or any person will eventually betray his or her beliefs. Outward conduct can be deceiving and is not a reliable judge of the reality of one’s faith. A person can only be judged by what he or she says when compared to the truth of the Bible. The Word of God is the final judge of a teacher’s credibility or a person’s salvation. Don’t be fooled by someone’s works; they are not a reliable basis for judging (See GraceNotes no. 28, “Can Good Works Prove Salvation?”). If we are saved by grace through faith, then one’s verbal testimony should affirm that truth according to God’s Word. We would hope that one’s conduct is consistent with that profession.

Dr. Charlie Bing, GraceLife Ministries

GraceNotes is a concise quarterly Bible study on the important issues related to salvation by grace and living by grace. They are designed for downloading (*pdf available) and copying so they can be used in ministry. No permission is required if they are distributed unedited at no charge. You can receive new GraceNotes by subscribing to our free quarterly GraceLife newsletter.

A Lesson From Lowe’s Dr. Clay Nuttall

2012-01-05T13:00:00.008-06:00

For our overseas readers, let me begin with an explanation. Lowe’s is a large chain of home improvement stores. Unlike other major home improvement chains, Lowe’s has come down on the moral and conservative side of most issues. They were recently identified as a sponsor for a television program called “All-American Muslim”. A reliable and informed conservative organization challenged them on this decision, and a firestorm of complaints caused Lowe’s to withdraw their sponsorship. Their reason was legitimate: they simply didn’t want to be in the middle of this conflict.

The tidal wave of criticism that followed from the liberal minds was very revealing. I write this article knowing that I tread on dangerous ground, but knowing also that most of our readers are clear-headed conservatives. It is possible, however, that someone who is reading this has been caught in the liberal web and may never have thought this through. It is also possible that some readers have struggled in that they do not know how to answer the fallacious criticism from those who have believed the lie that Islam is a peaceful religion.

IS IT TRUE?

Those who have told the truth about the aforementioned television program and Lowe’s’ action have been called uninformed, intolerant, prejudiced, bigoted, and ignorant. The fact is, however, that those who have defended the charade are the ones who truly are intolerant, bigoted, and ignorant of the facts. Liberalism and its bedfellows are experts on dealing with the “what” of situations but almost never the “why”.

Why would anyone characterize the “All-American Muslim” program as propaganda? The answer is that what is portrayed in the episodes, coupled with the attempt to whitewash the true Islam, is false advertising. The discussion isn’t about America’s being a melting pot for all cultures; it is about the true heart and majority of a major religion.

Those who try to explain the “why” of this issue are classified as having “Islamophobia”. Name-calling is the same liberal trick that is used with the subject of sodomy. Anyone opposed to this destructive practice is called “homophobic”. It has never crossed their minds that the deliberate campaign against Christianity in our country is “Christophobic”.

WHO IS REALLY INTOLERANT?

Are all Muslims terrorists, or are there some who would prefer living in peace? No, not every one of them is a terrorist; and yes, some desire a peaceful life. History, however, has demonstrated that those who are violent at heart are perfectly willing to live in a pretense of peace until they are a majority.

The “All-American Muslim” façade in no way resembles the real Islam. The total Muslim population of the U.S. is but a drop in the bucket compared to its worldwide scope. It is there you will find the truth, not in some finely-tuned American television program. We have had some examples of the real Islam here at home, but they are always played down by the dominant liberal media.

The real face and heart of this religion can only be found in the majority. Find any country in the world where Islam rules, and you will find the truth. This is how to erase the ignorance of a liberal perspective. The bottom line is that in those countries there is no true democracy, no real freedom, and no peace for anyone who disagrees with the majority religion. What you will find is hatred, violence, fear, and death. There is zero tolerance for anyone who disagrees, including some of their own; this is the real Islam religion.

The liberal sermon on diversity falls on deaf ears elsewhere in the world. All patriotic Americans applaud diversity; it is center stage in what we are all about. Arabic Americans have every right to the freedoms promised to all Americans. Those of us who served in the military defended that freedom for every American, but this critical discussion isn’t about being an American. It is about using our freedoms to create the living hell that exists in all the nations where a different kind of religion monopolizes the scene.

THE REAL PROBLEM

Anyone with an informed, honest perspective will see the danger in the false advertisement of Islam in America. They will be able to see the intolerant, prejudiced, bigoted, and ignorant practice of liberalism as evidenced in Islam’s war against Christianity. There is one thing, though, that is far more dangerous than the intellectual pagan who has rejected Christ.

Why would a civil leader, an evangelical, or even a fundamentalist believe or communicate the lie? Why would they defend the thing that has destroyed the freedom of nation after nation? Why would anyone dare to say that Islam is a “peaceful religion”? It could be fear, politics, a desire to be accepted, or perhaps a lack of understanding. No matter how you state it, the real issue with such people is ignorance. Those who rail against patriotic and conservative Americans and demonize Christians may have knowledge, but they do not have wisdom.

The bottom line is simple: if you are willing to read the news, even twisted as it so often is, you cannot miss the truth about real Islam. Read about what is happening in Libya today and in Egypt. Consider what will happen in Iraq and the whole of the Arab spring and think, just think! And thus endeth the lesson from Lowe’s.

“He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.” Revelation 22:11

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
Shepherd's Staff is prepared by
Clay Nuttall, D.Min

Lordship and False Followers – Matthew 7:21-23

2012-01-02T09:00:00.003-06:00

21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”

This passage is often cited to show that many professing Christians are not actually saved. It is clear that these false followers are rejected by Jesus Christ even though they know who He is and have abundant good works. But does this passage teach, as some claim, that a person must be totally surrendered to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in order to be saved? What is doing “the will of My Father in heaven” that gains entry into heaven?

What we know about these followers

Here’s what we know about the subjects of the passage:

• They are evidently related to the false prophets of 7:15-20 (see GraceNotes no. 51, Fruits and False Prophets – Matthew 7:15-20) who would lead people away from Jesus as the narrow gate (7:13-14). The "Not everyone who says" in verse 21 links to the “them” in 7:20, as does the "you" of verse 23. Jesus could also be speaking of those deceived by the false prophets. Outwardly this group displays good works (they look like sheep; 7:15), but their true beliefs are revealed ultimately in what they say.
• They have a correct theology in that they confess that Jesus is Lord. The title "Lord" is a title of respect, but also of deity when used of Jesus Christ. Its repetition here indicates an emphasis on who Christ is.
• They are submitted to Jesus Christ as Lord of their lives. By their emphatic address ("Lord, Lord") and boast of miracles done in His name (v. 22), we could even say that these professors are ultra-lordship. There is no indication they err in their concept of who Christ is, nor is there any indication that they are not totally submitted to him in their ethical conduct. Indeed, they are very enthusiastic about following and serving Jesus Christ.
• They have many good works—actually, great works. They have preached and spoken as prophets, performed exorcisms, and done many supernatural signs.
• They are trusting in their works to merit eternal life. Their plea to Christ reveals an attempt to justify their entrance into the kingdom of heaven based on their magnificent performances. Their pride in their deeds reveals an attitude of self-righteousness. In their plea, they do not say, “Have we not believed in You alone?”
• They are "many" in number (v. 22), not rare exceptions. Sadly, the nature of this self-deception is widespread. This is not surprising, since Jesus previously indicated that most people would miss the way to eternal life (7:13-14).
• They have never been eternally saved. They did not have salvation and lose it, or believe in Christ and fail to persevere. Jesus said He never knew them and rejects them (v. 23).
• They are practicing lawlessness (v. 23). But what does this mean? There is no hint of conduct contrary to the Mosaic Law or of blatant immorality. The meaning of “lawlessness” must be connected to doing "the will of the Father" that Jesus mentions in verse 21. They are not doing God's will in relation to Jesus Christ, because they are misinterpreting the law as the Scribes and Pharisees did (5:21-7:6), using it to establish their own righteousness instead of looking to the exceeding righteousness of Christ (5:20).

What we know about the Father's will
God’s will for unsaved people is not merely proper theology and impressive works. In the context, Jesus wants people to accept God’s Way (7:13-14) and God’s Word (7:24-27), and obey accordingly. Previously in this Sermon, Jesus taught that the kingdom of heaven was entered only by those whose righteousness exceeds that of the self-righteous Jewish leaders (5:20-48). The righteousness required for eternal life is not based on outward conduct (5:21-28), which is why they should seek God’s righteousness (6:33). Jesus is the narrow gate that leads to God’s righteousness and life (7:13-14; John 10:9). Similar words and concepts in 7:21-23 and 21:23-46 show that the issue is belief in Christ and His righteousness (21:25, 32). Other Bible passages help us know how to receive God’s righteousness (Rom. 3:21-24). Works are not acceptable for obtaining God’s righteousness (Rom. 4:4-5). The only thing God wants an unbeliever to do is believe in His Son, Jesus Christ (John 6:27-29). The will of the Father is to believe in Jesus Christ for righteousness (Matthew 12:50; John 6:40).

What we learn from this example

• Good theology is not enough to save a person. In Mark 1:24 demons also knew and proclaimed a proper view of Christ’s position as Lord.
• Submission to Christ’s lordship is not enough to save a person. Someone can surrender all of his or her life and be a devoted follower and servant of Christ’s ethical commands, but not know Jesus Christ as Savior. After all, the people in this passage do not cry “Savior, Savior.”
• Good works, no matter how great they are, are not enough to save a person. Neither can one’s deeds prove a relationship to Jesus Christ as Savior. Miraculous performances can come from sources other than God (Acts 19:13; 2 Thess. 2:9; Rev. 13:1-12).
• Self-righteousness cannot save a person. Those in the passage are not claiming to have believed in Christ for His righteousness. Unsaved people need a righteousness outside of themselves and their own good works, which can never meet God’s perfect standard. Only Christ’s righteousness obtained through faith in Jesus Christ satisfies God’s righteous requirements.
• Many people who think they are Christians may not be saved. They are trusting in proper Christian theology, dedicated service to Jesus Christ, or performance of great deeds. They have missed God’s will, which is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior from sin and receive His righteousness rather than try to establish self-righteousness.
• Those who do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior reveal an utter disrespect and contempt for God’s command and desire for them to believe. Jesus rejects such people because this unbelief is the greatest form of disobedience (John 3:36), or lawlessness.

Conclusion

This passage shows that there can be unsaved professing Christians who follow Jesus Christ outwardly, but do not know Him personally. This passage cannot be used to say that those who believe in Jesus Christ as Savior are not saved unless they also submit to His lordship. That is exactly what the passage is not saying. There is no indication that this group has believed in Jesus as their Savior from sin, yet there is every indication that they have believed and submitted to Him as Lord of their lives. The reason they are not saved is that they have not done the Father’s will—believed in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior from sin who imputes His righteousness. Many professors of Christianity have a false security because they are looking at and trusting in their submission and their works instead of resting fully in the merit of Christ and His work on their behalf. Sadly, on the final Day of reckoning, they will find they do not have eternal life and have misled others to the same fate. We should surrender to Jesus Christ as our Lord, but we must believe in Him as our Savior if we are to have eternal life.

GraceNotes, no. 52 - Dr. Charlie Bing
Lordship and False Followers – Matthew 7:21-23

GraceNotes is a concise quarterly Bible study on the important issues related to salvation by grace and living by grace. They are designed for downloading (*pdf available) and copying so they can be used in ministry. No permission is required if they are distributed unedited at no charge. You can receive new GraceNotes by subscribing to our free quarterly GraceLife newsletter.

And When Eight Days Were Accomplished...

2011-12-27T01:00:00.001-06:00

And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

Luke 2:21-40

The Advent of Jesus Christ

2011-12-23T01:00:00.001-06:00

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

Luke 2:1-20

The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ

2011-12-21T01:00:00.000-06:00

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible.

And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
Luke 1:26-38

Mary Visits Elizabeth
And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Judah; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord….

And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.
Luke 1:39-46, 56

The Promise of the Messiah

2011-12-19T07:00:00.002-06:00

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this,” (Isaiah 9:6-7).

“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting,” (Micah 5:2).

Whose Mail Are You Reading?

2011-12-15T01:00:00.002-06:00

WHOSE MAIL ARE YOU READING?

The scriptures were given for the benefit of the reader, but not all scripture is written to every believer. One of the cardinal rules of interpretation is to discover to whom any given Bible text was written; you just may be reading some other person’s mail! To take for yourself the promises or judgments that were actually written to another is a serious mistake. It is a major flaw in the Reformed hermeneutic.

As children in Sunday school, we were taught a number of “praise choruses” that are examples of this error. For instance, the one that says “every promise in the book is mine, every chapter every verse, every line”. Innocent on the surface, but we don’t have the prerogative to claim promises that were made to someone else. In fact, that cute little chorus is a lie and a sneaky way to rewrite the Bible. If we want to know what the scripture says, we need to ask the text what it means, not tell it what we think it means.

The Reformed hermeneutic actually steals promises from other people. This is clearly represented in the textual twisting behind the Replacement Theory. The result of this man-made hermeneutical process says that the church replaces Israel, or that the two have become one. This teaching is blatantly dishonest in that it makes no apology for stealing someone else’s mail. It is the result of false conclusions having been drawn from part of the scripture rather than the whole. The full scriptures teach that there is a great divide between Israel and the church, and there always will be.

STEALING SMALL THINGS

No matter how popular such theories may become, they are erroneous and based on a misguided hermeneutic. There is another problem, which is even more serious. I speak of the theft of small ideas that appears to be the road to a major appropriation of larger issues. Early in my training, I was left with the impression that we could go to the book of Matthew and remove from it anything we wanted and give it to the church, or that we could put the church in Matthew anywhere we might choose. Such error failed to ask to whom the book was written.

This practice has resulted in Kingdom Confusion and the adding of law to the church. The whole book of Galatians refutes such a concept. The text shouts that the book of Matthew is about Israel, and we must be careful about what we claim ownership of.

The lesson here is that taking small things from Israel for the church, or taking small things from the church and adding them to Israel, is serious. At Pentecost, God chose to do many things with the church that had never been a part of Israel. At best it is unwise to take any of those things and add them back into Israel. The Reformed hermeneutic centers on the doctrine of salvation, that which is stereological. The danger is that it makes theology man-centered. All arguments for such a practice are philosophical and use the same methodology as is found in the replacement theory.

The one biblical hermeneutic is doxological and will always see God at the center. In this mode the questions are asked about God, not about man. The Reformed process relies upon human intellectualism and reason; it suffers from the Lucifer Syndrome with a desire to know the answer to everything. It is far better to accept what the text itself says than what we say about the text.

AN EXAMPLE

There is no need to rehash the philosophical debate on this subject, but the New Covenant is a perfect example of hijacking small things. The New Covenant was made with Israel, not with the church. The heart of the New Covenant will be fulfilled prior to the Millennium; it is not fulfilled in the church. The church obviously benefits through the blood of Christ, but it is not a partner in the covenant.

Here we find another example of the Reformed hermeneutic with the failure to let the whole text speak for itself. It may be a small matter to mingle Israel and the church, but it identifies the subtle attempt to close the gap between the two. Any large or small decision to narrow the gap that is clearly described in scripture is dangerous, if not downright disastrous.

During the distinct church age, any Jew who is born again is part of the body of Christ. An individual Jew is not Israel. He will always be a part of the Bride of Christ, not the wife of God. The part does not equal the whole. A Reformed hermeneutic puts these two groups together, which is done through the system used by the Replacement theory. This is one reason the term “the people of God” is used. It views the two as one.

THE ANSWER

The one way to solve this dilemma is to utilize the one biblical hermeneutic given to us through the text of scripture. There is one correct system, but many philosophical theories. The system known as the “normal, plain, consistent, literal” use of language will always produce a theology that is biblical. It cannot, and will not, produce a multitude of theories. The wide use of various theological views is the result of rejecting that one biblical system. For that reason, any idea that makes Israel and the church one, or even chips away at that distinction, is the result of one of the humanly developed hermeneutical theories.

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
Shepherd's Staff is prepared by
Clay Nuttall, D.Min
(Reprinted by Permission, bold added)

ReDux: “Militancy Has Always Characterized Fundamentalism”

2011-12-12T10:30:00.016-06:00

Earlier we considered the timely comments by Dr. Rolland McCune in Kevin Bauder’s “Kinder-Gentler Motif...Won’t Carry the Day.”

“My associations with R. V. Clearwaters, often identified with the ugly side of fundamentalism, would contradict what is too often thought to be the mean and unholy spirit that brought fundamentalism down as a “movement.” My 14 years with ‘Doc’ tell a different tale, which has caused me to respond and correct rumors, innuendos and other barnacle-like rubbish about the man and his ministry and leadership.”

Here is Dr. Rolland McCune in “A Review Article by Rolland D. McCune, Th.D. of RECLAIMING AUTHENTIC FUNDAMENTALISM” by Douglas R. McLachlan (American Association of Christian Schools, 1992). He wrote:

Militancy has always characterized Fundamentalism. It is not so much a matter of personality as adherence to principle. Militancy has been so fogged over by its detractors that it has become a wholly negative concept, even for many Fundamentalists. Dr. George Houghton, of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, gave an excellent definition of militancy.
What exactly is militancy, anyway? One dictionary says it is to be “engaged in warfare or combat . . . aggressively active (as in a cause).” It springs from one’s values, is expressed as an attitude, and results in certain behavior. One’s values are those things in which one strongly believes. They are what one believes to be fundamentally important and true. From this comes an attitude which is unwilling to tolerate any divergence from these fundamentally important truths and seeks to defend them. It results in behavior which speaks up when these truths are attacked or diluted and which refuses to cooperate with any activity which would minimize their importance. The term is a military one and carries the idea of defending what one believes to be true.[1]
I must confess that I do not hear a clear note of militancy in the book under discussion. Forcefulness in leadership and in defending the faith is simply not there. (The concept of “Militant Meekness” or “a militancy for the meekness of Christ” [p. 140] is a little confusing in terms of historic Fundamentalist militancy.) The idea of “servant leaders” (p.40ff.), while certainly a biblical thought,[2] seems expunged of all notions of aggressiveness. Some of this may be explained by the author’s non-confrontational type of personality. Many of us could identify with this. But again militancy is not a matter of personality. There are many Fundamentalists who are reticent and retiring but who are militant in the fight for truth.

[1] George Houghton. “The Matter of Militancy,” Faith Pulpit (May 1994)

[2] The idea of “servant leadership” as it is propagated in the New Evangelical community was severely criticized by by David F. Wells, a fellow New Evangelical. He says that the term “has the ring of piety about it. But it is false piety, or it plays on an understanding of servanthood that is antithetical to biblical understanding. Contemporary servant leaders are typically individuals without any ideas of their own, people whose convictions shift with the popular opinion to which they assiduously attune themselves, people who bow to the wishes of “the body” from which their direction and standing derive” (No Place For Truth [Eermans, 1993]’ pp. 214-15). His attack was directed at the lack of convictions and biblical/doctrinal truth that has overtaken the New Evangelical movement and that has displaced theology with psychology and the prescriptions of the modern self movement. This is not the case with the author of Reclaiming . . . Fundamentalism, but a word of caution is in order. Without forceful leadership and the aggressive prosecution of a biblical philosophy and agenda, the Fundamentalist will find his vision being challenged by another who is quite militant about his own proposal. Well’s point is well taken: Servant leadership does not necessitate a benign, non-aggressive stance.

I believe that it is fair to say that Kevin Bauder has very little militant principle in him. After all, he has yet to put it on the mat over people like and the disconcerting actions of Al Mohler, John Piper, Ligon Duncan and Mark Dever. Instead of faithfully teaching and especially practicing fidelity to authentic biblical separation he is forging new friendships and alliances with men who act in utter contempt of the God-given mandates.

Most recently Drs. Kevin Bauder (and Andy Naselli) officially participated in the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) conference. Both were presenters along side Al Mohler in one of the sessions to discuss their new book (Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism). A review and analysis of Kevin Bauder’s presentation and participation at the ETS seminar was produced by Kent Brandenburg. I highly recommend its reading.* Add to Bauder and Naselli in cooperative ministry with an unrepentant ecumenical (Al Mohler) the Seventh Day Adventist church was an official and approved vendor at ETS.

Dr. Bauder was at ETS to speak on behalf of authentic biblical separation that Fundamentalists are recognized for. What a tragic waste of an opportunity to demonstrate obedience to and love for Jesus Christ and a defense of the Gospel. Kevin Bauder refused to take an, albeit unpopular, stand for the God-given mandates to separate from unbelievers and disobedient brethren. That is not militancy!

Kevin Bauder’s recent history is one of castigating Fundamentalism with a broad brush, heaping lavish praise on so-called “conservative” evangelicals and forging new alliances through cooperative efforts with men on a side of the fence who are non-separatists and unrepentant ecumenical compromisers. This clearly indicates it has become more important for Dr. Bauder to forge alliances with men who hobnob with the enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18) than to faithfully proclaim God’s Word on authentic separation and call on men to obey the Lord in this regard.

The pattern of Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Matt Olson and Tim Jordan and men like them is to tolerate, allow for, excuse and/or ignore the doctrinal aberrations, ecumenical compromises and worldliness of their new friends in the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism. Dr. Doug McLachlan recently praised those men for what he deems as a “rebirth of historic, mainstream fundamentalism.” (Moving Toward Authenticity: Musings on Fundamentalism, Part 1) There is nothing authentic from historic biblically separatist Fundamentalism here. Instead we are witnessing a resurgence of historic New Evangelical compromise in embryo form.

LM

*My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting, Part One

Site Publisher Addendum:
It’s also interesting that Kevin Bauder has openly castigated men like John R. Rice and Bob Jones, Jr. (when he reacted to Danny Sweatt in 2009), but now points out the virtues of his mentors. Sadly, he’s allowed the hype surrounding the leadership of those that he’s criticized to color his comments while allowing his personal relationships with others to hold them in esteem. When the history of fundamentalism is written, there will be those who will look at the acerbic, acrimonious tones of the writings of Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran in particular and decide that they simply would never want to associate with their brand of compromised NT Christianity.

Lordship Salvation: Forgotten Truth or a False Doctrine?, Part 2

2011-12-05T00:10:00.000-06:00

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Last week we began with Part One of this two part series by Dr. Manfred Kober from 1989 as it appeared in Faith Baptist Theological Seminary's Faith Pulpit. This series is as compelling an exposure of and polemic against the egregious errors of Lordship Salvation for today as it was in 1989. I encourage you to read and prayerfully consider this important ministry of warning from Dr. Kober.

Several days ago my wife and I were discussing the matter of Lordship salvation. Our eleven-year-old daughter, Christa, overheard us and asked, “Daddy, what is Lordship salvation?” I replied that it is the view that believing in Christ as Savior is not enough. A person also needs to let Christ control every thought and action to be truly saved. Christa's perceptive reply was, “Well, Daddy, then no one can be saved, can he?”

And so it is. If God expects total submission of our body, soul, spirit, heart and mind for salvation, no one can possibly be saved. Total submission like complete sanctification is only achieved when the believer enters the presence of Christ.

It is difficult to conceive of a more crucial question in Christianity than this: What is the condition for salvation? What do I need to do to be saved? The answer that Paul gives to that question in Acts 16:31 is “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” Over one hundred times in the New Testament faith is mentioned as the only condition for salvation. Yet a controversy is raging in evangelical circles. Shrill voices are telling us that individuals are not genuinely saved unless they believe and submit. In other words, salvation is dependent on faith plus dedication. One cannot be a Christian, we are told, without being a disciple. Salvation by faith alone is called “a notable heresy” (Tozer, “I Call It Heresy!” p. 9). It is labeled a "heretical and soul destroying practice" (Chantry, “Today’s Gospel Authentic or Synthetic?” p. 68). Men who teach that salvation is by faith alone are “wrongly dividing the Word of Truth” (MacArthur, “The Gospel According to Jesus.” p. 197).

In Part I we discussed I. The Contemporary Problem of Lordship Salvation, and, II. The Crucial Prerequisite for Salvation. Now let us note:

III. Some Compelling Proofs against Lordship Salvation:

MacArthur continually stresses the idea that the call to salvation is “a call to discipleship under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. To respond to that call is to become a believer. Anything less is simply unbelief” (p. 30). This position is easily refuted by Biblical examples.

A. The Example of Uncommitted Believers:

1. Lot:

The life of Lot affords an illustration of a life-long rejection of the Lordship of God. If it were not for the references to Lot as a just man in II Peter 2:7-8, one could seriously question his salvation. His continuous disobedience, compromise, and carnality did not prevent him from being positionally righteous.

2. The Ephesian believers:

The saints at Ephesus were unyielding at the time of salvation. As Christians they continued their pagan practices for at least one and a half years before they were willing to submit to the Lordship of Christ and burn their books of magic (Acts 18:19).

3. Peter:

The Apostle Peter demonstrates a definite lapse from total dedication. His words in Acts 10:14, “Not so Lord” were a sign of unyieldedness after he had been Spirit filled at Pentecost (Acts 2:4).

Lot, Peter, and the Ephesians are examples of carnal individuals who nonetheless were genuinely saved. In contrast, MacArthur says that “those unwilling to take on this yoke cannot enter into the saving rest He offers” (p. 112). He insists that “‘Faith’ that rejects His sovereign authority is really unbelief” (p. 28). MacArthur not only denies that carnal believers are genuinely saved, but he further accuses dispensationalists of inventing “this dichotomy carnal/spiritual Christian” (p. 30). “Contemporary theologians have fabricated an entire category for this type of person--‘Carnal Christian’” (p. 129).

In fact the Bible speaks of carnal believers. In I Corinthians 3, Paul addresses the Corinthian brethren as “carnal,” as “babes in Christ” who are “yet carnal . . . and walk as men” (vv. 1, 3). Genuine believers are called carnal and described as walking like the unsaved in envyings, strive, and division. Similarly, Peter says that genuine Christians can be guilty of gross crimes (I Peter 4: 15).

Why would MacArthur label this Biblical concept a contemporary invention? Is the category of carnal Christians really one of the “unwarranted divisions of truth” (p. 27) set up by dispensationalists?

B. The Exhortation of Romans 12: 1-2:

The Apostle Paul pleads with believers to submit to the Lordship of Christ. These individuals had been justified by faith (Rom. 5:1), were being led by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:14) and would never be separated from the love of God (Rom. 8:39). Yet these saints were enjoined to “present their bodies a living sacrifice” (Rom. 12:1) rather than to serve sin or let sin rule them (Rom. 6:6). According to the Lordship Salvation view, these individuals were never genuinely saved. MacArthur says “Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything” (p. 78). “Forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion: it is the ‘sine qua non’ of saving faith” (p. 135). Paul says that submission, sacrifice, and service are incumbent upon every believer after salvation. MacArthur says they are indispensable for salvation.

Proper exegesis and personal experience do not support Lordship salvation.

Thomas L. Constable is correct in observing that while “surrender is certainly God's desire for every Christian, it is not a condition of salvation. If it were, it would be a work” (Walvoord: A Tribute. “The Gospel Message” p. 209).

C. The Meaning of the title “LORD”:

The term “Lord” can indeed mean Master, but in the New Testament it has various meanings. When used in the salvation passages, Lord especially emphasizes the deity of Christ. Paul’s statement in Romans 10:9-10 is “misunderstood when it is made to support the claim that one cannot be saved unless he makes Jesus Lord of his life by a personal commitment . . . Paul is speaking of the objective lordship of Christ, which is the very cornerstone of faith” (Everett F. Harrison, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. X, 112).

Those who insist on Lordship salvation maintain that our position is one of “easy believism” or “cheap grace.” Ryrie rightly objects to this charge by noting that “it is not easy to believe, because what we ask the unsaved person to believe is not easy. We ask that he trust a Person who lived 2,000 years ago, whom he can only know through the Bible, to forgive his sins. We’re asking that he stake his eternal destiny on this” (Basic Theology, p. 339, emphasis in the original). Salvation is free. Lordship is very costly. Faith is a gift bestowed by God upon unbelievers. Discipleship is a commanded work of obedience for believers. Both faith and discipleship are absolutely important, the one for salvation, and other for sanctification. To deny the difference between saviorhood and lordship is to distort the gospel--and that is dangerous!

Reprinted by permission from the March and April/May 1989 editions of the Faith Pulpit, a publication of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, Ankeny, Iowa. (bold added)

Faith Pulpit, Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, April/May '89 - Manfred E. Kober, Th.D.

For related study see- John MacArthur's Discipleship Gospel

Archival Series- Manfred E. Kober, Lordship Salvation: Forgotten Truth or a False Doctrine?

2011-11-30T10:25:00.000-06:00

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

I. The Crucial Problem of Lordship Salvation:

A. The problem:

On the one hand there are those who insist that salvation is God's gift and that trust in Christ is the only requirement for salvation. On the other hand, there are respected pastors and theologians who teach that unless an individual submits also to the Lordship of Christ at the moment of salvation, he is not really saved.

B. The positions:

1. Salvation by grace through faith alone:

a. Curtis Hutson in his book, “Salvation Crystal Clear”, has a chapter entitled “Lordship Salvation, A Perversion of the Gospel.” He begins with the following warning: Lordship salvation is an unscriptural teaching regarding the doctrine of salvation and is confusing to Christians, Hutson calls Lordship salvation “another gospel which contradicts the teaching of salvation by grace through faith” (p. 302).

b. Charles Ryrie cautions that “To teach that Christ must be Lord of life in order to be Savior is to confuse certain aspects of discipleship and confuses the gospel of the Grace of God with the works of men.” (Balancing the Christian Life, p. 178).

c. Lewis Chafer writes that Lordship salvation is a seemingly pious but subtle error that in addition to believing in Christ “the unsaved must dedicate themselves to the will of God” (Systematic Theology, III, 384).

d. *Zane Hodges clearly distinguishes between salvation and discipleship. Eternal life is free. Discipleship is immeasurably hard. The former is attained by faith alone; the latter by a faith that works (The Hungry Inherit. p. 114, underscore in the original).

2. Lordship Salvation:

a. J. I. Packer rejects the idea that all men have to do is to trust Christ as sin bearer . . . they must also deny themselves and enthrone him as their Lord. (Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, p. 89).

b. Walter J. Chantry says that salvation without Lordship is impossible: Practical acknowledgment of Jesus’ Lordship, yielding to His rule by following, is the very fibre of saving faith. It is only those who ‘confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus’ (Romans 10:9) that shall be saved . . . Without obedience, you shall not see life! Unless you bow to Christ’s sceptre, you will not receive the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice. (Today's Gospel Authentic or Synthetic? p. 60, underscore in the original). His words concerning those who preach simple faith in Christ are very strong: This heretical and soul-destroying practice is the logical conclusion of a system that thinks little of God, preaches no law, calls for no repentance, waters down faith to ‘accepting a gift,’ and never mentions bowing to Christ’s rule or bearing a cross (p. 68).

c. John R. Stott suggests that it is as unbiblical as it is unrealistic to divorce the Lordship from the Saviorhood of Jesus Christ (Eternity, Sept. 1959, p. 37).

d. A. W. Tozer labels the view of salvation by grace alone a notable heresy and a false teaching (I Call It Heresy! p. 9,19).

e. James Montgomery Boice calls the concept of salvation through faith alone A defective theology. This kind of faith is directed to one who is a false Christ (The Meaning of Discipleship, Moody Monthly, Feb. 1986, p. 34, 36).

f. John MacArthur champions Lordship salvation in his recent book, “The Gospel According to Jesus”. He attacks dispensationalists in general and Chafer, Hodges, and Ryrie in particular for wrongly dividing the Word of Truth (p. 197). No one can come to Christ on any other term than full commitment (p. 197). In his book, “The Parables of the Kingdom”, MacArthur writes that there is a transaction made to purchase salvation, but it’s not with money or good works. The transaction is this: You give up all you have for all He has (p. 108). How does one receive salvation? You give up all that you are and receive all that He is . . . A person becomes saved when he is willing to abandon everything he has to affirm, that Christ is the Lord of his life (p. 109).

Even in our Regular Baptist circles Lordship salvation has become an issue.

g. John Baylo equates the saviorhood of Christ with His Lordship. He holds that saving faith properly understood always involves trusting Christ with one’s life. . . confidence in Christ to both save and manage one’s life . . . superficial faith never saved anyone (Baptist Bulletin, February, 1987, p. 7). In contrast, Paul Tassell pleads that we not confuse the instantaneous act of salvation with the long process of sanctification . . . we must not make saviorship and lordship synonymous (Baptist Bulletin, February, 1989, p. 46). Ernest Pickering in his incisive review of MacArthur’s book states that Well over 100 times in the New Testament we are told that salvation is by faith or through believing. It is a very serious matter to add an ingredient to the gospel of salvation which is not found in the New Testament (Lordship Salvation, Central Baptist Seminary, p. 7). Ryrie cautions that the message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel; therefore, one of them is a false gospel and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). As far as sanctification is concerned, if only committed people are saved people, then where is there room for carnal Christians? (p. 170).

Which of these positions is right, which is wrong? They cannot both be scriptural. In theology we do not count noses. In many areas, such as this controversy, able men can be marshalled to support either position. The correctness of a position must be substantiated by a clear grammatical exegesis of the Biblical text.

II. The Crucial Prerequisite for Salvation.

What is the necessary condition for salvation, faith in Christ as Savior or faith plus commitment of life? It is true that some believers dedicate their lives to the Lord at the moment of salvation. The Apostle Paul immediately asked the question: Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? (Acts 9:6). With most believers, dedication takes place after a fuller understanding of their spiritual responsibility. Key soteriological passages such as Acts 16:31 and Ephesians 2:8-9 teach that faith in Christ alone is the prerequisite for salvation. Ideally, every saint should recognize the Lordship of Christ from the moment of salvation, but there is a great difference between being a saint and a disciple. It costs absolutely nothing to be a Christian. It costs everything to be a disciple. In Luke 14 the Lord distinguishes between salvation and discipleship while teaching two parables, side by side. In Luke 14:16-24 he related the parable of the great supper into which the entrance was free and unrestricted for all who followed the invitation. In Luke 14:25-33 Christ taught that discipleship was only for those who gave up all.

Being a Christian means following an invitation. Being a disciple means forsaking all. To confuse these two aspects of the Christian life is to confound the grace of God and the works of man, to ignore the difference between salvation and sanctification. The gospel of grace is Scriptural. The Gospel that adds the works of man to salvation is a counterfeit Gospel.

If it was ever necessary for believers to rightly divide the word of truth, it is now, and it is in this area!

Reprinted by permission from the March and April/May 1989 editions of the Faith Pulpit, a publication of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, Ankeny, Iowa. (bold added)

Faith Pulpit, Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, March '89 - Manfred E. Kober, Th.D.

Please continue to Part 2 of this compelling series

Site Publisher’s Addendum:
*Zane Hodges, had since the 1989 publication of this article, originated and introduced an extreme reductionist assault on the Gospel. Hodges’s interpretation of the Gospel has come to be known as the Crossless and/or Promise- ONLY gospel. The reductionism of Hodges is almost universally rejected in the NT church outside the small cell of theological extremists in the Grace Evangelical Society (Bob Wilkin, Exec. Director) and a very few friends who still identify with GES.

Does Sharper Iron Allow for the Name of Christ to be Sullied?

2011-11-22T23:30:00.007-06:00

Bob Jones University (BJU) has posted a position paper. You may read it at the BJU site under the title, The Position of Bob Jones University Regarding the Membership of Dr. Chuck Phelps on Its Cooperating Board of Trustees. We will consider excerpted portions of the BJU position statement. From these excerpts we will demonstrate a pattern of disconcerting actions of Sharper Iron (SI) site publisher Aaron Blumer, SI administrator Jim Peet and the SI team for what has been to date their providing for and participating in an Internet lynching of a Christian brother. My commentary will follow the excerpts.

For this discussion please continue to my secondary blog Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet to consider the question, Does Sharper Iron Allow for the Name of Christ to be Sullied?

Yours faithfully,

LM

Dr. Douglas McLachlan, “Community is Being Elevated Above Theology”

2011-11-14T23:00:00.007-06:00

In 1998 Dr. Douglas McLachlan wrote an article titled, Theology, Community and Naming Your Church. The following is an excerpt.

In recent years there has developed a “tendency toward generic Christianity.” (Millard Erikson and James Heflin in Old Wine in New Wineskins, pp. 50-ff.) The trend, these authors say, is toward a “doctrinally generic Christianity” where the “specifics” of doctrine are dismissed or unimportant. One of the most visible symbols of this trend is the deletion of denominational tags from the church name. In my mind this is a dangerous trend.

It seems to me that the engine driving such name change is the belief that specific labels inhibit church growth i.e., the expansion of community.
Community is being elevated above theology, growth becomes more important than truth.
In earlier times the theology of a church was reflected in its name. To me, that approach still has great merit. The reason is this: generality in name often leads to a loss of specificity in belief. Covering our beliefs, hiding our theology by masking our identity and camouflaging our name may indeed attract a larger crowd (most contemporary consumers think little of “brand loyalty”), but it has great potential to jeopardize and weaken our doctrine, our truth-claims. It produces an environment where beliefs tend to be minimized, changed and in some cases even abandoned as irrelevant to mission, unimportant to ministry (Erikson and Heflin).

Whatever their liabilities (and there are some), names reflect our belief-system. They say something about us. They announce to others who we are and what we believe. Even today, in our postmodern world, names like Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian and baptist alert us to a basic set of beliefs. The name becomes a summary statement of certain basic theological commitments. One of the reasons our name “Baptist” still has merit is because it identifies for honest seekers who we are and what we believe. And it represents our belief-system, the theological bedrock which is the enduring ground of our belonging. (The President’s Page, 1998, Italics his.)

Dr. Kevin Bauder, in a recent article On Not Singing (9/19/11), introduced the term “community.”

“Three times Kevin Bauder calls for tolerance of evil. Kevin Bauder is telling us that we need to tolerate what we think to be evil for the sake of fellowship. Isn’t that exactly the new way of doing separation being advocated by Kevin Bauder these many months now? Tolerance of evil for the sake of fellowship.” (See, Are We Forced to Tolerate Evils Within the Community?)

Clearly, from his expanding ministry with non-separatists and ecumenical compromisers, Kevin Bauder has personally “elevated community above theology.” The true danger, however, is in his writing to influence this and the next generation to join him in a “community” of compromise. Along with Kevin Bauder men like Dave Doran, Matt Olson, Tim Jordan have “elevated community above theology.” They are blurring the lines of denominational and/or doctrinal distinctions, to jointly minister with so-called “conservative” evangelicals for whom certain specifics of doctrine are dismissed or unimportant, primarily authentic biblical separation. Yet, Dr. McLachlan recently named these men as leaders in birthing an authentic fundamentalism. (See, Moving Toward Authenticity: Musings on Fundamentalism, Part 1) Based on what they are doing to expand “community” at the expense abandoning absolute fidelity to the doctrine one is hard pressed to recognize any authenticity to a historic, balanced separatist Independent, Baptistic Fundamentalism.

The current infatuation with abandoning the name “Baptist” is but part of a larger problem in the church today—the effort to minimize differences and magnify similarities. It is also propelled by the enormous pressures of the evangelical ecumenical movement which is gathering people of various denominational persuasions in large meetings with the express purpose of breaking down denominational prejudices (a la “Promise Keepers”). True Baptists cannot and ought not be part of such efforts. The convictions we hold are not merely “denominational prejudices.” They are divinely—revealed truths rooted in the Holy Scriptures.
(Dr. Ernest Pickering , Shall We Abandon the Name “Baptist?”)

From Dr. McLachlan’s 1998 article above it appeared he held a similar position to that of Dr. Pickering noted here, but does he still? Dr. McLachlan stated that dropping denominational tags “is a dangerous trend”. Did he feel that way at the former Northland Baptist Bible College (NBBC) when the administration discussed dropping the denominational tag “Baptist” from the name of the school? Did Dr. McLachlan voice opposition to that proposal, did he advise the NBBC administration that it would be a visible sign of the trend where specifics of doctrine are dismissed or unimportant?

Dr. McLachlan, furthermore, accompanied Matt Olson, Les Ollila and Sam Horn on the April 2010 trip to meet and confer with Dr. John MacArthur, Phil Johnson and Rick Holland. The result was opening the doors of the NIU classrooms and chapel pulpit to non-separatist, compromised, worldly evangelicals. Recent news out of Central Baptist Theological Seminary indicates that the “trend toward generic Christianity” has become the fashion at Central. See- Will Central Seminary Continue the Drift Away From It’s Historic Moorings?

Comparing Dr. McLachlan’s 1998 Theology, Community and Naming Your Church to his recent Moving Toward Authenticity: Musings on Fundamentalism, Part 1 we recognize that Dr. McLachlan has drifted. He is drifting away from the firm convictions he articulated in the 1998 article.

Dr. McLachlan wrote, “Community is being elevated above theology, growth becomes more important than truth.” Tragically we are seeing unmistakeable signs that he is becoming an advocate for community and growth at the expense of theology and truth. His unqualified endorsement of Kevin Bauder (Doran, Olson, Jordan) and consequently their compromised theology for the sake of community confirms an unfortunate change of conviction and direction.

LM

Related Reading:
Is the former Northland Baptist Bible College, “Unchanged?” See Is NIU “Unchanged?” Northland Baptist Bible College Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity

Calvary Baptist Seminary (Lansdale) to Host Dr. Haddon Robinson

Central Seminary Ten Years (1966) by Warren Vanhetloo

2011-11-10T17:00:00.002-06:00

In my reading and research for the recent series of articles citing Dr. Rolland McCune and especially his extended references and commentary about Dr. Richard V. “Doc” Clearwaters I came across a web site that I think will be a personal blessing to many of you. What I discovered was an electronic copy of the Central Baptist Theological Seminary’s Central Bible Quarterly, volume CENQ 09:3 (Fall 1966). The article of particular interest is titled Ten Years by Warren Vanhetloo.

What I discovered was an electronic copy of the Central Baptist Theological Seminary’s Central Bible Quarterly volume CENQ 09:3 (Fall 1966). The article of particular interest is titled Ten Years by Warren Vanhetloo.

This ten-year report seeks to set forth areas which have remained constant during the ten year period and also areas where change has taken place. Facts and figures and photographs give evidence to the constant change. That area which has remained constant can be best expressed by noting the purpose for the existence of the school and the convictions which have characterized the testimony of the school through this decade. The Founder and President of Central Seminary, Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters, carefully charted its course and personally directed its progress.

Nor did the amazing growth in the ministries of Central Seminary come as any surprise to its Founder. During the first year, he predicted to the Dean, Warren Vanhetloo, that he anticipated the student body to double in size the first five years and to double again the second five years. Looking back at the end of the decade, the fulfillment of such a prediction is amazing. Few other seminaries have enjoyed such growth. Central Seminary had an unusual beginning, with an initial enrollment of 31.

I believe many who were once students, faculty or staff at Central Seminary will receive a blessing from reading the 1966 Quarterly and viewing the photographs. You can read portions on line, but for the full journal the site requires a paid subscription. If you know any Central Seminary alumni who might appreciate seeing this site, pass it along.

Please visit, Ten Years by Warren Vanhetloo

LM

Dr. Rolland McCune, “Militancy Has Always Characterized Fundamentalism”

2011-11-07T09:00:00.027-06:00

We have been considering the timely comments by Dr. Rolland McCune in an expanding series of articles. Previously we presented and discussed Kevin Bauder’s “Kinder-Gentler Motif...Won’t Carry the Day” and A Kind and Gentle Yet Aggressively Militant Richard V. Clearwaters

“My associations with R. V. Clearwaters, often identified with the ugly side of fundamentalism, would contradict what is too often thought to be the mean and unholy spirit that brought fundamentalism down as a “movement.” My 14 years with ‘Doc’ tell a different tale, which has caused me to respond and correct rumors, innuendos and other barnacle-like rubbish about the man and his ministry and leadership.”

“Doc, as a good leader, prudently chose his hills to die on based on several non-negotiable biblical truths and convictions. But in a showdown when these were being challenged, trampled, disobeyed, avoided or neglected, he was militantly aggressive. This earned him a lot of unwanted and unearned opprobrium over the decades, actually to this very day.”

Here now is Dr. Rolland McCune in “A Review Article by Rolland D. McCune, Th.D. of RECLAIMING AUTHENTIC FUNDAMENTALISM” by Douglas R. McLachlan (American Association of Christian Schools, 1992). He wrote:

Militancy has always characterized Fundamentalism. It is not so much a matter of personality as adherence to principle. Militancy has been so fogged over by its detractors that it has become a wholly negative concept, even for many Fundamentalists. Dr. George Houghton, of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, gave an excellent definition of militancy.
What exactly is militancy, anyway? One dictionary says it is to be “engaged in warfare or combat . . . aggressively active (as in a cause).” It springs from one’s values, is expressed as an attitude, and results in certain behavior. One’s values are those things in which one strongly believes. They are what one believes to be fundamentally important and true. From this comes an attitude which is unwilling to tolerate any divergence from these fundamentally important truths and seeks to defend them. It results in behavior which speaks up when these truths are attacked or diluted and which refuses to cooperate with any activity which would minimize their importance. The term is a military one and carries the idea of defending what one believes to be true. [1]
I must confess that I do not hear a clear note of militancy in the book under discussion. Forcefulness in leadership and in defending the faith is simply not there. (The concept of “Militant Meekness” or “a militancy for the meekness of Christ” [p. 140] is a little confusing in terms of historic Fundamentalist militancy.) The idea of “servant leaders” (p.40ff.), while certainly a biblical thought, [2] seems expunged of all notions of aggressiveness. Some of this may be explained by the author’s non-confrontational type of personality. Many of us could identify with this. But again militancy is not a matter of personality. There are many Fundamentalists who are reticent and retiring but who are militant in the fight for truth.

[1] George Houghton. “The Matter of Militancy,” Faith Pulpit (May 1994)

[2] The idea of “servant leadership” as it is propagated in the New Evangelical community was severely criticized by by David F. Wells, a fellow New Evangelical. He says that the term “has the ring of piety about it. But it is false piety, or it plays on an understanding of servanthood that is antithetical to biblical understanding. Contemporary servant leaders are typically individuals without any ideas of their own, people whose convictions shift with the popular opinion to which they assiduously attune themselves, people who bow to the wishes of “the body” from which their direction and standing derive” (No Place For Truth [Eermans, 1993]’ pp. 214-15). His attack was directed at the lack of convictions and biblical/doctrinal truth that has overtaken the New Evangelical movement and that has displaced theology with psychology and the prescriptions of the modern self movement. This is not the case with the author of Reclaiming . . . Fundamentalism, but a word of caution is in order. Without forceful leadership and the aggressive prosecution of a biblical philosophy and agenda, the Fundamentalist will find his vision being challenged by another who is quite militant about his own proposal. Well’s point is well taken: Servant leadership does not necessitate a benign, non-aggressive stance.

Site Publisher Commentary:
I believe that it is fair to say that Kevin Bauder has very little militant principle in him. After all, he has yet to put it on the mat over people like and the doings of Mohler, Piper, Duncan and Dever. His pattern, that of Dave Doran, and men like them is to tolerate, allow for, excuse and/or ignore the doctrinal aberrations, ecumenical compromises and worldliness of their new friends in the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism. That is not militancy!

It’s also interesting that Kevin Bauder has openly castigated men like John R. Rice and Bob Jones, Jr.1 (when he reacted to Danny Sweatt2), but now points out the virtues of his mentors. Sadly, he’s allowed the hype surrounding the leadership of those that he’s criticized to color his comments while allowing his personal relationships with others to hold them in esteem. When the history of fundamentalism is written, there will be those who will look at the acerbic, acrimonious tones3 of the writings of Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran in particular and decide that they simply would never want to associate with or emulate their brand of Christianity.

LM

1 Kevin Bauder: A Call for His Removal From the Platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship

Dr. Bauder’s criticisms of Dr. Jones and Dr. Rice was not speech that edifies. It was not a display of Christ-like love. Bauder’s tone was not the sound of humble integrity. The caricatures of Jones and Rice, while barely skirting personal attacks, certainly did not honor the Lord or those men. It is irrefutable that the speech with which Dr. Bauder described Drs. Jones and Rice is antithetical to what the FBFI leadership called for.

2 The IFB & Calvinism: Flashpoint!

3 And the acerbic, acrimonious arrogant tone of SI administrator Jim Peet who seems incapable of being gracious when criticized even when by a kinder, gentler, well-meaning and esteemed man as Dr. Rolland McCune. See Jim Peet: In the Jaws of a Lion

“A Kind and Gentle Yet Aggressively Militant Richard V. Clearwaters”

2011-11-03T00:10:00.013-05:00

Dr. Rolland McCune has continued commenting at Sharper Iron (SI). I want to make excerpts of what he is sharing available to readers here, many of whom do not and would not visit or participate at SI. We began with his initial comment, which you can read at Kevin Bauder’s “Kinder-Gentler Motif…Will Not Carry the Day.”* Please now consider the following by Dr. McCune as he remembers “Doc” Clearwaters.

One last thought/clarification (I trust). From my 14 years of association with R. V. Clearwaters he and I never had a cross word between us, and I left for DBTS with his disappointment, but none the less his “blessing.” We were especially close during my last six or seven years. I participated in his funeral in 1996 and unashamedly wept as I hugged his daughter Jane farewell as we left Crystal Lake Cemetery.

Doc, as a good leader, prudently chose his hills to die on based on several non-negotiable biblical truths and convictions. But in a showdown when these were being challenged, trampled, disobeyed, avoided or neglected, he was militantly aggressive. This earned him a lot of unwanted and unearned opprobrium over the decades, actually to this very day. Some of the opponents mused out loud that they hoped for the day they would see RVC in his casket. Fortunately he outlived most of them.

Included in his non-negotiable truths was the primacy of the New Testament local church. Thus he opposed the movement that tried to hijack the New Testament Association of Independent Baptist Churches (NTAIBC) from an association of churches to a pastor's fellowship (at Eagledale Baptist Church, Indianapolis, 1966) contrary to the minutes of the call to form an association (passed at Beth Eden Baptist, Denver) one year earlier. The NTAIBC became an association of churches. He also opposed self-perpetuating boards of Baptist institutions who generally wanted him and Fourth Baptist to “pray and pay, but not to play.” This was the case in the formation of the Baptist World Mission** in the 1960s. On the grounds of local church ideology/doctrine he expected first loyalty to Fourth Baptist by paid servants of a Baptist institution whose membership was at Fourth, rather than their first loyalty elsewhere. The same went for paid servants of Central Baptist Seminary, church staff, the Christian school, custodians, et al, as well as all the membership in general. He was loyal to people and he expected the same from them. It was not “my way or the hi-way.” These incidents all became controversial to the point of public resolution with him being blamed in one way or another for the disturbance, usually on ecclesiastically political or pietistic notions.

The local church rubric caused Doc to vigorously oppose interdenominationalism, especially after its failure to sustain Northwestern Schools in the late 1950s when it’s Bible College and Seminary closed down, leading to the founding of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College and Central Baptist Seminary as Baptist, not interdenominational, schools. He was on the board of Northwestern and a confidant of W. B. Riley, and went through the rough waters after Riley’s death.

Ecclesiastical separation was a non-negotiable, both “primary” and “secondary.” Thus Doc participated heavily in the fight within the old Northern Baptist Convention against liberalism, and within the Minnesota Baptist Convention/Association and the Conservative Baptist Association of America against New Evangelicalism. In these controversies, Fourth Baptist Church and the MBA “kept the faith and the furniture.” But of course, RVC took heat for not being loving, kind, gentle and Christ-like when push came to shove and straight talk finally took precedence over quiet, emotional, pietistic diplomatic discussions.

RVC’s style of church administration was summed up in two words, as he constantly told the Seminary students—“through channels.” Anything major that affected Fourth church was first taken to the deacons, after that to the “official family” (composed of all people elected by the church), and finally to the floor of the church. This happened on many occasions while I was there.

Other of RVC’s leadership principles included “take the historical approach,” giving him an uncanny insight to people and proposals that came along. His ability to size up a situation and know of the right, or a good, solution was amazing. He relied heavily on “documents” when in battle, pulling out minutes, resolutions, etc, because “documents don’t lie.” This happened when he was contradicted, whether in court fighting to retain the MBA’s control of Pillsbury Academy or as an expert witness on Baptist polity in suits to prevent the Northern Baptist Convention from stealing the property of churches who voted to withdraw from it, or simply during the formation of a new association.

This has droned on far more than intended, typical of the “few minutes” that Baptist preachers promise to audiences. I did not take space for anecdotes of his life as a pastor, friend, counselor, family man, and others. There his kind and gentle side always showed, whether for a student finding a job, those needing food and raiment, a pastor looking for a church, or churches looking pastors. For funerals he would ask for the Bible and “life verse” of the deceased and conduct a very meaningful service. He was willing to be called back from his annual vacation in Florida (in February/March usually, naturally) for emergencies.

I hope that these vignettes put the man in a better light than is too often forgotten or ignored.
__________________
Rolland D. McCune

I trust those remarks have been encouraging to those who appreciate what the best of Fundamentalism has been, can be and still looks like.

Related Reading:
*Kevin Bauder’s “Kinder-Gentler Motif…Will Not Carry the Day.”

**In October Baptist World Mission celebrated its 50th anniversary at the church where it was founded, Marquette Manor Baptist Church.
SI Administrator, Jim Peet, posted a particular comment in the thread. Dr. McCune rebuked him for it. For example,

“If this is any kind of resemblance to the apparently newly discovered and coveted kind and gentle fundamentalism, you have discredited them and embarrassed yourself.”

Go to Jim Peet in the Jaws of the Lion

Kevin Bauder’s “Kinder-Gentler Motif...Will Not Carry the Day.”

2011-11-01T00:00:00.011-05:00

Rarely is there any article or comment worthy of mention at the pseudo fundamentalist Sharper Iron (SI). A comment that would be encouraging and uplifting for Fundamentalists. SI and its contributors frequently besmirch and castigate Fundamentalism with the broad brush, most notably and frequently by Dr. Kevin Bauder. Those who sought to speak for and on behalf of Fundamentalism at SI were/are routinely gang-tackled by the site publisher, its moderators and evangelical wanna-bes that frequent the site. Today, however, a comment has been posted that will encourage fundamentalists.

Under Kevin Bauder’s Credit Where Credit Is Due, Part 2 Dr. Rolland McCune submitted the following (comment #5). I reproduce his comment in its entirety here, for your consideration.

Fundamentalism a Generation Ago
I appreciated Dr. Bauder’s autobio; it was interesting, informative and legitimately idealistic. He apparently came to a kinder-gentler fundamentalism that could be found in Mr. Roger's neighborhood but not many places else. That is certainly commendable. I personally knew and enjoyed ministry with almost all the personalities he mentioned and enjoined as worthy of all acceptation, and still count them as close friends and comrades-in arms. I would not object to Bauder's description of them. I would even vaingloriously wish to count myself of their ilk.

However, when it comes to public leadership in battle, leading gently must on occasion “bare their teeth and draw their swords” in defence and propagation of truth itself along with doing so for the innocent and defenseless. And in so doing, an inordinate number of the saints (and non-saints) immediately cry out at the lack of love, lack of the spirit of Christ, let’s pray about it some more, etc., etc. These most often come from the young and immature in the faith, the overly pietistic, or who simply will never understand the dynamics of “the strife of truth with falsehood for the good or evil side.” Leaders in the smoke of battle must contend with them as well the advancing problem. Christ’s gentility would probably be characterized as romp and stomp by some, but I find it impossible to fault the incarnation of love, lowliness, and gentleness. Paul was brutally frank on occasion with both believer and unbeliever, seemingly to counter the meekness rubric.

My associations with R. V. Clearwaters, often identified with the ugly side of fundamentalism, would contradict what is too often thought to be the mean and unholy spirit that brought fundamentalism down as a “movement.” My 14 years with “Doc” tell a different tale, which has caused me to respond and correct rumors, innuendos and other barnacle-like rubbish about the man and his ministry and leadership. He had a very gentle side with sincere people, but admittedly did not suffer fools very gladly, as it were. He was a strong natural leader (among the hated SNLs), and did not see himself as one who “leads from behind” as I myself would be prone to do. But I stood with him, and observed that his experience and wisdom won the day as far as truth and the fortunes of fundamentalism were concerned. Most would argue that his types brought fundamentalism to its present impasse, but it could also be argued that the vacuum in leadership caused by their passing has not seen much of their caliber replaced.

My point is that the kinder-gentler motif in and of itself will not carry the day in the end. It too often seeks ground with the opposition that is not very common when the devilish details and scholastic fine print see the light of day.

Dr. Rolland McCune
Fundamentalism a Generation Ago

To one SI member’s complaint Dr. McCune replied as follows.

David: I totally fail to see what is inflammatory about the term Kinder/Gentler, and regret that it injured your sensitivities. Even more baffling is the etiology of your “milquetoast” query (talk about inflammatory!). True, one can certainly be gentle, meek, humble, kind, honest and earnest. To describe the past and present fundamentalist contenders for truth, the Scriptures, separation, et al, as simply “earnest” is probably a little too flaccid, given the enormity of the stakes then and now. The personalities and controversies have changed, as life and events always do, but I wonder if the bottom line issues and polarities differ absolutely from what they were with the New Evangelicalism. Lowell’s dictum that “new occasions teach new duties; time makes ancient good uncouth” seems to be unfolding before us in some corners of the fundamentalist idea/movement. Calls went out several years ago now for new, fresh, in-depth and scholarly analytical penetrations of the doctrine of ecclesiastical separation and an overhaul of sorts of the history of fundamentalism for our changing times. These appear to have yielded a somewhat confusing and conflicting set of ideas, at least to some of us a little longer in the tooth. Fundamentalist leaders of old were always informed that their proposals, parliamentary procedures, preaching, writing, voting and the like in preserving the faith of our fathers could be done much more nicely, positively and Christ-like. But Jesus on many an occasion was more than “earnest” and seemingly much less than the “holy Jesus meek and mild.” As RVC was wont to say, somewhat parabolically, “Don’t try to be more Christian than Christ.”

Kinder/Gentler “Milquetoastees”

Dr. McCune’s academic pedigree alongside his published works on New Evangelicalism makes him the best choice to say something. Dr. McCune, believers in pulpits and the pews of fundamental churches across America who are deeply concerned with a redefined Fundamentalism “that will not carry the day,” which Kevin Bauder (Dave Doran, Matt Olson, Tim Jordan and Doug MacLachlan) propagate appreciate your timely remarks. We thank you!

Related Reading:
A Letter from *Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder

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

“If Kevin desires to take Dr. Clearwaters’s venerable institution a different direction from the founder, he should do so without pretending to be guardian of the legacy. I knew Doc well enough to know that he would not be at all happy with the direction of Central Seminary under Bauder’s leading. It’s bad enough that his school is headed in a decidedly leftward direction. Please, Dr. Bauder, don’t make it any worse by pretending some affinity with one of the greatest separatist Christians of the last century.”

Muddying the Clearwaters by Pastor Marc Monte

This series continues with, A Kind and Gentle Yet Aggressively Militant Richard V. Clearwaters

Archival Series: Let’s Get CRYSTAL Clear on This: Evangelicals, “The Foremost Defenders of the Gospel Today?”

2011-10-28T08:00:00.003-05:00

We have arrived at the final stage of this series [March 24, 2010]. Over the last two weeks this series has included two previous articles by me that review and react to Kevin Bauder’s Let’s Get Clear on This. See-

Let’s Get “CRYSTAL” Clear on This: A Response to Kevin Bauder’s “Cannonball” Cogitations

Let’s Get “CRYSTAL” Clear on This: A Response to Kevin Bauder’s “Cannonball” Cogitations Part 2

You may also read the special contributions to this discussion A Letter from Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder submitted by Evangelist Dwight Smith and Muddying the Clearwaters submitted by Pastor Marc Monte.

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

“The sad truth is that the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp.”

Pastor Monte answered this from one perspective, for example.

“Kevin’s charge that ‘the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp’ constitutes nothing short of slander. Perhaps Dr. Bauder does not know the fundamentalists I know. I can name scores of pastors who regularly and rigorously defend the gospel. Ah, but therein lies the rub. Note, I said ‘pastors.’ You see, Bauder’s concern is that professional scholars defend the gospel, not lowly pastors.” (Muddying the Clearwaters)

Prior to and following Bauder’s broadbrush besmirchment of Fundamentalism’s defenders of the gospel he refers to *evangelicals such as John MacArthur, John Piper, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, et. al., in terms of, “their vigorous commitment to and defense of the gospel.” Bauder thinks the conservative evangelicals, “…are the foremost defenders of the gospel today.” Are they? Do they defend the Gospel? This is the area of my primary concern and what follows is my response to it.

I. Conservative Evangelicals Have Compromised the Gospel.

In November 2009 it was disclosed that Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan had signed the Manhattan Declaration (MD), which is the first cousin of Evangelical & Catholics Together. See- Al Mohler Signs the Manhattan Declaration. In part 2 of this series I wrote,

Compromising the Gospel through ecumenism- giving Christian recognition to the “enemies of the cross of Christ,” (Phil. 3:18) is NOT what genuine “defenders of the Gospel” do. This is, however, exactly what Mohler and Duncan did, which was an affront to the Gospel and treason to the Lord Jesus Christ…. The problem for men like Bauder, who crave closer cooperation with conservative evangelicals, is this: If Dr. Bauder recognizes what was done in the Manhattan Declaration and acknowledges it was an act of disobedience, which it is, then he is duty bound to obey the biblical mandates to “withdraw from…admonish, mark and avoid” the disobedient brethren who do these things.

With this betrayal of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which makes these men disobedient brethren; how can Kevin Bauder conclude that these men are “defenders of the gospel?” Surely Bauder has not forgotten that it was conservative evangelicals, not Fundamentalists, who eagerly signed the Manhattan Declaration. Surely he understands the Gospel was compromised and Christian recognition was given to the “enemies of the gospel.”

“While on the one hand ‘the Fundamentalist label is no guarantee of doctrinal fidelity,’ neither is the conservative evangelical label a guarantee either. Indeed, this supposed fidelity to the gospel in their various associations is undermined by their lack of separation from that which compromises the gospel. Al Mohler, for example, is considered one of the darlings among conservative evangelicals, yet he has caused great harm to the gospel by his endorsement of men and movements that have confused and corrupted it (e.g., Billy Graham, Duke McCall, and most recently the Manhattan Declaration). Fundamentalists should rightly separate from him as a disobedient brother. And although MacArthur, Sproul, and others have courageously criticized such endorsements, they still invite Mohler to their platform, because, they say, he speaks for the gospel, even after he has endorsed the social gospel. (If the Manhattan Declaration does advocate another gospel is this not a heresy from which we should separate and likewise from those who endorse it?). And I might add that there are plenty of conservative evangelicals that promote some form of the social gospel, which, as we well know, was a major plank in the neo-evangelical agenda.” (Dr. Gerald Priest, June 2009 in reaction to Kevin’s Bauder’s Let’s Get Clear on This.)

Cooperative efforts with the deadly “enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil. 3:18) are inexcusable.

The Bible mandates withdrawal (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15) from brethren who have been disobedient, who do not respond to admonishment of their brothers in Christ and will not repent. To disobey the Lord's clear commands is disobedience to Him. To excuse ecumenism (signing the MD) as an “occasional inconsistency... a single episode” (Kevin Bauder) to dismiss it as merely, “a wrong decision based on bad judgment” (Dave Doran) and then continue endorsing and promoting that man’s ministry and conferences is wrong and itself disobedience. There is, however, a greater and more grievous issue confronting the NT church coming from the influence to converge with evangelicalism.

II. Together for the “Lordship Salvation” Gospel.

When have Evangelicals ever converged as Lordship Salvation/Calvinists? One pastor shared with me that the old evangelicals were followers of Billy Graham who was certainly no proponent of Calvinism. , Regardless of how revisionist historians wants to redefine the history, today’s evangelicals are by and large the heirs of the old new-evangelical empire. They are converging around a “particular” interpretation of the Gospel that defines well the tenants of Calvinism, while allowing non-cessationists1 and ecumenicals2 to be part of their coalition platform. That interpretation of the Gospel is commonly known as Lordship Salvation.

The Lordship Salvation controversy primarily revolves around the requirements for salvation, NOT the results of salvation. A genuine conversion should evidence itself in genuine results. New believers will vary in levels of growth, but growth should be evident to some degree. The primary focal point of controversy, however, is Lordship’s requirements for the reception of eternal life, i.e., how to become a Christian. (IDOTG: [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. xvi.)

Following are examples of Lordship Salvation as it is defined by some of its best known advocates.

“Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything…. Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. . . . It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is. And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith.” (John MacArthur, TGATJ, p. 78, 140.)

“And he needed to be willing to submit to the Lord Jesus, even if it meant he had to give up all his earthly possessions. He might not ask, but the requirement for eternal life is the willingness to give it all up if he does.” (John MacArthur, Hard to Believe, p. 9.)

“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...” (From the 20th Anniversary edition of TGATJ, p. 250).

Pastor Steven Lawson from the 2007 Resolved Conference,

“If you want to receive this gift it will cost you the total commitment of all that you are to the Lord Jesus Christ. There are many here who think they are saved, but are not; they have never really done business with God…“You need to make terms of peace with this king or you will be subjected in damnation forever…. His terms are this: you must love Him more than anything. If you cannot do this, you will meet Him in the final judgment and glorify God in your destruction.” See- An Example of Lordship’s Man-Centered Message

These and many more statements like them have never been edited, explained or eliminated. In fact, they have been reiterated and reinforced. At the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron site the following thread comment excerpts were posted.

“John Piper advocates both an initial justification and a final phase of justification when the believer stands before Christ as seen at 2 Cor. 5:10. He [Piper] clearly states its purpose is our final examination of works involving our salvation. He states our works will be examined to determine if we were and are truly justified (go to his sermon on that passage on the Desiring God website). He states our salvation is the issue…. He [Piper] endorses Puritan oriented Calvinism that includes a false doctrine of assurance and Justification that must be proven by works before Christ. We are witnessing the silent disintegration of Grace alone, by faith alone, through Christ alone….”

Examples of a final phase of justification includes,

There is no doubt that Jesus saw a measure of real, lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary for final salvation.” (John Piper, What Jesus Demands From the World, p. 160).

“Endurance in faith is a condition for future salvation. Only those who endure in faith will be saved for eternity.” (R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown, p. 198.)

All of these examples above, and there are many more, are irrefutable evidence that the message most conservative evangelicals teach, Lordship Salvation, is antithetical to the Gospel of grace.

A change of life through submission to the lordship of Christ should come as a result of salvation. It is antithetical to the Scriptures to take what should be the RESULT of salvation and make the resolve to perform those things in discipleship the REQUIREMENT for salvation.... Lordship Salvation places demands on the sinner for salvation [justification] that the Bible does not. (In Defense of the Gospel, [Rev. & Exp. Edition] pp. 98, 259).

Lordship Salvation changes the terms of the Gospel!

“John MacArthur is a sincere servant of the Lord, of that we have no doubt.... We believe in his advocacy of the so-called lordship salvation he is wrong. He desperately desires to see holiness, lasting fruit, and continuing faithfulness in the lives of Christian people. This reviewer and we believe all sincere church leaders desire the same.... But the remedy for this condition is not found in changing the terms of the gospel” (Dr. Ernest Pickering: Lordship Salvation: An Examination of John MacArthur’s Book, The Gospel According to Jesus)

Lordship Salvation is a man centered, non-saving message that corrupts “the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).3

“The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life [LS] cannot both be the gospel; therefore, one of them is a false gospel and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9), and this is a very serious matter.” (Dr. Charles Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life, p. 170)

Lordship Salvation is a perversion of the Gospel! Its spread must be resisted. Its advocates must be marked and avoided in defense of the Gospel and to protect the unsuspecting from falling into the trap of Lordship’s man-centered message.

III. Are Kevin Bauder’s Conservative Evangelicals, “The Foremost Defenders of the Gospel Today?”

No, They are not! Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, et. al., erred grievously when they signed the Manhattan Declaration. Al Mohler sat as chairman for the 2001 Billy Graham crusade in Louisville, KY. These things are not done by “genuine defenders of the gospel.”

Men like Kevin Bauder, for the sake of fellowship with and promotion of conservative evangelicals, have ignored, tolerated, allowed for and/or excused these acts of disobedience to the biblical mandates. (2 Cor. 6:14-17; Eph. 5:11; 2 John 9-11). Is this not also an act of disobedience?

Dr. Bauder closes Let’s Get Clear on This by stating, “We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.” The Inspired Commentary speaks to us today from the apostle Paul’s first century admonition.

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:28-31)

Hobnobbing with unbelievers through the MD opens the door for “grievous wolves [to] enter in among you.” Furthermore, “of our own selves” men have arose “speaking perverse things” in the form of Lordship Salvation’s assault on the Gospel of grace.

Does the Bible teach that man must add to faith in whom Christ is and what He did to provide salvation a “commitment of life,” or a promise of submission to the lordship of Christ in order to be saved? Or does the Bible teach that man’s salvation is by grace through faith, apart from any work, promised or performed? Dr. Robert Lightner wrote,

“Salvation is either by God’s grace or by human effort, commitment, or work. It cannot be by both, anymore than law and grace were both means of salvation in Paul’s day.” (Sin, the Savior and Salvation, p. 203)

Lordship Salvation as it is defined by men such as John MacArthur, John Piper, Steven Lawson is a departure from and a corruption of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

When Together for the Gospel (T4G) and The Gospel Coalition events converge in alternating years they converge around Lordship Salvation. For the sake of clarity these conferences should come to be better known as:

Together for the Lordship Salvation Gospel, and

The Lordship Salvation Coalition.

Those are terms that accurately define the message that conservative evangelicals and a segment of IFB men are converging around in those fellowships. The egregious errors of Lordship Salvation’s works-based salvation (justification) trump all of the other aberrant theology (Charismatic teaching), ecumenical compromises and worldliness in conservative evangelicalism combined.

IV. Conclusion to the Series:

Kevin Bauder insists, “We must do nothing to weaken their hand.” There is little more we can do to weaken the hand of the conservative evangelicals beyond what they have done by their own hand already. Their hands and their voices are severely weakened in defense of the Gospel for reasons, which we have given evidence of today. Yet, Kevin Bauder encourages and calls upon Fundamentalists to sit at their feet and learn from them.

At the pseudo- fundamentalist Sharper Iron site Dr. Gerald Priest posted a comment that included the following,

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.

A Trojan horse is being allowed into the fundamentalist camp. Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Matt Olson, Sam Horn and Doug MacLachlan are opening the gates to allow the poison pony free roam in IFB circles and leading the next generation to within its reach. Dr. Bauder’s actions on behalf of conservative evangelicalism and repeated castigation of Fundamentalism has all the earmarks of an effort to define conservative evangelicalism as if it is the embodiment of true, historic Fundamentalism. He is wrong!

Among men in Fundamentalism who are encouraging increased acceptance of conservative evangelicals, we are seeing any number of patterns develop, which include:

Tolerate, allow for and excuse the aberrant theology, ecumenical compromise and worldly methods of ministry in conservative evangelicalism for the sake of fellowship with them around Calvinism and Lordship Salvation.

Endorse and attend events such as T4[the LS]G where these men are in leadership and/or are its keynote speakers apart from any genuine “ministry of warning.”

Welcoming conservative and new evangelicals to the lecterns of our **Bible colleges and seminaries putting our next generation in harm’s way by exposing impressionable students to compromised Christian leaders and scholars, which is not only dangerous, but is an act of disobedience.

Refrain from teaching or obeying the biblical mandates to admonish, withdraw from, mark and avoid in regard to their aberrant theology, ecumenism and worldliness in ministry. (Rom. 16:17)

Articulate, but highly reluctant to make a personal application of the “biblical obligations” for Gospel-Driven separation.

Ecumenical compromise and Lordship Salvation’s assault on the Gospel of grace are NOT the works or doctrine of genuine, “defenders of the gospel.”

LM

1) John Piper and C. J. Mahaney believe and teach that the Charismatic sign gifts (tongues, the gift of prophecy) are active and should be sought after today.

2) The message of ecumenism is that doctrinal differences are not so great that they can’t be set aside to work together for some common cause. Similarly, ecumenism can be defined as the setting aside of theological differences to work in cooperation towards mutually shared goals.

3) Examples of Lordship Salvation’s works based message can be read at:

Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page

Lordship Salvation: Charles Spurgeon's Personal Testimony Speaks Against It

Lordship’s Man-Centered Message

John MacArthur’s Mandatory Performance Guidelines for “Lordship” Salvation With excerpt from Dr. J. B. Hixson’s Getting the Gospel Wrong.

*Incredibly Kevin Bauder links Charles Ryrie and John MacArthur as co-defenders of the Gospel. Is Bauder unaware of the sharp divide between MacArthur and Ryrie on the nature of saving faith?

**The irony following Dr. Priest’s caution about the Trojan horse is Pastor Dave Doran announcing in Separation in Academic Contexts he will be and has in fact begun hosting evangelicals (Michael Vlach, Conrad Mbewe, Dr. Bryan Ferrell) for “academic lectures and presentations” at DBTS and in his church pulpit. Matt Olson has opened NIU classrooms and chapel pulpit to a variety of LS advocates, evangelical, compromised speakers. Tim Jordan, at Calvary Baptist Seminary (Lansdale), has hosted Dr. Mark Dever and will host (Spring 2012) new evangelical Haddon Robinson. Central Baptist Theological Seminary (MN) has invited Dr. Larry Pettigrew.

First published 3/24/2010

Should We Abandon the Name “BAPTIST?”

2011-10-24T00:05:00.009-05:00

SPECIAL PROBLEM—COLLEGES AND SEMINARIES
Many colleges and seminaries were brought into existence by the prayers and sacrificial giving of fundamental Baptist people. There has developed in some of these schools an “itch” to distance themselves as far as possible from their Baptist roots (the “denominational walls” as some have called them), become more broadly “evangelical” in their posture, while retaining, insofar as possible, the support of their Baptist constituency. One such school, long part of the Baptist movement in the United States, embarked on a course to change its name. While publicly asserting they were not really changing anything essential, and while “pushing the right buttons” so as to assure their long-time constituents that everything was all right, the president of this institution had a definite agenda in mind which did not coincide with the historic position of the college. It was the president’s intent to move the school away from the separatist Baptist position it had historically occupied.

In a set of notes distributed only to the Executive Committee of the institution, the president, who had only recently come from a position in an interdenominational, new evangelical school, lamented that for all these years the college had been cut off from the “conservative evangelical community” due to its Baptist image. Since he believed this “evangelical community” needed a liberal arts college to which they could send their students, he proposed to his Executive Committee (and later to the Board of Trustees) that the Baptist school make the changes necessary in order to enable them to fill that need. One of his principal declared goals was to “broaden the student and supporting constituency to include all conservative evangelicals.” He suggested the school pattern itself after the Moody Bible Institute and “de-emphasize denominational walls.” In other words, for all practical purposes, the school would cease to be a Baptist institution in the sense that its founders originally intended. Those who began the school never envisioned it to be training ground for “evangelicals.” They purposed for it to be a center for the training of people who would have Baptist convictions to serve in fundamental Baptist churches.
The entire purpose of the founders has now been perverted.
Part of the plan to change the institution involved the creation of a special board of reference apart from the regular governing board. Members of this board would not have to meet the same doctrinal and ecclesiastical requirements as members of the regular board, so that “prominent evangelical Christians whose church membership might otherwise exclude them from the Board of Trustees” could serve. The name of the college was to be changed and the name “Baptist” removed from the publicized title in order to give it the desired broader image. The proposed program has now been completed. The name is changed, the college is moving in a broader sphere, and yet it still retains its approval as an official Baptist training institution by a national body of Baptist churches.

CONCLUSION:
The current infatuation with abandoning the name “Baptist” is but part of a larger problem in the church today—the effort to minimize differences and magnify similarities. It is also propelled by the enormous pressures of the evangelical ecumenical movement which is gathering people of various denominational persuasions in large meetings with the express purpose of breaking down denominational prejudices (a la “Promise Keepers”). True Baptists cannot and ought not be part of such efforts. The convictions we hold are not merely “denominational prejudices.” They are divinely—revealed truths rooted in the Holy Scriptures. Let us not apologize for them, but preach them and teach them in the power of the Spirit so that future generations may continue to faithfully stand by them.

Dr. Ernest D. Pickering, Th.D.
Copyright 2004 by Baptist World Mission
Reprinted by permission (excerpt pp. 6-8, 12; bold added)

Site Publisher Commentary
From nearly 20 years ago Dr. Pickering, in seemingly prophetic imagery, was articulating what we see unfolding in fundamental Baptist circles today. An example such as: Under the direction of Dr. Matt Olson the former Northland “Baptist” Bible College “embarked on a course to change its name while publicly asserting they were not really changing anything essential.” See, Is NIU “Unchanged?” Northland Baptist Bible College Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity

Dr. Pickering concluded his article with this statement, “…a larger problem in the church today—the effort to minimize differences and magnify similarities.”

“Minimize differences and magnify similarities.” Isn’t that exactly what Matt Olson, Tim Jordan, Doug MacLachlan, Sam Horn, Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran and others like them have been attempting these many months with the “conservative” evangelicals. Kevin Bauder’s 24 part Now, About Those Differences series was nearly an exercise in futility for readers trying to discern first, where he was noting any real differences, and second, identify any differences that might preclude cooperative efforts between fundamental Baptists and evangelicals. Al Mohler signing the Manhattan Declaration was excused by Drs. Bauder and Doran. John Piper’s embrace of Rick Warren has been ignored by both men. Catchy phrases and ideas such as, “separation in academic contexts, it’s all about the gospel, gospel-driven separation and gospel-centric fellowship” are the rallying cries for minimizing the differences. Men who have adopted the new paradigm shift toward a “gospel-centric” fellowship seek common ground with non-separatist evangelicals by magnifying similarities they share, which at its core is Calvinistic soteriology in the form of the Lordship Salvation* interpretation of the gospel. When, however, they come to aberrant theology, worldliness, cultural relativism and ecumenical compromises of the evangelicals those differences are minimized, tolerated, allowed for, ignored and/or excused for the sake of “community.”

“Community” the very word that Dr. Pickering cited as the motive for a course change that included abandoning the name “Baptist.” And away with the name went the application of a core fundamentalist Baptistic principle, namely biblical separation. They very same course change Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Matt Olson, Tim Jordan, et.al., have embarked on and attempting to influence others to follow. The difference today is simply a reverse order. With the exception of Matt Olson at Northland “International” University they, their institutions retain the name “Baptist, but the principles and application of fundamental, separatist Baptists are going away ahead of the name for the sake of “community” with non-separatist, compromising so-called “conservative” evangelicals.

In the face of a growing mood for change among certain men who claim a heritage to biblical separation we thank God there are men who are going to put God and His Word first and ahead of the influence to adopt the new fashion compromise. To the purveyors of compromising Scripture for the sake of community: We will not follow you down the jagged path of tolerance for the sake of “community” with non-separatist, compromised and erring believers in evangelicalism. We will instead continue to “admonish” our brethren in evangelicalism to obey the Scriptures and remain withdrawn from (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15) them until they move toward obeying the Lord and His eternal mandates. We will, instead, “preach them (divinely revealed truth [including biblical separation]) and teach them in the power of the Spirit so that future generations may continue to faithfully stand by them.

* See, Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page

Related Reading
Has God Changed the “Old Paths” for a new “Radical Center?” by Dr. Lance Ketchum.

Apparently, there are now certain acceptable deviations from the pathway of righteousness and doctrinal purity. These new degrees of acceptable deviations are not based upon an accusation regarding the fallibility of Scripture, but the fallibility of theological dogmatism. Apparently, we can never be certain about anything any longer. Oh yes, there are certainly theological absolutes, but they fall into a very narrow category we will call the fundamentals. Apparently, now the only real fundamental worth separating over is the Gospel. Of course, this Gospel Only view must be very broadly defined to include Lordship Salvation, Easy Believism, Only Believism, Monergism, and even the Pentecostal Full Gospel. These New Centrists are no longer going to separate over unimportant doctrines such as false Ecclesiology, false Eschatology, false Cessationism, or even over what defines acceptable spiritual music in the worship of God.

Is This Really Authentic? by Pastor Brian Ernsberger.

Dr. McLachlan is laying down the claim that these men “and others like them” are bringing about what he wrote in his book. I would disagree. What these and others are doing is what Dr. McLachlan is articulating in his article, not what he articulated in his book. Dr. McLachlan has shifted his criteria for reclamation.

Has Converging With Evangelicals Been a Dangerous and Failed Experiment?

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

Moving Away From the Separatist Baptist Position

2011-10-21T08:00:00.003-05:00

In the present climate for change, please consider the following.

“Many colleges and seminaries were brought into existence by the prayers and sacrificial giving of fundamental Baptist people. There has developed in some of these schools an ‘itch’ to distance themselves as far as possible from their Baptist roots (the ‘denominational walls’ as some have called them), become more broadly ‘evangelical’ in their posture, while retaining, insofar as possible, the support of their Baptist constituency. One such school, long part of the Baptist movement in the United States, embarked on a course to change its name. While publicly asserting they were not really changing anything essential, and while ‘pushing the right buttons’ so as to assure their long-time constituents that everything was all right, the president of this institution had a definite agenda in mind which did not coincide with the historic position of the college. It was the president’s intent to move the school away from the separatist Baptist position it had historically occupied.”

Come back on Monday for more from the excerpt and discussion of the article from which it is drawn. For the weekend I encourage you to read the following articles from the archives:

Related Reading
Has Converging With Evangelicals Been a Dangerous and Failed Experiment?

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

Where Have All The Bible Colleges Gone?

2011-10-17T22:00:00.001-05:00

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

What is Happening Among Believers in the Local Church?

2011-10-14T01:00:00.063-05:00

There is much focus of attention on the high profile personalities in the current craze to forge alliances between a certain segment of men in Fundamental circles and non-separatist Evangelicals. We are, furthermore, seeing cooperative ministry efforts being formed between once fundamental Baptist, biblically separatist schools and full blown New Evangelical schools.1 This is the newly defined separation in academic contexts2. It is not a separation that can be drawn from the Bible. It is in fact a definition that brushes aside the scriptural principles for an application that shrouds oneself with a veil of divine authority for the sake of “community”3 with non-separatist, compromised believers.

I thought we might like to consider what is happening in the hearts and minds of believers at the local church level. Just regular, faithful folks who are becoming aware of the mood of compromise that is making serous inroads into Baptist separatist churches, school and fellowships. Today, with his permission I am sharing a portion of an e-mail a gentleman from the Midwest sent to me just a few weeks ago.

Dear Lou, My wife and I recently made the decision to resign our membership from a church that we have attended for the last 17 years. This church was founded over seventy years ago by a former Presbyterian pastor who “came out” of the denomination. Our church for years preached and practiced both personal and ecclesiastical separation. In recent years, however, we began to see indications of compromise in the separatist stance it once took. Two examples of this would be the introduction of Sovereign Grace (SG) music and the attendance of the Together for the Gospel (T4G) conferences by the pastors and elders. For the past two years I have been heavily researching these ministries and select others similar to them. I see red flags everywhere! The compromise that is prevalent in their teachings and associations is disheartening. What is even more disheartening is that I am the only one of a handful of people at my former church that has ever heard of SG or T4G. So since we are not being warned of the dangers of compromise that exist in these groups, people are blind to the dangers or assume that because of the church’s separatist heritage and their trust in the leadership that there must be nothing wrong with them. More needs to be done to publicize and reveal what these para-church organizations are and the danger they pose to authentic New Testament Christianity. Thank you for your efforts in this regard. In Christ,

There are many others like the family this letter represents. They see the shift of once IFB separatist churches, men and schools breaking toward non-separatist evangelicals.

LM

FOOTNOTES:
1) Calvary Baptist Seminary (Lansdale) to Host Dr. Haddon Robinson

2) Is There a Second Definition for “Separation” in Academic Contexts?

3) Kevin Bauder: Are We Forced to Tolerate Evils Within the Community?

Calvary Baptist Seminary (Lansdale) to Host Dr. Haddon Robinson

2011-10-09T14:50:00.008-05:00

In my (Sept. 2010) article on Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder joining Mark Dever on the conference platform at Calvary Baptist Seminary (Lansdale, PA)1 I included this statement.

“Anyone believing this cooperative fellowship with Dever is going to be the full extent ‘limited form of fellowship,’ is mistaken. Dever is just the latest step toward greater compromise of genuine biblical separatism for expanding the boundaries of limited fellowship.... Compromise is a learned behavior. It typically progresses this way: Crawl, then Walk, then Run. Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran have...outgrown the crawling stage.”

In less than a year Calvary Baptist Seminary (CBS) under Tim Jordan and Sam Harbin have achieved the running stage of compromise. They are running to open wide the seminary doors to embrace and welcome New Evangelicalism. The following promotional announcement appears at Calvary’s website.

Spring Forum: Save the date, Monday, March 19, 2012, for the Spring Forum with speaker, Dr. Haddon Robinson, Professor of Preaching at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and author of several books, including Biblical Preaching. Dr. Robinson was recognized by Christianity Today in the top 10 of its “Top 25 Most Influential Preachers” from 1956-2006. We are honored to have him as our guest speaker. Make plans now to attend this thought-provoking event.2

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary is the Wheaton College of the Northeast! No one could possibly dispute the parallel trajectory of the two schools. Board members of Gordon Conwell include Chuck Colson. Haddon Robinson3 is touted from the Gordon-Conwell website as the “Harold John Ockenga Distinguished Professor of Preaching; Senior Director of the Doctor of Ministry Program.” Dr. Robinson was President of Denver Conservative Baptist Seminary in Denver, CO. (1979-1991).

Gordon-Conwell is New Evangelical at its core. Lifestyle choices of students are, of course, not to be confronted. It’s blatantly interdenominational to the point of ecumenical. Gordon-Conwell is the institution that led New Evangelicalism to kill fundamentalism in New England. Gordon-Conwell is home of the Harold John Ockenga Institute (est. 1985). Women training for ministry would have been in Robinson’s classes. In Robinson’s book Biblical Sermons you will note that he has published one by Nancy Hardin! (Noted as a Woman’s Conference speaker). It can at least be stated that Dr. Robinson’s tenures at Denver Baptist Theological Seminary and Gordon-Conwell teaching woman in preparation for pastoral ministry and his publication should cause those who are careful to question where Dr. Robinson stands on the matter of feminism in the evangelical community.

In announcing Haddon Robinson as its Spring Forum speaker CBS gushes over Robinson’s resume, which includes his teaching at the New Evangelical Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (GCTS). The New Evangelical flagship publication Christianity Today honors Robinson.4 CBS is “honored to have” a New Evangelical as their guest keynote speaker. CBS may be honored to host one of the lead names and faces of New Evangelicalism, but many see hosting Robinson as a badge of dishonor, compromise and betrayal of the biblical principles of separation.

In February 2011 CBS hosted Dr. Mark Dever for their ATC conference. Dever is a SBC pastor; amillenialist, and he embraces worldly approaches (RAP, Hip/Hop) for church growth and/or worship. Mark Dever is adjunct faculty at Gordon-Conwell. In my series of articles on Dever with Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran together in cooperative ministry at Lansdale I noted that that convergence would not be the end of compromise. Under what rationale does CBS bring in Haddon Robinson? It is irrefutably clear today that CBS is not half done with its repudiation of authentic biblical separatism and growing its cooperative efforts with New Evangelicals. Do you recognize the drift, the slide, the trajectory of CBS?

The invitation of Haddon Robinson marks CBS’s nearly complete departure from the principles and practice of authentic biblical separation. Calvary Baptist Seminary would not extend an invitation to New Evangelicals unless its leadership has already become or are determined to move into the New Evangelical realm. The invitation to Haddon Robinson is CBS’s rebirth into what will surely transform the seminary into a full orbed New Evangelical ministry.

LM

For Related Reading:
Sharper Iron: Censorship by Omission?

Will Central Seminary (MN) Continue the Drift Away From It's Historic Moorings?

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

2) CBS Ministry Forum Page, Calvary Baptist Seminary, Lansdale, PA., accessed Oct. 6, 2011

3) Gordon Conwell’s Faculty Page

4) Christianity Today’s “Top 25 Most Influential Preachers,” in addition to Haddon Robinson includes: Mark Driscoll, Billy Graham, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, John Piper, Barbara Brown Taylor. Tragic that CBS gushes over their guest speaker’s top ten appearance among names such as these.

The Invitation to Larry Pettegrew: Will Central Seminary Continue the Drift Away From It’s Historic Moorings?

2011-10-05T19:15:00.003-05:00

From the website of Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis:

Larry Pettegrew, who was originally scheduled to be our keynote speaker, had to withdraw from this year’s conference for emergency surgery. His surgery went well, and we look forward to scheduling Dr. Pettegrew for a future conference at Central Seminary. (2011 Fall Pastor’s Day & Conference)

You may have been aware that Dr. Larry Pettegrew was scheduled to speak at Central Seminary’s October 2011 Fall Conference and Pastors Day. Dr. Pettegrew was recently on faculty at The Master’s Seminary and is now at Shepherds Seminary in Cary, NC. Neither position would bolster a fundamentalist resume at this point in Pettegrew’s new progression. Given his leaning toward Progressive Dispensationalism and New Covenant theology legitimate concerns may be raised over the Pettegrew invitation from Central.

With Dr. Sam Horn’s recent inauguration as the president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, many are mindful that he occupies a place of influence once occupied by fundamentalists like Dr. R.V. Clearwaters, Dr. Ernest Pickering and Dr. Roland McCune. While Dr. Horn was the Vice-President of NIU, Rick Holland (then executive pastor of Grace Community Church) was invited to speak. Dr. Horn has recently received a doctoral degree from Master’s Seminary. Will Dr. Horn’s leadership at Central demonstrate a drifting away from Central’s strong Baptist heritage? Will there be a never-before experienced tolerance for progressive dispensationalism and new covenant theology? While it is assumed that Dr. Pettegrew was invited to speak long before Dr. Horn was invited to be the president of Central, there are many who hope that the new president will bring the seminary back to its historic moorings and away from the drift that has been seen under the direction of Dr. Kevin Bauder.

What does the open invitation to Dr. Pettegrew tell you about Central Seminary’s own new progression?

LM

Related Reading:
Northland Int’l University Presents Executive Pastor of Grace Community Church to It’s Student Body

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

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

Is NIU “Unchanged?”

Are We Forced to Tolerate Evils Within the Community?

2011-10-03T10:00:00.001-05:00

In a previous article Is Kevin Bauder the Right Choice to “Argue for Biblical Separartion?” we discussed the selection of Dr. Kevin Bauder’s contribution to an essay in the new book, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism.

“Dr. Bauder’s track record in recent years of redefining and/or castigating Fundamentalism with a broad brush would, for many in Fundamental circles, disqualify him from speaking for or on behalf of them. Especially disconcerting would be his speaking on behalf of the fundamentalists’ application of separation principles defined in Scripture. Dr. Bauder has, furthermore, been highly allergic to presenting and especially applying the principles of biblical separation to his new acquaintances in evangelical circles.   Kevin Bauder is one of a select few men who have introduced and aggressively advocated a redefinition of one of the hallmarks of historic Fundamentalism, which is authentic biblical separation. Dr. Bauder is attempting to influence a paradigm shift away from separation, for the sake of a pure church, long practiced as taught from the Scriptures by balanced Fundamentalists.1 Instead his replacement theology is one of tolerance and accommodation for those who reject in practice the God-given mandates for separation.”

I followed that article with a timely repeat of excerpts from Dr. Ernest Pickering’s classic, The Tragedy of Compromise in, Are We Recognizing the “NEW” New Evangelicalism? For example Dr. Pickering wrote,

“The basic problem is this: Many fundamentalists, when speaking of the New Evangelicalism, are referring to the original positions and writings of the early founders of New Evangelicalism such as Carl Henry and Harold Ockenga. They repudiate heartily the thoughts of these earlier leaders, but either in ignorance or willingly they fail to recognize the updated version, the “new” New Evangelicalism. It is always safer to berate the teachings of those historically farther removed than of those who are currently afflicting the church.”

Later I will address a few items that appear in Dr. Kevin Bauder’s article The Book is Out from the In the Nick of Time blog. Today, however, I am going to highlight and discuss a paragraph from another article by Dr. Bauder from the In the Nick of Time blog. The following excerpt is from Kevin Bauder’s On Not Singing (9/19/11). 

“Still, whenever believers live in community, they find that they are forced to tolerate what they regard as evils within the community. Tolerating a (perceived) evil in another is not the same thing as practicing evil. If we have not a category for tolerable evils, then we shall not be able to live in community at all.”

The article was a good piece right up until that last paragraph. Three times Kevin Bauder calls for tolerance of evil. Bauder is telling us that we need to tolerate what we think to be evil for the sake of fellowship. Isn’t that exactly the new way of doing separation being advocated by Kevin Bauder these many months now? Tolerance of evil for the sake of fellowship. This from Kevin Bauder is one of the most clear examples of what Dr. Ernest Pickering warned of from his book The Tragedy of Compromise. Dr. Pickering warned of, “the subtle drift toward new evangelicalism.” He went on to write, “…there are fundamentalists who are either becoming or already are New Evangelicals. Some are actually adopting New Evangelical philosophies while still proclaiming that they are not New Evangelical.” (p. 159)

From On Not Singing Kevin Bauder essentially calls for men to come up with a category of “tolerable evils” for the sake of fellowship with those who believe, preach, defend and practice what are to be reclassified as “tolerable evil.” I know of no greater example of new evangelical compromise than that. In that brief paragraph, Bauder uses the words “tolerate” and “community” in conjunction three times. Of course, with “community” he means not just expanding fellowship, but cooperative ministerial efforts in the NT church.

In my opinion, the tolerate evil for fellowship statement by Kevin Bauder demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that he is drifting into New Evangelical philosophy for the sake of establishing and influencing others to join him in fellowship with the non-separatist evangelicals.   This is the new paradigm. This is the “New” New Evangelicalism. This is the “winding road which ends up in a theological wasteland” and ultimately New Evangelicalism. Is there any wonder why men cannot accept Kevin Bauder as a legitimate spokesman to “argue for biblical separation” among Fundamentalists?

Bauder’s recent statement seems quite seminal. It does, however, show a mindset that is probably foundational to his willingness to excuse Al Mohler’s signing of the Manhattan Declaration and ignoring Mohler’s leading a Billy Graham crusade. (See Al Mohler Signs the Manhattan Declaration, which will be discussed in a future article with Mohler having briefly mentioned of his signing the MD in this new book.)

It is increasingly obvious that Dr. Kevin Bauder has morphed into some kind of evangelical hybrid. Clearly he is bent on breaking down the barriers that preclude a true biblical separatist from heaping lavish praise on, embracing and working in cooperation with non-separatists, who hold to aberrant doctrine, practices worldliness in ministry and are known ecumenical compromisers.

LM

Archival Series: Are We Recognizing the “NEW” New Evangelicalism?

2011-09-29T08:00:00.002-05:00

We have been discussing the ecumenical spirit of certain signatories of the Manhattan Declaration from the so-called “conservative” evangelical camp. Some of the “conservative” evangelicals like Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan who signed the Manhattan Declaration (MD) apparently did not intend, “to forge an ecumenical relationship which compromises the gospel by giving Christian recognition to people without a credible profession of the gospel. That wasn’t the intent, but it is the result.”1

Reading and research has shown that the current trend toward ecumenism by the likes of John Piper, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, et. al., is eerily similar to a previous generations slide toward New Evangelicalism. There may be some greater measure of restraint in this generation, but nevertheless there is tangible evidence of a slide toward New Evangelicalism. More recently we have seen a pattern among some men, who claim a heritage to biblical separation, who are redefining the terms and boundaries of separatism to allow for fellowship and cooperative efforts with non-separatists in the evangelical camp. The definition and application of separation, the lines of distinction between separatist fundamentalism and evangelicalism are being blurred. The blurring of the lines are not because evangelicals are moving toward obeying the God-given mandates for separation from unbelievers and the disobedient among us. Sadly, the lines of distinction are being erased because we have men who circulate in fundamental circles and claim to be militant separatists moving toward doing separation the way evangelicals do.

If there is one book I would recommend to help contemporary Fundamentalists get a handle on the danger at their doorsteps it would be The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism, 1994 by *Dr. Ernest D. Pickering. For their consideration I am going to share select excerpts from Pickering’s classic on the subject. The following excerpts come from Chapter Seven, Gray Hairs Are Here and There. Afterward I will close with some personal commentary.

The Subtle Drift Toward the New Evangelicalism, p. 155.

The ancient prophet Hosea was concerned about gray hair also, but for a different reason. In a brokenhearted lament over his beloved nation, Israel, he wrote: “Strangers have devoured his strength, and he knoweth it not: yea, gray hairs are here and there upon him, yet he knoweth it not” (Hos. 7:9). Gray hairs are a mark of aging, of deteriorating strength, and, in the spiritual sense employed by Hosea, of a loss of spiritual vitality. The saddest note in this lament was the fact that the nation did not realize it was losing its spiritual moorings.

All over America and the world at this hour there are churches that are drifting into New Evangelicalism without the remotest knowledge that they are doing so. They are being carried along with the shifting winds of compromise and have long since departed from the solid biblical position established by their predecessors. Young pastors, many without firm doctrinal underpinnings, have led their churches to believe that in order to reach the masses they must abandon the strict biblical principles of yore and embrace more fluid and attractive positions. They have changed, but they do not realize that they have changed.

The Appeal of New Evangelicalism to the Fundamentalist, p 156.

Many contemporary fundamentalists are being wooed by the siren call of New Evangelicalism. It seems especially compelling to younger men (though not exclusively so). Born in a different generation and without personal involvement in the battles against the early forms of New Evangelicalism, some are impatient with the fray, do not see the relevance of the conflict, and are inclined to adopt the attitude “a plague on both your houses.” What is there about the New Evangelicalism that seems to attract some from within the fundamentalist camp?2

Gradually Sliding into New Evangelicalism, p. 159.

David Beale warned against those who bear the label fundamentalist but whose personal philosophy is essentially New Evangelical. “Unlike present-day Fundamentalists, they refuse to regard the militant defense of the faith and the full doctrine and practice of holiness as intrinsically fundamental.”3 In other words, there are fundamentalists who are either becoming or already are New Evangelicals. Some are actually adopting New Evangelical philosophies while still proclaiming that they are not New Evangelicals. The basic problem is this: Many fundamentalists, when speaking of the New Evangelicalism, are referring to the original positions and writings of the early founders of New Evangelicalism such as Carl Henry and Harold Ockenga. They repudiate heartily the thoughts of these earlier leaders, but either in ignorance or willingly they fail to recognize the updated version, the “new” New Evangelicalism. It is always safer to berate the teachings of those historically farther removed than of those who are currently afflicting the church.

One of the first steps toward New Evangelicalism is refusing to live in fidelity to the Scriptural mandates that call for separation when it is clearly warranted. Unfortunately some men in Fundamentalism, who presently identify with biblical separatism, appear to be “either in ignorance or willingly” not recognizing new breed New Evangelicals such as Al Mohler, Tim Keller and John Piper. The trend of some Fundamentalists toward so-called “conservative” evangelicals appears to be how can I justify and keep my fellowship with them instead of what does the Bible mandate for me.

Some pastors and Bible college leaders have begun laying out in stark terms to their congregations and student bodies the dangers of ecumenical compromise, and are referencing both the MD and its signatories as a prime example of it. I am grateful for men who have marked certain signatories to the Manhattan Declaration. When we speak of to “mark” we must, however, speak of it in terms of mark AND “avoid” (Rom. 16:17).

“Paul admonishes believers to ‘avoid’ those whom we have marked. The form of this verb indicates that it is a present imperative, which indicates that this avoidance is neither a suggestion nor advice, but, in fact, a command. We are commanded by God to continually avoid the person who has been marked!4

Today, we are witnessing a new and genuine Tragedy of Compromise. With each step of tolerance for the disconcerting actions of evangelicals mature Fundamentalists are setting the example for and showing the younger generation the way to the new breed New Evangelicalism. Men must determine to set the right example (Phil. 3:17) putting fidelity to Scripture ahead of tolerating doctrinal aberrations, ecumenical compromise and worldly methods of ministry among the evangelicals. Otherwise they will work their way down the winding road of closer to New Evangelicalism.

LM

Updated and revised from the original posted December 2009.

1) Dr. Dave Doran, A Bronx Declaration, Dec. 2009.

2) Pickering goes into detail as he answers that question under the subheadings of: A Lessening of Tensions; A Wider Working Relationship; A Greater Attractiveness to the Masses; The Perception The New Evangelicals are More Loving; etc.

3) In Pursuit of Purity, pp. 261-ff.

4) In Defense of the Gospel, p. 212.

*Dr. Ernest D. Pickering (1928-2000) “was a fundamentalist pastor, author, college administrator, and mission board representative…. Pickering criticized the ecumenical neo-evangelism of Billy Graham in print as early as 1957, and his chief contribution to twentieth-century evangelical Christianity was as a Baptist theoretician of separatist fundamentalism.” I recommend three more works by Dr. Pickering that may be helpful to those who are concerned over modern day compromise with evangelicalism. They are:

Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church

Holding Hands With the Pope: The Current Evangelical Ecumenical Craze

Are Fundamentalists Legalists?

Previous Articles in this Series Include:
Al Mohler Signs The Manhattan Declaration: Is This a Clear Case for (Dave Doran’s) “Gospel-Driven Separation?”

Al Mohler Signs The Manhattan Declaration, Part 2: Was This a First Time Foray Toward Ecumenism?

Al Mohler Signs TMD, Part 3: Tolerance & Compromise Will, In Its Wake, Leave Casualties

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

2011-09-22T09:00:00.007-05:00

Earlier this month I was directed to a pair of blogs* that are promoting a new book. The book is titled, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Author/Editors: Andrew Naselli, Collin Hansen). Normally, I would not have been drawn to the, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism. What caught my attention, however, was that Dr. Kevin Bauder is one of the four contributors. Still I was not particularly interested until I found that Dr. Bauder’s primary contribution is in the form of an essay on Fundamentalism. My concern heightened when I read that Dr. Bauder intended to “argue for biblical separation.”

Dr. Bauder’s track record in recent years of redefining and/or castigating Fundamentalism with a broad brush would, for many in Fundamental circles, disqualify him from speaking for or on behalf of them. Especially disconcerting would be his speaking on behalf of the fundamentalists’ application of separation principles defined in Scripture. Dr. Bauder has, furthermore, been highly allergic to presenting and especially applying the principles of biblical separation to his new acquaintances in evangelical circles.

Kevin Bauder is one of a select few men who have introduced and aggressively advocated a redefinition of one of the hallmarks of historic Fundamentalism, which is authentic biblical separation. Dr. Bauder is attempting to influence a paradigm shift away from separation, for the sake of a pure church, long practiced as taught from the Scriptures by balanced Fundamentalists.1 Instead his replacement theology is one of tolerance and accommodation for those who reject in practice the God-given mandates for separation. Men who share and likewise propagate Kevin Bauder’s new “gospel driven separation” and/or “gospel-centric fellowship” paradigms are becoming more like evangelicals in principle and the application of separation. A theology, which in his own practice of, he repeatedly allows for, tolerates, excuses or ignores doctrinal aberrations, ecumenical compromises, cultural relativism and worldliness in ministry of the evangelicals. He gives great leeway for evangelicals who run rough shod over the Scriptural principles of admonishing, withdrawing from, marking and avoiding (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; Romans 16:17-18) the disobedient among us and separation from unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14-17; Eph. 5:11; 2 John 7-11). Another example would be the new twist on separation known as “separation in academic contexts.”2 Hence, the reasons why one editor of the new book (Collin Hansen) notes very little difference between Kevin Bauder and Al Mohler who has gone well beyond any “single episode” of ecumenical compromise.

Following are select examples of why many men would have a genuine problem with the selection of Kevin Bauder to write on behalf of and speak for Fundamentalism.

1) His incendiary article, Let’s Get Clear on This.
Let’s Get “CRYSTAL” Clear on This: A Response to Kevin Bauder’s “Cannonball” Cogitations

2) A pattern of castigating Fundamentalism while heaping lavish praise on the star personalities of the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism apart from any serious discussion of or admonition to them for the numerous doctrinal aberrations, ecumenical compromises, cultural relativism and worldliness in ministry among them.

3) His 2009 three part attack (jointly from his blog and Sharper Iron) on the legacy of Bob Jones, Jr. and John R. Rice.
“Again, I am very disappointed at the language Bauder uses against his fellow fundamentalists, evidently chiefly against [John R] Rice: ‘pugilistic and bellicose,’ ‘alpha males,’ ‘the big boys,’ ‘bullies,’ ‘chieftains,’ etc. Is this the kind of language a fundamentalist leader should use? With an opportunity before him to promote unity, healing and reconciliation in the IFB community Dr. Bauder chose to pursue a different tact. Instead he further polarized factions, alienated many and fueled further division among men in and around the FBFI.”(Kevin Bauder: A Call for His Removal From the Platform of the FBFI Annual Fellowship)
4) His unprovoked attack on Bob Jones University policy from the platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship.

5) His misrepresentation that fundamentalists and evangelicals “believe, preach and defend the [same] gospel.”
“There is no universal ‘mutuality in the gospel’ among evangelicals and fundamentalists. ‘Evangelicals and fundamentalists are [NOT] united in their allegiance to the gospel,’ because there is a vast difference between what evangelicals and non-Calvinists in Fundamentalism believe to be the one true Gospel. Kevin Bauder is well aware, that many men in Fundamentalism reject Calvinistic soteriology in the form of Lordship Salvation as a false, works based gospel. It is, furthermore, indisputable that virtually every man in “conservative” evangelicalism is a passionate advocate for Lordship Salvation, which Dr. Bauder is also well aware of.”( Do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, “Believe, Preach and Defend the [Same] Gospel?)
6) Excusing Al Mohler signing the Manhattan Declaration, which gave Christian recognition to the deadly enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18) and compromised the gospel as nothing more than a “single episode…occasional inconsistency.”**

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

Al Mohler Signs The Manhattan Declaration: Was This a First Time Foray Toward Ecumenism?

7) In a sometimes bloviated 20+ part Differences (between fundamentalism and evangelicalism) series Dr. Bauder never made a serious attempt to present the principles of separation and make a decisive application of them to any of the evangelicals who disregard biblical principles to hobnob with unbelievers, apostates and those who preach/practice egregious forms of aberrant theology and worldliness.

Those things are not representative of one who would presume to champion separatist Fundamentalism! Those things are what unbiased editors would consider non-starters for consideration of an author to argue for biblical separatism in Fundamentalism.

What we do know is that those things are representative of a man who has set in motion a paradigm shift away from that kind of authentic biblical separation preached and especially practiced by godly, balanced Fundamentalists for decades. If one would like to become familiar with the kind of biblical separatism that balanced, charitable Fundamentalists have practiced I would refer any reader to two books by Dr. Ernest Pickering. Those books are: 1) Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, and 2) The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism. I would also recommend three additional books for your consideration. They are: Be Ye Holy: The Call to Christian Separation and Contending for the Faith by Dr. Fred Moritz and The Dividing Line: Understanding and Applying Biblical Separation by Dr. Mark Sidwell. For the best of what the Fundamentalist would define, from the Scriptures, as his stance on and for separation those volumes by Drs. Pickering, Moritz and Sidwell are a must read.

“Gospel driven” separatism or “Gospel centric” fellowship is the new mantra coming from men who circulate in Fundamental circles, some of whom claim to be “militant” separatists. When like-mindedness on a particular interpretation of the gospel becomes the near sole reason for fellowship and/or separatism the whole counsel of God is seriously negated, and the door is opened to tolerate, allow for, ignore and excuse all sorts of aberrant theology, ecumenical compromise, cultural relativism and worldliness.

Dr. Bob Jones III in the Spring 2011 BJU chapel shared these timely remarks with the student body,

“We have been talking in some of the last messages about the error that can result from those whose credo is, ‘Well, it’s all about the gospel, as long as a man is preaching the gospel I can go to that church…and I don’t have to worry about all the rest of it….’ If we take the attitude that it’s only about the preaching of the gospel and that makes everything else acceptable we’re going to embrace a lot of error.” (March 3, 2011- The Faith of the Gospel)

Tolerating, ignoring or excusing “a lot of error” for the sake of the so-called “gospel centric” fellowship is not representative of genuine fidelity or militancy to the God-given mandates for separation.

CLOSE:
Many Fundamentalists do not appreciate, do not accept and will not recognize Kevin Bauder as an appropriate ambassador for genuine, balanced Fundamentalism especially on the principles and practice of separation. In what I still consider being one of the most concise and cogent responses to Kevin Bauder’s incendiary article, Let’s Get Clear on This Dr. Gerald Priest wrote,

“Kevin has been quite lavish in his praise of conservative evangelicals while castigating so-called fundamentalists…. 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.”

Dr. Priest’s fear is well founded. We are well down that track. The primary significant difference is fidelity to biblical separatism. “Significant differences” are being blurred and beginning to evaporate. I’d like to tell you that lines are blurring because evangelicals are at long last beginning to obey the God-given mandates, but sadly that is not the case. Instead we have certain men who identify with and circulate in Fundamental circles who through their colleges, seminaries, through their blogs, through Sharper Iron and by their actions are influencing this and the next generation of Fundamentalists to relax on militancy in separatism.

Self-described “militant” separatists are moving away from the principles of separation by redefining and loosening the boundaries. They will not admonish compromisers in evangelicalism whom they are seeking out to fellowship and cooperate with in ministerial settings. That segment of men within fundamentalist circles is moving toward evangelicalism and consequently, whether they recognize their shift or not, are becoming non-separatist evangelicals.

The convergence of Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran and Tim Jordan with SBC pastor Mark Dever at the 2011 Advancing the Church conference (Calvary Baptist Church & Seminary, Lansdale, PA) is stark relief of the shift toward the murky waters of the new paradigm on separation. Northland International University’s new trajectory away from its historic Baptist, Fundamentalist separatist roots is another stark example.3

Do we wait for the release of Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism before rendering a final judgment on Kevin Bauder’s contribution? Of course! All things considered, including the personal bias of the editors: The choice of Kevin Bauder gives the appearance of a political move to advance the cause of blurring the lines of distinction between separatist Fundamentalism and so-called “conservative” evangelicalism.

Many Fundamentalists reject Kevin Bauder as an ambassador for or a personal representative of Fundamentalism. If Dr. Bauder champions authentic biblical separation in this book and calls on the evangelicals to obey God’s mandates for separation we will be grateful. We would, however, then have a huge disconnect between what he wrote for this book and what we have observed him advocating and doing in practice. What we expect instead is another attempt to force authentic biblical separation into conformity with the new mantra of a paradigm shift toward a “Gospel-Driven” separation and/or “Gospel-Centric” fellowship.4 We expect an on-going attempt to blur the lines of distinction of a clear divide along Scriptural lines of separation between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism.

The selection of Dr. Kevin Bauder to represent separatist fundamentalism raises legitimate questions about the credibility of this volume. The book will suffer among many in IFB circles primarily due to Kevin Bauder being chosen to represent what he has often been redefining, castigating, insensitive and/or hostile toward with a broad brush.

LM

Update: For another critical review of Kevin Bauder’s contribution to this new book I urge you to read This Does Not Bode Well by Pastor Brian Ernsberger.

Footnotes:
1) A Pure Church or a Pure Gospel: Does It Really Matter?

“I see at least two possible gaps created by focusing on a pure Gospel as opposed to a pure church. First, it seems that it would encourage far ranging fellowship and unity with all groups and sects within professing Christianity. While it is true that all professing believers would by default be on record concerning the Gospel, we are not even remotely rowing in the same direction after that point.... Secondly, if ecclesiastical separation is focused on the purity of the Gospel, then it would seem that believers could join with non-believers in endeavors under a larger religious banner where the purity of the Gospel is perceived to not be at risk.”

2) Is There a Second Definition for “Separation” in Academic Contexts?

“Should men be any less militant about ‘guarding the gospel through biblical separation’ in the ministry of a local church than guarding the church itself? The desire to have scholarship presented and/or accepted by others in your field has the potential to pull one away from the local church and toward an institutional focus. My concern is that this completely opposed to the biblical focus, which centers on the church’s role in maintaining sound doctrine and separation from error or disobedient brethren. Unfortunately, there can exist a natural tendency in the institutional setting to make scholarship preeminent, creating an ongoing temptation toward tolerance of error in the pursuit of credentials, academia and recognition.”

3) See- Is NIU “Unchanged?”

“Has NIU remained unchanged? In 2010-11 school year would NIU hand the Northland Baptist Bible College Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity to a visiting pastor and/or parent and state that the university still abides by the philosophy and practice it defines? Is the NBBC Position Statement still in force, or has it been set aside to allow for what has the appearance of a change in direction for NIU? Did the name change from NBBC to NIU negate and dissolve the Northland Baptist Bible College Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in Christianity?”

4) In the early pages of Dr. Bauder’s essay there are several indications that the new paradigm of Gospel Driven separation and Gospel Centric fellowship will be the main theme of his essay. See the subsection, The Idea of Fundamentalism and Minimal Christian Fellow

For Related Reading:
Are we Recognizing the “NEW” New Evangelicalism?

“All over America and the world at this hour there are churches that are drifting into New Evangelicalism without the remotest knowledge that they are doing so. They are being carried along with the shifting winds of compromise and have long since departed from the solid biblical position established by their predecessors. Young pastors, many without firm doctrinal underpinnings, have led their churches to believe that in order to reach the masses they must abandon the strict biblical principles of yore and embrace more fluid and attractive positions. They have changed, but they do not realize that they have changed”.

Kevin Bauder, “It Won’t Fly With Those of Us Who Know” by Ps. Marc Monte.

“If Kevin desires to take Dr. Clearwaters’s venerable institution a different direction from the founder, he should do so without pretending to be guardian of the legacy. I knew Doc well enough to know that he would not be at all happy with the direction of Central Seminary under Bauder’s leading. It’s bad enough that his school is headed in a decidedly leftward direction. Please, Dr. Bauder, don’t make it any worse by pretending some affinity with one of the greatest separatist Christians of the last century.”

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

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

*Portions of the above are drawn from comments I posted at the blogs I refer to above. They are Roger E. Olson and Justin Taylor’s Between Two Worlds. The former I never heard of until this month, but Roger E. Olson is one of the four men who contributed an essay/chapter to the book. Taylor’s blog I have visited rarely. Kevin Bauder posted an article at his blog (In the Nick of Time) regarding the upcoming release of this new book.
** I am aware that in the new book Dr. Al Mohler included a statement on his having signed the Manhattan Declaration. He expresses some regret, but has he repented? That is a subject for an upcoming article.

A Moment of Inspiration: Lordship Salvation by Dr. Larry Hufhand

2011-09-16T08:00:00.006-05:00

Following is a new review of my book In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation. The reviewer is Dr. Larry Hufhand and you will find this review in his weekly newsletter, The Hufhand Report.

In reviewing Lou Martuneac’s book entitled, “In Defense of the Gospel,” I found it to be very informative relative to the subject of Lordship Salvation. This may not be a classic or the last word on the subject, but it is very good and very helpful.

So what is Lordship Salvation? From what Lou states in his book, he strongly suggests that it is not a matter of semantics, but rather a serious flaw in certain people’s theology. If I understand Lou right, a clear definition is hard to come by, but from all his correspondence relative to the subject, this is a close definition:

“Lordship Salvation conditions salvation (justification) on the sinner’s upfront promise and/or conscious commitment to God that he is willing to give up anything and everything, including his life, thus making Jesus the Lord of his life, before he can receive God’s free gift of salvation.”

He states also that in evangelism, the LS crowd make little difference between salvation and discipleship. If that be the case, this book is a must read for all young, impressionable pastors, lest they be led astray thru intellectual subtlety. The position Martuneac takes rejects so called “easybelievism” and presents a perfect balance between how people get saved and what it means to be a disciple of Jesus Christ...what it means to know the Lord and what it means to have Christ be the Lord of your life. Again, it is a must read! Some of the other things he deals with in this book are Repentance, Regeneration, and Calvinism, and he is right on target on all of them. This book has my strong recommendation.

MY TAKE ON THE SUBJECT: I’m not sure that the men who are propagating this view really believe what I understand it to be. Sometimes men take positions that in reality are neither tenable or practical, simply because it fits into their theological position. The idea of putting anything before repentance by the sinner and his faith in Jesus Christ for salvation is to inject human effort, and my Bible rejects that straight out. Frankly, I can’t imagine a fundamental Bible believing pastor doing this. Sometime pastors take a position that fits well into their theology, but in practice, it doesn't work.

Having been a pastor for 46 years, I was totally consumed with the responsibility of being a pastor, and was totally unaware that ideas like this were floating around. I simply went about winning people to Christ using the simple plan of Salvation that I learned while I was a student at Bob Jones University, and then I followed them up with a new convert course trusting that they would grow in the Lord and one day make Christ the Lord of their life and serve Him faithfully. And I can’t help but think that has been the history of most fundamental, Bible believing, Baptist pastors. I don't think I’ve been doing it wrong all these years.

Forever, I have told people that getting saved is easy. It’s the Christian life that's hard. I’ve often said, if a person has enough sense to eat a piece of bread when he’s hungry, he has enough sense to get saved, because Jesus is the Bread of Life. If a person has enough sense to walk thru a door, he has enough sense get saved, because Jesus said, “I am the door, by Me if any man enter in he shall be saved, and go in and out and find pasture.” It really is that simple. God has made salvation so simple that even a little child can get in on it. If Lordship Salvation involves even the slightest amount of human effort then it is “false teaching.”

If I understand it correctly, we have a serious problem in fundamentalism...a problem beyond contemporary music, beyond the issue of versions, beyond the problem of compromise, to the most fundamental of all issues.... What is the Gospel and how do people get saved?

In studying Genesis 4, there are only two ways that people have tried to connect with God through out the ages, either thru the blood or by human effort. And God made it clear in the very beginning of time, salvation must be exclusively by the blood. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone....and it’s not of ourselves in anyway. If it is true that there is an ever increasing number of people who claim that we can and must thru human effort demonstrate our sincerity, by making a commitment to God that we will honor and obey Him in all things before the free offer of salvation can be received, we have a serious problem. Believe me folk, this is not a Biblical position, regardless of who propagates it, or how high up the theological ladder they go. Your comments are appreciated.

Dr. Lawrence Hufhand, State Rep. for the Indiana Fundamental Baptist Fellowship.
You may contact Dr. Hufhand and/or subscribe to the Hufhand Report through his web site Hufhand Ministries or e-mail him at: drldhmlh@sbcgtlobal.net

From the Hufhand Report
The second part of the “Hufhand Story” will be aired this Sunday, Sept. 18, on the world famous Unshackled Program produced by the Pacific Garden Mission in Chicago, IL. To get the times and stations go into the UNSHACKLED WEB SITE: and follow the directions. It’s really quite simple.

For additional endorsements and reviews of In Defense of the Gospel please see, IDOTG: Revised & Expanded. IDOTG will soon be available in Kindle and Nook formats.

Archival Series: William Carey Refutes the Grace Evangelical Society’s “Crossless” Gospel

2011-09-14T09:17:00.000-05:00

The following is taken from: Terry G. Carter, The Journal and Selected Letters of William Carey (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2000), 148-49. The {bracketed statements} were inserted by the publisher and copied here verbatim from the book.

William Carey’s Letter to Andrew Fuller, November 1800

{Carey had a conversation with three Hindus about the Gospel.}

You will laugh, but I am totally unable to recollect so much of the conversation as to write any thing connected about it, so must leave it, as this is the case with so many disputes, conversations, and conferences held with the Hindus. They appear important while they last and I trust are really so but sometimes the sameness of one to another, renders them unimportant when written in English. Often the apparently little quibbles, tho really important in our situation don’t appear sufficiently so to send to England. We know nothing of the disputes which you in Europe are engaged in; ours bear a nearer resemblance to those of the Protestants with the Papists at the Reformation but a nearer still to those of the old Fathers, with the Heathen, and Gnosticks, such as you will find in Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus.

{Carey and Bro. Brunsdon went to the villages about 3 or 4 miles from town and encountered an old Brahman. Carey had asked if anyone knew how sins could be pardoned. The people referred him to an old Brahman who was wise. He replied that “profound meditation and acts of Holiness would answer the purpose.” Carey shared the Gospel. Here is a sample of the great missionary in action.}

You and I, and all of us are Sinners, and we are in a helpless state but I have good things to tell you. God in the riches of His Mercy became incarnate, in the form of Man. He lived more than thirty years on the earth without Sin and was employed in doing good. He gave sight to the Blind, healed the Sick, the lame, the Deaf and the Dumb—and after all died in the stead of Sinners. We deserved the wrath of God, but he endured it. We could make no sufficient atonement for our guilt but he compleatly made an end of Sin and now he has sent us to tell you that the Work is done and to call you to faith in, and dependence on the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, leave you vain customs, and false gods, and lay hold of eternal Life through him. After much discourse of this sort we presented him with a copy of Matthew’s Gospel and three more to three other persons. He promised to read and make himself well acquainted with its Contents and then to converse more about it. It was now dark. I, therefore, prayed with them and we returned home.

Nov. 2. This has been a good Day on the whole. In the morning I went out, and after several efforts to collect a few People together, I got a greater number than I expected….The people are so moveable, some going, and others coming that often the Congregation is quite changed before we have done. I think it desirable that all should hear of the incarnation, and death of Xt (Christ) and the reasons thereof, but as that account am often obliged to repeat those circumstances several times even at one standing that all may hear the Gospel.

{Mr. Thomas and Carey went to Calcutta and visited Mr. Wilcox}

There were a great number of Merchants, Sailors, &ct. perhaps thirty or more at his house. I entered into a conversation with one of them, a Man of great wealth and respectability. The others listened after a few preliminary questions and answers, I sensibly got into a preaching mood, and discoursed with them upon the Way of the Life by Christ, and the insufficiency of all other Ways. They objected to the Death of Christ saying that God could not die. I told them twas true God as the divine nature could not die, but God incarnate could and that he was incarnate for that very purpose, “made lower than the Angels for the suffering of Death.” They acquiesced and wondered. The great man to whom I principally directed myself at first told me that he had that day or the day before received a Gospel by Matthew. We have dispersed near 500 copies of Matthew’s which are read by many.

In October 2007 there was a team of “Crossless” gospel advocates in Carey’s India. These “Crossless” advocates teach and believe any “misconception” about, even open rejection of, Jesus Christ’s Deity, Death and Resurrection should be put on the “back burner,” if the lost man objects to any of these vital truths.

Following are some observations on Carey’s comments above. Consider these observations in light of the Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin GES reductionist “Crossless/Deityless” interpretation of the Gospel.

1) Carey translated and distributed the Gospel of Matthew first, not John’s Gospel. Apparently, Carey had not come to the GES conclusion that the Gospel of John “is the only evangelistic book in the Bible!”

2) Carey’s disputes and conversations with Hindus more closely resembled those of early church history, revolving around the Person of Christ (deity, humanity, “the Heathen, and Gnostics”), and then also of the Reformation era, dealing with the Work of Christ!

3) When dealing with the Brahman, he made the problem of how sin can be forgiven the central issue, not just eternal life. He prefaced that by teaching the Deity of Christ; the Son of God was God in the flesh “God in the riches of His Mercy became incarnate”

4) He, like the apostle Paul, preached and emphasized to the lost Christ crucified and the sufficiency of His work on their behalf.

5) William Carey did not treat their “vain customs and false gods” as harmless additions to the “saving message” of Christ as the guarantor of eternal life. He did not put their “misconceptions” on the “back-burner.” Carey viewed them as hindrances to “faith in, and dependence on the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Clearly in the context, what Carey means by “leave your vain customs, and false gods, and lay hold of eternal Life through him” is to reject faith and dependence upon empty, worthless, and false objects of faith and transfer their faith/dependence/trust to the only worthy of object—the Lord Jesus Christ.

6) When objections were raised about the death of Christ, His deity, and the incarnation, Carey, unlike the “Crossless” advocates, did not say, “Let’s agree to disagree on that for now, the real issue is the simply the guarantee of eternal life.”

The teachers of the “Crossless” gospel who are in India today are not preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They are sowing seeds of false doctrine and discord among the brethren. Their “contrary doctrine” has caused “divisions and offences” (Romans 16:17-18). The only thing more tragic than the division and offense they have brought to the body of Christ is the spread of this reductionist non-saving message to the lost.

May God help us continue to stand in defense of the Gospel. With God’s help the teaching of the “Crossless” gospel will continue to be exposed and refuted. May we do all that we can to recover the deceived and identify Crossless advocates so that the unsuspecting may be forewarned and protected from the GES’s egregious reductionist assault on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

LM
Originally published October 2007.

The Netherlands: In Defense of the Gospel

2011-09-02T13:00:00.002-05:00

Over the past few years I have received multiple contacts from foreign countries in which the writers express appreciation for what they find here at IDOTG. The Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel attracts the most world wide attention because its insidious spread and corruption of the Gospel of grace is not limited to the church in America. For example I have heard from believers in Germany, Zambia, England, Ireland, Pakistan, Japan, South Africa, Hungary and even a few from Alabama.* This week I heard from Mr. Robert Bezemer who lives in the Netherlands. What follows are samples from his recent e-mails to me that I am sharing with you with Robert’s permission.

My name is Robert Bezemer, I am 23 years old and I live in the Netherlands. I need to testify of the gracious work of God through your blog (and other websites) that clarify the serious errors of Lordship Salvation (LS). I did listen to sermons preached by John Piper and John MacArthur and recognized they have compromised the gospel of grace. I also own a book written by A.W. Pink, called Studies on Saving Faith in which he gives the impression that simple, childlike faith in Jesus Christ is not enough for salvation. Now I know it is better to warn of and even avoid such books. I know it is wrong to make an idol of certain preachers, and it was a great blessing to know that my salvation is fully accomplished! But I think certain American Lordship advocates are regrettably quite popular in Holland.

LS really frustrates the Gospel, there is nothing that can be called “Grace” in the LS theology! It is shocking, but I think we can state something like this: “The teaching of LS implicates that Christ’s death was of no worth, because if I do NOT make a commitment, I will be lost forever, even though Christ paid for my sins!”

The danger of LS is that we don’t look to the blood of Christ, His death, burial and resurrection, but that we are asking, “Do I forsake enough for the sake of Christ?” I have found great rest, especially through the articles and teachings of the Middletown Bible Church and now I can understand what you are saying at your blog IDOTG. There is a distinction between SALVATION and DISCIPLESHIP and LS fails at this point. I will also put a link on my blog to your website and I will remove the links to HeartCry and Desiring God.

Robert posted a comment under one of the most read articles at IDOTG, Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page, which is one of the most read articles at this blog. In comment #136 he wrote,

I live in the Netherlands and I can testify of the gracious work that God has done through this blog and through the website of the Middletown Bible Church. The Gospel presents Jesus Christ and Him crucified, buried and risen on the third day. His blood is all-sufficient for anyone's salvation. The great error of Lordship Salvation is that it fails to distinguish SALVATION and DISCIPLESHIP. It claims someone gets saved because of his COMMITMENT to Christ, but that is NOT salvation, it is discipleship. When I make a commitment in order to get saved, I can boast in something else than the work of Christ on the cross. The danger of LS is that we don’t look to the blood of Christ, but that we are asking “Do I forsake enough for the sake of Christ?” I hope it will encourage others to trust in Christ just like a little child and that there will be taken away such a great burden no one can bear.

In a new e-mail Robert wrote,

I just want to share with you a passage I read from John Piper’s book What Jesus Demands from the World, in the footnote on page 161: I just want to share with you a passage I read from John Piper’s book What Jesus Demands from the World, in the footnote on page 161: “Though it may cause confusion, it is possible to use the word ‘justify’ to describe how the fruit of good behavior works in the day of judgment. The fruits can ‘justify’ us in the sense of proving that we are believers and belong to Jesus and have a right standing with God in him. That is how I understand Matthew 12:37, ‘By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.’ It is as though the Judge said, ‘The evidence is compelling: Your words warrant the judgment that you are a true believer in my Son and have rested your case with him and banked on his righteousness for acceptance in this court.’ Or: ‘Your words justify [warrant, validate] the conclusion of this court that you have trusted in the righteousness of Jesus Christ for your justification in this court’.”

Other quotations Robert shared from from Piper’s What Jesus Demands from the World include,

“But though our lived-out perfection only comes in heaven, Jesus really does transform us now, and this transformation is really necessary for final salvation” - page 160

“There is no doubt that Jesus saw some measure of real, lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary for final salvation.” - page 160

Subheading: “Some measure of real, lived-out obedience is required.” - page 160

“This is the meaning of self-denial. Renounce everything on earth in order that you might have the Kingdom.” - page 85

Robert went on to say,

There is NO word from Piper on the atoning work of Christ, NO word about His blood, NO word about “It is finished!” It is still the message, ‘you have reached a degree of righteousness.’ If there is 100% truth in that, it would mean that NO Christian can have assurance of salvation, except before the throne of God/Christ! Piper is making the FRUIT of faith the basis for salvation, not the faith in Christ itself.

We thank God for men like Robert who, in his corner of the world, has discerned that Lordship Salvation is a false,non-saving, works-based message that corrupts the simplicity that is Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21). Robert told me that he and fellow believers in the Netherlands are doing what they can to slow and reverse the spread of Lordship Salvation where they are.

You may visit Robert Bezemer at his Salvation in God blog.

LM

*I trust my good friends in Alabama will forgive me, I just had to, with Oregon a close second.

For Related Reading:
John MacArthur’s Position on Lordship Salvation, by George Zeller.

John MacArthur’s Discipleship Gospel

“KESWICK”—A Good Word or a Bad One? REVISITED

2011-08-30T01:00:00.004-05:00

Evangelist John Van Gelderen has written a revised and expanded edition of the original edition of this article by the same name. I encourage all guests to read the article like a study. Move slowly through each paragraph, consider the history, the underlying theology, the answers to inaccurate accusations/misrepresentations and reasons for them, meditate on the Scriptural principals set forth. Dr. Van Gelderen says, “...derogatory slurs against this truth are not small matters.” This article concludes the short series on Keswick, which I hope has been helpful read for all concerned on either side of the debate. If you found this article helpful please consider sharing the link to it with a wide a circle of friends and acquaintances.

Occasionally I hear people use the label Keswick in a derogatory way. Yet others use the term quite positively. Someone who did not know the term would wonder if Keswick is a good word or a bad one. The issue, of course, is not the term, but what one means by the term.

Historical Background and Theology

Keswick is a beautiful town nestled in the Lake District of England. In 1875, a conference began there which continued annually as “The Keswick Convention.” Its original stated purpose was for the deepening of spiritual life. To accomplish this purpose, a definite theological position was taught—sanctification by faith, sometimes called holiness by faith.

The focus of the theology was on Christ as one’s life. This was sometimes called “The Higher Life,” or “The Deeper Life,” or “The Victorious Life.” Although in later years other ideas were sometimes attached to some of these labels in various sub-groups, their original usage was Christ-focused, and still remains so by the majority of those who use the terms.

In other words, the “Higher Life,” the “Deeper Life,” the “Victorious Life,” the “Spirit-filled Life,” the “Christ-Life” is not a new line of teaching. It is not a mere set of doctrines; it is not a set of motions; it is not a conference, a convention, or a movement—it is a Life. That Life is a Person, and His name is Jesus! Jesus is the “Higher Life.” Jesus is the “Deeper Life.” Jesus is the “Victorious Life.” How can it be otherwise? Sanctification, or holiness by faith, is simply accessing the “Holy Life” by faith. It is “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me” by “faith” (Gal. 2:20). Holiness by faith is accessing the Holy Life of Jesus to empower holy living and serving. It is becoming “partakers of His holiness” (Heb.12:10) through the impartation of His life, not a self-dependent attempt to imitate His life.

Keswick theology teaches that “progressive sanctification” does not mean an inevitable gradual sanctification, but rather that sanctification is accelerated by faith choices and is hindered by choices of unbelief. Obviously, the Holy Spirit keeps working, but believers are responsible to cooperate in faith for sanctification to progress according to God’s will. Keswick teaches that just as justification is by faith, so also sanctification is by faith. “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him” (Col. 2:6).

To help people understand how to “progress” in sanctification, Keswick emphasized a specific theme each of the five days of their convention: Sin (sin is the problem, both outer man sins and especially inner man sins), Provision (Christ is the answer through the cleansing power of His blood and the enabling power of His Spirit), Consecration (the access to Christ’s provision is through surrender to/dependence on Christ’s leadership and surrender to/dependence on Christ’s enablement), the Spirit-filled Life (surrender/faith accesses Christ’s Life—the Spirit-filled life for holiness and service), and Service (the whole point of sanctification by faith is to then serve by faith primarily in the declaration of the Gospel).

The Keswick Convention began in 1875 and continues to this day in England. However, as with many movements, eventually the original focus was lost so that today the Keswick Convention no longer truly represents its original purpose. The first two generations of Keswick (the first eighty years) held to the original theology. In other words, Keswick theology stayed largely true to its beginning from 1875 through the 1950s. During this time, Keswick guarded itself from the extremes of certain factions within the “Holiness Movement.” Ecclesiastically, however, Keswick began to weaken during the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the 1920s and 1930s. Their motto of “all one in Christ,” though a blessed truth in biblical proportion, set them up for potential compromise when this controversy came on the scene. This compromise eventually eroded their theology in significant ways by the 1960s. However, it should be noted that many other Keswick or Keswick-type meetings have stayed true to Keswick theology to this day.

First-generation Keswick included as speakers Evan Hopkins (who spoke annually for 39 years), F. B. Meyer (regular speaker from 1887 to 1925), Handley G. C. Moule (regular speaker from the mid-1880s to his death), G. Campbell Morgan, A. T. Pierson, A. J. Gordon, S. D. Gordon, R. A. Torrey, Andrew Murray, Hudson Taylor, Jonathan Goforth, and W. H. Griffith Thomas. Second-generation Keswick was led by W. Graham Scroggie, and included Donald Grey Barnhouse and J. Oswald Sanders.

Notice how familiar many of these names are and how they are esteemed even to this day. R. A. Torrey was so respected in his day that he was the editor of The Fundamentals. The Fundamentals contain 90 articles. Speakers associated with Keswick theology wrote at least 21% of these articles. Of the total number of authors used, at least 29% were associated with Keswick theology. This is a significant fact and shows that Keswick was mainstream in the beginnings of biblical fundamentalism. Therefore, Keswick was clearly considered “orthodox.” To denigrate Keswick is to denigrate the roots of fundamentalism.

I prefer to call Keswick theology “revival theology,” although there is a sense in which revival theology is broader than sanctification by faith. When one is awakened to the need to access the indwelling Life of Christ by faith and begins to appropriate that Life for the steps of obedience, personal revival occurs. Personal revival is a restoration to spiritual life—the Life of Christ in you accessed by faith as the animating power to your personality. This doctrine did not begin in 1875 with Keswick. It began in the New Testament (John 10:10, 14-16; Rom. 6-8; II Cor. 3:5,17-18; 9:8; Gal. 2:20; 3:1-5,14; Eph. 3:17; 5:18; Phil. 1:21; Col. 1:27; 3:4). Even in corporate revival this is what occurs to the individuals involved. This is revival theology! In fact, in The Flaming Tongue, J. Edwin Orr’s account of the early twentieth-century revivals which affected at least 57 nations, Orr repeatedly documents that Keswick-type conferences were used of God to either ignite revival fire or to greatly fuel it.

In the work entitled Five Views of Sanctification, J. Robertson McQuilken wrote the Keswick view, and John Walvoord wrote the Augustinian-Dispensational view. After each author presented his view, he then had opportunity to respond to the other views. Essentially, McQuilken maintained no real difference between the Keswick view and the Augustinian-Dispensational view, and Walvoord maintained no real difference between the Augustinian-Dispensational view and the Keswick view. Dispensational theology is broader than just sanctification, whereas Keswick deals primarily with sanctification. But on sanctification, Keswick theology is Dispensational theology embraced by many today.

Inaccurate Accusations

Over the years I have come across several inaccurate accusations against Keswick theology.

Passivity

Some accuse Keswick of passivity. This is probably because Keswick emphasizes resting in Christ. However, the emphasis is not to sit back and do nothing, but rather trust to obey. It is obedient faith, and, therefore, believing obedience. Resting in Jesus involves the due diligence of faith-filled (resting) obedience (labor) as stated by the Apostle, “Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.” This is not mere “labour,” but “labour” that is trusting in “his working.” The emphasis is not idle passivity, but active cooperation—the cooperation of surrendering to the Spirit’s leadership and depending on His enablement. This is walking in the Spirit, which obviously involves steps, not quietistic passivity. But the steps are steps of faith, not the mere motions of flesh-dependent activity. This is what brings “rest unto your souls” (Matt. 11:29), for as one preacher said, “When you yoke up with Jesus, He carries the load!”

Keswick denounces performance-based sanctification or “struggle theology,” which is flesh-dependence in an effort to live the Christian life. Sanctification by works is just as wrong as justification by works (Gal. 3:1-3). You do not get justified by faith, and then get sanctified by struggle. Sanctification is also by faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” (Heb.11:6). Obviously there are struggles in life, but flesh-dependence for frustrated Christian living is an unnecessary struggle. Faith for victory means you are depending on the victorious life of Christ to enable you to obey. It is not a matter of you trying to live the Christian life (hollow motions), it is a matter of trusting the indwelling Christ to enable you for the steps of obedience (empowered motions). So victory without trying does not mean victory doing nothing; it means victory with trusting. True faith is not an inward, “navel-gazing,” self-focus; it is focusing rather on Christ, the true object of faith, that He might express His very Life through yours. To accuse Keswick theology of passivity is simply not accurate.

Subjectivism

Occasionally Keswick theology is labeled derogatorily as being too subjective. This is probably because of Keswick’s emphasis on the reality of the Holy Spirit. However, Keswick emphasizes the subjective reality of the Spirit, based on the objective boundaries of the Word. The emphasis is by no means the Spirit without the Word. Nor is it the Word without the Spirit. Rather, it is the Word and the Spirit. The Spirit without the Word is delusion leading to strange fire. The Word without the Spirit is deadness leading to no fire. But the Word and the Spirit is dynamic leading to true Holy Spirit fire.

Interestingly, Robert Thomas rightly deals with the dangerous subjectivism of evangelicals in his book called Evangelical Hermeneutics. He names many names in the evangelical world that he considers guilty of true subjectivism. But when he seeks to show a right approach, he often quotes J. Robertson McQuilken as handling matters biblically. McQuilken, who wrote several helpful books, is the writer of the Keswick view of sanctification in Five Views of Sanctification, which we noted earlier. Keswick teaches the subjective reality of the Holy Spirit based on the Word, not subjectivism which leaves the scriptural foundation. To accuse Keswick of subjectivism reveals an inaccurate understanding of Keswick teaching.

Second Blessing

Some accuse Keswick of second blessing theology. But this shows great ignorance of both true second blessing theology and Keswick theology. Second blessing theology speaks of receiving a once-for-all second blessing which puts one on a new stage never to fall back to the former stage. Keswick speaks of alternating between two conditions of either walking in the flesh or walking in the Spirit. It is not once for all. Second blessing theology demands a “second” event. Keswick teaches that you were given the whole package at salvation and that you can access the whole blessing immediately (and some do), but that many, because of a lack of understanding, do not until later. Even then, it is not a second blessing, but a second, and a third, and a fourth, and so on. Second blessing theology says that you receive something you did not yet have. Keswick theology teaches that you, by faith, access your first blessing! However, when one has not accessed the provision of the indwelling Christ for quite some time, when he does so, it may seem like a second blessing, even though technically it is not. This explains why some early Keswick writers used the terminology of second blessing (which confuses matters today), but they did so only in the sense that I have described above, which is different from true second blessing theology.

Sinless Perfectionism

I suppose this charge comes because Keswick theology emphasizes the victorious life of Christ. The provision for victory is perfect. It has to be—His name is Jesus! But Keswick makes clear that we still live in the “body of sin” (Rom. 6:6). The focus of Keswick is not that you cannot sin, but that you are able not to sin because of the indwelling Christ. Keswick makes clear that tragically Christians sin. Yet it teaches that the focus should not be on being defeated, but rather on victory in Christ by faith. The provision of the indwelling Christ is perfect, but our consistent access of that perfect provision is sadly imperfect.

This is quite different from a Wesleyan position. There is no such thing as a Wesleyan/Keswick position. Rather, there is a Dispensational/Keswick position. To accuse Keswick theology of sinless perfectionism is simply not being honest with the facts of Keswick teaching.

Let Go, and Let God

Sadly, this phraseology has had various aberrant concepts attached to it in recent decades. Therefore, I do not use this phrase. However, its original usage in the early Keswick era was simply to “let go” of self-will and self-dependence, and “let God” by yielding to God’s will in God-dependence. It represents the words of the Lord Jesus “Whosoever shall lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it” (Luke 9:24). While it is understandable that the aberrations of this phrase must be clarified, it is sad that the original God-centered and ultimately Christ-centered meaning of the phrase is being denigrated by some as well.

Reasons for the Attack

Several reasons for the criticism of Keswick theology are observable.

Misinformation

Amazingly, I have been in various settings where speakers had just taught Keswick/Deeper Life theology and then said, “Now I’m not talking about Keswick,” or, “I’m not talking about the Deeper Life.” This shows that they do not really know what the labels actually mean, but are likely functioning off of hearsay and concepts which have been attached to the terms Keswick or Deeper Life by their critics. First impressions are mind-setting. Someone “bent their ear,” or they read the critics of Keswick without actually reading the Keswick authors themselves. Then, when they criticize the term Keswick or its related terms, they are shooting themselves in the foot because they are undermining what they themselves teach. Obviously this is unintentional, but still it is harmful to that which they believe.

Thoroughgoing Calvinism

Not all proclaimed-Calvinists clash with Keswick, but those of a thoroughgoing system often do. Keswick emphasizes man’s responsibility of faith (sanctification by faith). Some Calvinists claim this is man-centered. But how can God-dependence theology be man-centered? Faith is not a work; it is dependence upon the Worker. The inspired Word says, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him” (Rom. 4:5). Therefore, faith is the opposite of works. Faith says, “I can’t, but God can,” and so depends upon God. The focus of true faith is, of necessity, on God, who is the object of faith. This is undeniably God-centered.

The clash is between inevitable faith (thorough-going Calvinism) and responsible faith (Keswick). Does progressive sanctification just inevitably occur for every true child of God, or can it be hindered by unbelief and accelerated by faith? Keswick claims the latter. Interestingly, responsible faith (Keswick) also clashes with the misfocused faith of unfettered choice (thorough-going Arminianism). Responsible faith means you are responding to the convincing work of the Spirit based on God’s Word. It is not unfettered choice, nor is it inevitable. It is a true responsibility.

When I hear or read what some Calvinists claim that Keswick teaches, I’m amazed at the inaccuracy. Perhaps some read the critics of Keswick and not Keswick authors themselves. Others may perhaps read Keswick authors but do so with such bias that they do not read what the authors are actually saying. The outcome is major misrepresentation.

Personal Defeat

Some may attack Keswick because they supposedly “tried it, and it didn’t work” for them. However, the problem is not with the provision of the indwelling Christ, but with either a misunderstanding of truth or a misapplication of surrender.

Some people misunderstand faith, what it is, and how it operates. Like a triangle with three sides, faith must involve the three parts of the soul of man (mind, affections, will), or it is not true faith. The mind must understand the foundation of truth revealed in God’s Word. The affections must be affected (convinced) by what is understood. Then the will must engage in God-dependence based on Spirit-convincement of the reality of God’s words. Regarding sanctification by faith, it seems to me that some may attempt to move from mere intellectual understanding to a choice of the will without actually being convinced by the Spirit of the truth involved. This would “short-circuit” the process because it would not be real faith. It would be wishful thinking rather than convinced confidence. When this is the case, some may conclude, “I tried it, and it didn’t work.” However, when the Holy Spirit illumines truth, the convincement leads to genuine faith – which always works.

Others misapply surrender/faith. They may not have given their all to Christ, trusting Him to take it. Or they may not have taken His all to them, trusting Him to give it.

For those who “tried it and it didn’t work,” the problem is not with the truth of the provision of the indwelling Christ which may be accessed by faith. Yet it is always easier to blame something other than yourself.

Satanic Attack

Satan attacks revival truth! He is the master deceiver. Revival theology (Keswick) threatens his turf. Much of the controversy is stirred up by his deceptions. When you understand that Keswick-type conferences were used to ignite revival fires or fuel them in the early twentieth-century revivals, it is no wonder that Satan has attacked Keswick theology in order to prevent another great wave of revival blessing.

Conclusion

Obviously, an article which is brief in its nature cannot deal with all the details of the present confusion around the word Keswick. May I suggest that you read the Keswick authors, and let them speak for themselves. Their writings have been blessed of God to point many to Christ and the Word, away from self and the world, which gloriously passes the tests of 1 John 4. Read G. Campbell Morgan’s The Spirit of God, Evan Hopkins’ The Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life, J. Elder Cummings’ Through the Eternal Spirit, Handley G. C. Moule’s Practicing the Promises and his treatment of Romans 6-8 in his commentary on Romans, F. B. Meyer’s many books, W. H. Griffith Thomas’ treatment of Romans 6-8 in his commentary on Romans, A. J. Gordon’s writings, A. T. Pierson’s works, and so forth. Steven Barabas quotes from many Keswick authors in his book entitled So Great Salvation: The History and Message of the Keswick Convention.

So, is Keswick a good word or a bad one? If you mean sanctification by faith, thus accessing the victorious life of Christ, that is gloriously good! However, I prefer to use the label “revival theology.” The issue, of course, is not a label, but truth.

The Christian life is not merely a set of doctrines. It is not merely a set of moral actions. Unsaved moralists have that. The Christian life is a life—a person—and His name is Jesus! Jesus Christ is the Christian Life. Therefore, Jesus Christ is the only one who can live the Christian life. But when you were born again, Christ, the Christian life Himself, moved into you —to impart to you His life. He lives in you so that you, yet not you, but Christ in you, can live the Christian life. When you got saved, Christ moved in—to live His life, not yours! But this is not automatic. As you received Christ by faith, you also must walk by faith one step at a time (Col. 2:6). This is accessing the eternal life of Christ as the abundant life in Christ. This is sanctification by faith. Ultimately, this is revival reality.

For those of us who believe the theology of “Christ in you accessed by faith,” the derogatory slurs against this truth are not small matters. Jesus is the Victorious Life, the Higher Life, the Deeper Life, the Spirit-filled Life, the Revived Life, the Hidden Life,—the Christ-Life! To us, when holiness by faith—the Holy Life accessed by faith—is attacked, the attack is ultimately on the indwelling Life of Christ.

I published this article in a shorter form in Revival magazine, Issue Five, 2006. The only significant changes in this present publication are expansions. Since 2006, the term revival theology has taken hold. My hope was that this would avoid any unnecessary confusion which surrounded the word Keswick. However, I have discovered that, in some cases, the attack simply switched to the term revival theology. This indicates that the issue is not what terminology you choose to use, but rather the truth behind the terms. It is becoming more apparent that the real problem for some is “ye do always resist the Holy Spirit.” The real tension point for some is “the offense of the cross.” The cross repudiates self in both justification by works and sanctification by works. Furthermore, not only does the cross repudiate the works of the flesh (self-indulgence), the cross repudiates the work of the flesh (self-dependence). The cross demands “not I, but Christ” (Gal. 2:20). The heart of Keswick theology is accessing this Holy Life of Jesus by faith, nothing less, nothing more.

Dr. John R. Van Gelderen
Revival Focus Ministries

Lifting the Curtain on Keswick

2011-08-26T07:00:00.001-05:00

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Today is one of the rare occasions I am linking1 to a blog outside my circle of recommended sites. I refer to the Systematic Theology Matters blog hosted by Dr. Mark Snoeberger. The topic under discussion there is Keswick, which is under an article titled, Total Depravity and the Gospel the subject of the last article here written by Dr. John Van Gelderen. Please refer to, “Keswick” A Good Word or a Bad One?2

In the Total Depravity... thread I recognized an opportunity to engage elements of the article that are helpful, as well as address elements that needed some attention. In my opinion, the difference in the debate around Keswick simply boils down to an “inevitable” view of faith versus a responsible faith.

I have been talking to individuals who are long time students of Keswick theology, individuals who are intimately familiar with the history as well. The comments you will find at the Systematic Theology Matters blog, which I am reposting here in the order I submitted them there, stem from those discussions. My goal is to present information to: 1) Lift the curtain on Keswick for those who are unfamiliar with it; 2) To help all persons gain a proper understanding of Keswick; 3) To clear up areas of misunderstanding.

Following is the series of comments in the order I posted them at Brother Snoeberger’s blog. Most address a particular portion of his main article. Others are interactions with him in the thread itself.

Kind regards,

Lou Martuneac

#1 From my limited understanding of Keswick I still think I know enough to say that Keswick men would track with you on certain elements of this article. Where they would part company is over what I believe you are suggesting is the inevitability of growth. The Keswick believes in growth (sanctification) of the redeemed, but hindrance to growth that can and does exist (carnality, unconfessed sin...) must be biblically resolved. I don't think there is a quick fix that guarantees the process of growth, but the opportunity and supernatural aid for growth is certainly infused at the moment of justification, regeneration.

#2 Thanks for the reply. If I am following you and getting my train of thought on the same rails I don't think Keswick teaches some kind of near absolute passivity. We are instructed to run the race, press toward the mark, strive. Instead Keswick emphasizes removing the barriers that hinder growth, lay aside every weight and the besetting sin... . Apart from Him we can do nothing; grieve not the Spirit.... The Bible does tell us how to restore fellowship with the Lord (1 Jn. 1:9) the fellowship we hinder and break because of our own sin. As we consider justification, sanctification and our eventual glorification all of them are ultimately provided by Him and through Him when we once as lost, depraved sinners came to Him in faith believing who He is and what He did to provide our salvation.

#3 To claim that Keswick was born out of Wesleyan holiness is a logical fallacy. It is like claiming that Reformed Theology was born out of Catholicism. J. C. Pollock who wrote The Keswick Story notes the Keswick theologians (Moule, Hopkins) kept Keswick theology within biblical boundaries so that Keswick was protected from the shipwreck of the holiness movement.

#4 Next, regarding the claim that Keswick teaches believers are a “passive channel” is just not so. The men I speak to have read thousands of pages of Keswick authors (much more than I have) and they assure me that they have not seen that taught. Keswick teaches sanctification by faith, not self-dependence. But it is an active faith that trusts to obey. This does not negate the need to act. It simply points up the need to trust (ask / take) before you act. To just act is self-dependence. To just trust is really not trusting; it is easy-believism in sanctification. To trust to obey is God-dependence, accessing Spirit-enablement (Rom. 5:2).

#5 Regarding the claim that Keswick teaches a “status change only” in salvation is again simply not true. Day Two of the Keswick progression highlights “Provision.” The emphasis is on all that God provided in regeneration - the new man joined to the indwelling Christ, etc. It’s just that Keswick maintains this provision must be accessed by faith or you live below your provision. But the point is Keswick teaches a glorious provision as the foundation for that faith. The difference simply boils down to an “inevitable” view of faith versus a responsible faith.

#6 Keswick, in a nutshell, emphasizes repeated steps of faith to access the indwelling Christ.3 Why would anyone knock this focus? (Heb. 11:6; Heb. 12:2).

One’s view of faith is at the bottom of the whole Keswick-Calvinism debate.

Footnotes:
1) For Dr. Snoeberger’s complete article and our thread discussion please go to Total Depravity and the Gospel.

2) A revised and expanded version of Dr. Van Gelderen’s article on “Keswick” will appear here at IDOTG in the very near future.

3) Dr. Van Gelderen deals with the final comment in his new book The Faith Response.

Archival Series: “Keswick,” A Good Word or a Bad One?

2011-08-21T13:30:00.005-05:00

Ev. John Van Gelderen

Occasionally, I hear people use the label “Keswick” in a derogatory way. Yet others use the term quite positively. Someone who did not know the term would wonder if “Keswick” is a good word or a bad one. The issue, of course, is not the term, but what one means by the term.

Historical Background and Theology

Keswick is a beautiful town nestled in the Lake District of England. In 1875, a conference began there which continued annually as “The Keswick Convention.” Its original stated purpose was for the deepening of spiritual life. To accomplish this purpose a definite theological position was taught—sanctification by faith, sometimes called holiness by faith.

The focus of the theology was on Christ as one’s life. This was sometimes called “The Higher Life” or “The Deeper Life” or “The Victorious Life.” Although in later years other ideas were attached to some of these labels, their original usage was Christ-focused.

In other words, the “Higher Life,” the “Deeper Life,” the “Victorious Life,” the “Spirit-filled Life,” the “Christ-Life” is not a new line of teaching. It is not a mere set of doctrines; it is not a set of motions; it is not a conference, a convention, or a movement—it is a Life. That Life is a Person, and His name is Jesus! Jesus is the “Higher Life.” Jesus is the “Deeper Life.” Jesus is the “Victorious Life.” How can it be otherwise? Sanctification or holiness by faith is simply accessing the “Holy Life” by faith. It is “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me…by faith” (Gal. 2:20). Holiness by faith is accessing the Holy Life of Jesus to empower holy living and serving. It is becoming “partakers of His holiness” (Heb.12:10), not imitators.

Keswick theology teaches that “progressive sanctification” does not mean an inevitable gradual sanctification, but rather that sanctification is accelerated by faith choices and is hindered by choices of unbelief. Obviously, the Holy Spirit keeps working, but believers are responsible to cooperate in faith for sanctification to progress according to God’s will. Keswick teaches that just as justification is by faith, so also sanctification is by faith.

To help people understand how to “progress” in sanctification, Keswick emphasized a specific theme each of the five days of their convention: Sin (sin is the problem, both outer man sins and especially inner man sins), Provision (Christ is the answer through the cleansing power of His blood and the enabling power of His Spirit), Consecration (the access to Christ’s provision is through surrender, by yielding to Christ’s leadership, and faith, by depending on Christ’s enablement), the Spirit-filled Life (surrender/faith accesses Christ’s Life—the Spirit-filled life for holiness and service), and Service (the whole point of sanctification by faith is to then serve by faith primarily in the declaration of the Gospel).

The Keswick Convention began in 1875 and continues to this day. However, as with many movements, eventually the original focus was lost so that today the Keswick Convention no longer truly represents its original purpose. The first two generations of Keswick (the first eighty years) held to the original theology. In other words, Keswick theology stayed largely true to its beginning from 1875 through the 1950s. During this time Keswick guarded itself from the extremes of certain factions within the “Holiness Movement.” However, ecclesiastically, Keswick began to weaken during the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the 1920s and 1930s. Their motto of “all one in Christ” set them up for compromise when this controversy came on the scene. This compromise eventually eroded their theology in significant ways by the 1960s.

First-generation Keswick included as speakers Evan Hopkins (who spoke annually for 39 years), F. B. Meyer (regular speaker from 1887 to 1925), Handley G. C. Moule (regular speaker from the mid-1880s to his death), G. Campbell Morgan, A. T. Pierson, A. J. Gordon, S. D. Gordon, R. A. Torrey, Andrew Murray, Hudson Taylor, Jonathan Goforth, and W. H. Griffith Thomas. Second-generation Keswick was led by W. Graham Scroggie, and included Donald Grey Barnhouse and J. Oswald Sanders.

Notice how familiar many of these names are and how they are esteemed even to this day. R. A. Torrey was so respected in his day that he was the editor of The Fundamentals. The Fundamentals contain 90 articles. Speakers associated with Keswick theology wrote at least 21% of these articles. Of the authors used, at least 29% were associated with Keswick theology. This shows that Keswick was mainstream in the beginnings of Biblical Fundamentalism. Therefore, Keswick was clearly considered “orthodox.” To denigrate Keswick is to denigrate the roots of Fundamentalism.

I prefer to call Keswick theology “revival theology.” When one is awakened to the need to access the indwelling Life of Christ by faith and begins to appropriate that Life for the steps of obedience, personal revival occurs. Revival is a restoration to spiritual life—the Life of Christ in you accessed by faith as the animating power to your personality! This doctrine did not begin in 1875 with Keswick. It began in the New Testament (John 10:10, 14-16; Rom. 6-8; II Cor. 3:5,17-18; 9:8; Gal. 2:20; 3:1-5,14; Eph. 3:17; 5:18; Phil. 1:21; Col. 1:27; 3:4). This is revival theology! In fact, in The Flaming Tongue, J. Edwin Orr’s account of the early twentieth-century revivals which affected at least 57 nations, Orr repeatedly documents that Keswick-type conferences were used of God to either ignite revival fire or to greatly fuel it.

In the work entitled Five Views of Sanctification, J. Robertson McQuilken wrote the Keswick view, and John Walvoord wrote the Augustinian-Dispensational view. After each author presented his view, he then had opportunity to respond to the other views. McQuilken said there is no real difference between the Keswick view and the Augustinian-Dispensational view. Also, Walvoord said there was no real difference between the Augustinian-Dispensational view and the Keswick view. Dispensational theology is broader than just sanctification, whereas Keswick deals primarily with sanctification. But on sanctification, Keswick theology is Dispensational theology embraced by many today.

Inaccurate Accusations

Passivity

Some accuse Keswick of passivity. This is probably because Keswick emphasizes resting in Christ. However, the emphasis is not to sit back and do nothing, but rather trust to obey! The emphasis is not idle passivity, but active cooperation—the cooperation of surrendering to the Spirit’s leadership and depending on His enablement. This is walking in the Spirit, which obviously involves steps, not quietistic passivity. But the steps are steps of faith, not the mere motions of flesh-dependent activity. This is what brings rest, for when you yoke up with Jesus, He carries the load!

Keswick denounces “struggle theology,” which is flesh-dependence in an effort to live the Christian life, because works-sanctification is just as wrong as works-justification (Gal. 3:1-3). You do not get justified by faith, and then get sanctified by struggle. Sanctification is also by faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb.11:6). Obviously there are struggles in life, but flesh-dependence for frustrated Christian living is an unnecessary struggle. Faith for victory means you are depending on the victorious Life of Christ to enable you to obey. It is not a matter of you trying to live the Christian life (hollow motions), it is a matter of trusting the indwelling Christ to enable you for the steps of obedience (empowered motions). So victory without trying does not mean victory doing nothing; it means victory with trusting. True faith is not an inward, “navel-gazing,” self-focus; it is focusing rather on Christ, the true object of faith, that He might express His Life through yours. To accuse Keswick theology of passivity is simply not accurate.

Subjectivism

Occasionally Keswick theology is labeled derogatorily as being too subjective. This is probably because of Keswick’s emphasis on the reality of the Holy Spirit. However, Keswick emphasizes the subjective reality of the Spirit based on the objective boundaries of the Word. The emphasis is by no means the Spirit without the Word. Nor is it the Word without the Spirit. Rather, it is the Word and the Spirit. The Spirit without the Word is delusion leading to strange fire. The Word without the Spirit is deadness leading to no fire. But the Word and the Spirit is dynamic leading to true Holy Spirit fire.

Interestingly, Robert Thomas rightly deals with the dangerous subjectivism of evangelicals in his book called Evangelical Hermeneutics. He names many names in the evangelical world who are guilty of true subjectivism. But when he seeks to show a right approach, he often quotes J. Robertson McQuilken as handling matters biblically. McQuilken, who wrote several helpful books, is the writer of the Keswick view of sanctification in Five Views of Sanctification, which we noted earlier. Keswick teaches the subjective reality of the Holy Spirit based on the Word, not subjectivism which leaves the scriptural foundation. To accuse Keswick of subjectivism reveals an inaccurate understanding of Keswick teaching.

Second Blessing

Some accuse Keswick of second blessing theology. But this shows great ignorance of both true second blessing theology and Keswick theology. Second blessing theology speaks of receiving a once-for-all second blessing which puts one on a new stage never to fall back to a former stage. Keswick speaks of alternating between two conditions of either walking in the flesh or walking in the Spirit. It is not once for all. Second blessing theology demands a “second” event. Keswick teaches you were given the whole package at salvation and that you can access the whole blessing immediately (and some do), but that many because of a lack of understanding do not until later. Even then it is not a second blessing, but a second, and a third, and a fourth, and so on. Second blessing theology says that you receive something you did not yet have. Keswick theology teaches that you by faith access your First Blessing! Some early Keswick writers used the terminology of second blessing (which confuses matters today), but they do so only in the sense that I have described above, which is different from true second blessing theology.

Sinless Perfectionism

I suppose this charge comes because Keswick theology emphasizes the Victorious Life of Christ. Obviously, He is perfect. But Keswick makes clear that we still live in the “body of sin” (Rom. 6:6). The focus of Keswick is not that you cannot sin, but that you are able not to sin because of the indwelling Christ. Keswick makes clear that tragically Christians sin, but that the focus should not be on being defeated, but rather on victory in Christ by faith. The provision of the indwelling Christ is perfect, but our consistent access of that perfect provision is sadly imperfect. This is quite different from a Wesleyan position. There is no such thing as a Wesleyan/Keswick position. Rather, there is an Augustinian-Dispensational/Keswick position. To accuse Keswick theology of sinless perfectionism is simply not being honest with the facts of Keswick teaching.

Reasons for the Attack

Misinformation

Amazingly, I have been in several settings where speakers had just taught Keswick theology and then said, “Now I’m not talking about Keswick,” or, “I’m not talking about the Deeper Life.” This shows that they do not really know what the labels actually mean, but are functioning off of hearsay and concepts which have been attached to the term “Keswick” by the critics of Keswick. First impressions are mind-setting. Someone “bent their ear,” or they read the critics of Keswick without actually reading the Keswick authors themselves. Then, when they criticize the term Keswick, they are shooting themselves in the foot because they are undermining what they themselves taught. Obviously this is unintentional, but it still is harmful to that which they believe.

Thoroughgoing Calvinism

Not all proclaimed Calvinists clash with Keswick, but those of a thoroughgoing system often do. Keswick emphasizes man’s responsibility of faith (sanctification by faith). Some Calvinists claim this is man-centered. But how can God-dependence theology be man-centered? This is a clash between inevitable faith (Calvinism) and responsible faith (Keswick). Does progressive sanctification just inevitably occur for every true child of God, or can it be hindered by unbelief and accelerated by faith? Keswick claims the latter. Interestingly, responsible faith (Keswick) also clashes with the misfocused faith of unfettered choice (Arminianism). Responsible faith means you are responding to the convincing work of the Spirit based on God’s Word. It is not unfettered choice, nor is it inevitable. It is a true responsibility.

When I hear or read what some Calvinists claim Keswick teaches, I’m amazed at the inaccuracy. Perhaps some read the critics of Keswick and not Keswick authors themselves. Others may perhaps read Keswick authors but do so with such bias that they do not read what the authors are actually saying. The outcome is major misrepresentation.

Personal Defeat

Some may attack Keswick because they supposedly tried it, and it did not work for them. However, the problem is not with the provision of Christ, but with a misunderstanding of truth or a misapplication of surrender and faith. Some are not truly surrendering (giving up) their sin; they just don’t like their guilt. Some may have misunderstandings regarding faith, what it is and how it works. If you have a besetting sin or are ineffective in service, it is always easier to blame something other than your own responsible choices.

Satanic Attack

Satan attacks revival truth! He is the master deceiver. Revival theology (Keswick) threatens his turf. Much of the controversy is stirred up by his deceptions. When you understand that Keswick-type conferences were used to ignite revival fires or fuel them in the early twentieth-century revivals, it is no wonder that Satan has attacked Keswick theology in order to prevent another great wave of revival blessing.

Conclusion

Obviously, an article which is brief in its nature cannot deal with all the details of the present confusion around the word Keswick. May I suggest that you read the Keswick authors themselves. Read G. Campbell Morgan’s The Spirit of God, Evan Hopkins’ The Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life, J. Elder Cummings’ Through the Eternal Spirit, Handley G. C. Moule’s Practicing the Promises and his treatment of Romans 6-8 in his commentary on Romans, F. B. Meyer’s many books, A. J. Gordon’s writings, A. T. Pierson’s works, and so forth. Steven Barabas quotes from many Keswick authors in his book entitled So Great Salvation: The History and Message of the Keswick Convention.

So, is Keswick a good word or a bad one? If you mean sanctification by faith thus accessing the victorious Life of Christ, that is gloriously good! However, I prefer to use the label “revival theology.” The issue, of course, is not a label, but truth.

Jesus Christ is the only one who can live the Christian life! Jesus is the Christian Life. But He lives in you so that you, yet not you, but Christ in you can live the Christian life! When you got saved, Christ moved in—to live His life, not yours! But this is not automatic. As you received Christ by faith, you also must walk by faith one step at a time (Col. 2:6). This is accessing the eternal Life as the abundant Life. This is sanctification by faith. Ultimately, this is revival reality.

For those of us who believe the theology of “Christ in you accessed by faith,” the derogatory slurs against this truth are not small matters. Jesus is the Victorious Life, the Higher Life, the Deeper Life, the Spirit-filled Life, the Revived Life, the Hidden Life,—the Christ-Life! To us, when holiness by faith—the Holy Life accessed by faith—is attacked, the attack is ultimately on the indwelling Life of Christ.

Evangelist John R. Van Gelderen

Originally published 31 October 2007. Reprinted by permission of Revival Focus Ministries, formerly Preach the Word Ministries.

Please continue to Lifting the Curtain on Keswick

You may print the PDF and/or e-mail this article from the Baptist College of Ministry web site.

Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet

2011-08-18T16:00:00.004-05:00

After over three years of active participation at Sharper Iron (SI) on the morning of June 8, 2009 I resigned my membership from the site. From this blog (IDOTG) I announced publicly that I dropped my membership at SI.1 I also notified the SI leadership in SI threads, via e-mails and private messages that I was quitting SI with immediate effect. Shortly after resigning from SI I opened a new blog titled, Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet.2 Since its opening there have been about 15 articles posted in the Iron Skillet on well known disconcerting issues and practices at the SI site.

In a brand new series of articles in the Iron Skillet we have been demonstrating that SI, contrary to its claims, does NOT exist on behalf of or for the advancement of authentic Fundamentalism. Instead SI (the majority of its leadership) has primarily operated the site and directed their personal efforts to the advancement of so-called “conservative” evangelicalism.

In a series of new comments at SI one poster named DonP is insisting that authentic, historic fundamentalism is embodied in the current day so-called “conservative” evangelical movement. If that is true then we are to accept that John Piper’s embrace of Rick Warren3 and Al Mohler signing the Manhattan Declaration4 exemplify what contemporary fundamentalism has become. SI has, furthermore, begun to allow for elements of “New” evangelical thinking to be voiced from its front page. (See the controversial article from August 5, Church Planting Thirty Years Later by Pastor Steve Davis.)

“Now, Steve’s [Davis] view of the creation account is a lesser issue, but with the same approach. If the Genesis literal day creation is valid, but also other views are also valid, then that’s also OK if God will accept that. The problem is He won’t. He [God] doesn’t intend to teach both. He wrote a clear account as part of a historical statement and expects us to accept it. Or was God having fun and being unclear and expecting us to have fun guessing as to what He really meant…. New alternate theories are now set forth. Creation science is advocated by scientists with highly regarded credentials. On this one issue alone Steve advocates theory, approach and doubt, that is an unacceptable compromise of scripture.”

Allow me to direct your attention to the complete article in the Iron Skillet. Please continue to,

SI and New Evangelical Reasoning Once you finish the article please pay special attention to my concluding comments. Additional articles from the Iron Skillet blog include:

SI, “YOU LIE!”

SI Gang-Tackles “Doc” Clearwaters!

“SI is a Fundamentalist Place?” The Facade & Veneer Is Stripped Away

I Had to Ask: Does This Sharpen Me?

LM

In September 2010 I published Sharper Iron Sizzles In and Over the Iron Skillet. I heartily recommend it as further reading on the issues with and at SI.

Footnotes:
1) Cancelled My Membership at SI

2) Sharper Iron- In the Iron Skillet: Introduction

3) John Piper, “I’m Going to Need Help to Know Why I Should Feel Bad About This Decision.”

4) Al Mohler Signs the Manhattan Declaration

Calvinism, Religion and Worldliness

2011-08-15T11:00:00.004-05:00

Dear Guests of IDOTG: Today, I welcome back Kevin Lane with his new article for your consideration. Kevin will be available to interact with you in the discussion thread.

We are especially subject to believing we can become like God through effort and religion so as to be acceptable in His sight. It was exactly this that the Serpent tempted Adam and Eve with in the Garden and so also the very delusion man’s fallen sinful nature tries sell each of us even to this day. Our pride has a mantra that progresses from false hope to true destruction: You can be like God; you are like God; you don’t need God to save you.

The Serpent cloaks his diabolic plot to use our effort and religion against us with partial truths and logical arguments built on false premises. The plot is truly terrifying because while it strokes our deluded egos it sets us up against God’s true goodness and justice. Do not be deceived, the plot is so complex and pervasive that God spends most of the Bible exposing it, and showing how He alone has defeated it. Even in defeat though, we have a faithful enemy; he is always on the prowl for who he can share his defeat with. He is much too cunning to try to drag us to Hell, instead he baits us to walk along with him to destruction.

When Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness they covered themselves, like the Seraphim do. (Isaiah 6) One might think they were doing well because they covered themselves out of humility. Yet God showed them that He Himself must cover them if it is to be meaningful. The Jews found that they could achieve the appearance of godliness through obeying the 613 rules, regulations and commands found in the Law & the Prophets. Yet God called them white washed tombs. They looked clean on the outside but inwardly they were desperately wicked (Matt. 23:27). A Tax Collector and a Pharisee each went to the Temple to pray. The Tax Collector saw his desperate need of God to have mercy on him, but the Pharisee had confidence in how good he was, and even thanked God for this goodness. The Tax Collector went home justified, but the Pharisee remained in his sin (Luke 18:9-14). The Church at Galatia began to feel that the righteousness received by faith was not enough. They thought they had to add effort to ensure God’s acceptance. They were warned to account any who teach this foolish false gospel as deserving severe judgment, as if any such wretched preacher is cursed. The Church at Laodicea believed they were rich and needed nothing. Yet the Lord wrote to them explaining their great need of the riches only He can provide. The Lord told them that He stands at the door knocking (even knocking Beloved do you hear?) desiring to come in to that assembly to dine with those who would receive from Him (Rev 3:14-22).

In each recorded instance the people were trying to honor God through effort and while they had an appearance of godliness they actually ended up worldly in ways they may not have even been aware of. Instead of experiencing God’s acceptance they suffered rebuke and correction. Please let this sink in; all of these people were trying to do the right thing toward God. They all feared Him, loved Him and wanted to honor Him. They all thought their religion and effort would mean they could be like God, some of them thought they were like God, and some of them didn’t think they needed His mercy anymore.

Calvinism, as expressed by the acrostic TULIP* and as espoused by modern preachers such as Dr. John Piper is born out of these same good things: a fear of God, a love of God and the desire to honor God. Even so, it fails as miserably as all the efforts we read about in the Bible did. It actually builds a system of religion and effort that ultimately leads away from godliness instead of toward it.

Let’s consider that Calvinism, in its practical sense, is fundamentally concerned with how people bring God glory. God is said to be orchestrating every instance of history to bring Himself glory and we have no actual say in our part of His sovereign plan. It is explained that any choice made by a person to serve God would violate His sovereignty, because all things are by His decree alone. Decree is actually a very accurate rendering for the word grace in the Calvinistic understanding that salvation is “by grace.” It is said the sinner is used to bring God glory through his/her judgment and subsequent eternal punishment while the saint is used through obedience and good works. Logically, since God is orchestrating every instance of history, it is said that one can evaluate which part of God’s program one is on through evaluating how one is bringing glory to God. Are you characterized by sin that will be judged and punished, or are you characterized by righteousness? This is how Calvinism is practically applied in the lives of those who are taught it: look at yourself and evaluate.

Space here, and time to write fail to give me opportunity to demonstrate fully the worldliness that this leads to but I can point to three things immediately. These ought inform our understanding, and demonstrate the fact of Calvinism leading to worldliness:

1. The un-Christ-like dialogue from Calvinists. Instead of discussion leading to edification, Calvinists seem most concerned with how everyone “misrepresents” Calvinism. Google returns about 225,000 results for searching the terms “Calvinism/Misrepresent” at the time of this writing;

2. The overt, and uncorrected worldly nature of the so-called Young Restless and Reformed; 1and

3. The continued examples of lacking desire to be absolutely sure of what the Scriptures truly say, vss. what one’s current theology says.

The fact established (as much as space allows), we are left with the question: “Why?” Why did all these people who desired to honor God in the Bible only end up more worldly through practicing a religion designed to honor God? Why does Calvinism, a theological system most concerned with God’s glory, actually tend to make so many who follow it more worldly?

Because, the eyes of the follower are turned toward his or her own self in religious exercises. Even though the person is honestly seeking to honor God, they are looking at their own self in a continuous practice.

Consider that the Gospel, as presented in the Scriptures, has us look at and examine Christ’s work on the Cross on our behalf (1 Cor. 15:1-11). The Lord explained this truth in detail to Nicodemus. The Lord told him that one must look toward the Cross, our sin judged and paid for, just like Israel in the wilderness had to look at the serpent raised up in order for them to be saved. As we will see, this is to be the Christian’s continuous practice; not inward looking but looking toward the Cross.

In Fail-Safe for Fallacy2 I used the example of how learning to perform a challenging figure-8 maneuver on a motorcycle by looking over my shoulder to where I wanted the bike to go as an illustration to help explain the Christian walk. So long as I tried to steer through the maneuver I would fail every time, just like everyone else on the same safety course did. When I was taught to simply look where I needed to go, then it just worked without effort. The truth of what I was taught is played out in accident avoidance, and sadly non-avoidance every day. Those who stare at pot-holes and light poles end up hitting them… while those who look toward safety do not.

Various teachings from Calvinists will have the believer look for signs of or tendencies toward goodness in his or her self. This goodness is then used to give assurance of salvation. It is commonly explained that this goodness does not earn one’s salvation, but it does give assurance that we are on God’s program for saints, not his program for sinners. We are told if it can’t be seen the salvation does not exist.

Yet if we look for goodness in ourselves we will find what we think is goodness. Not only is this how man’s pride works (Prov. 20:6) it is also a symptom of Confirmation Bias.3 We will take confidence in our false view of ourselves, and such will become the foundation of our faith – see I’m on God’s good plan! Anytime the reality of who we are sneaks into view and we fear, we look again to see if we can see any sign of “God working in our lives,” and when we think we do our fears are quelled again, at least for a little while. All the time we will spend looking at our selves and each time we find the goodness we are looking for we will thank God for that goodness and feel confident.

Does this sound familiar? Does this sound like the Tax Collector or the Pharisee to you?

When we focus on our performance we get dull in our sight and thinking through studying the counterfeit instead of the Original. We lose proper perspective and so lower our standards from perfection that is Christ to some “tendency towards goodness” or “desire for goodness.” I’ve heard it preached many times “People, it’s not about perfection it’s about direction! Are you going in the right direction?” Are you kidding me? Beloved, it IS about perfection. We are without hope except we have the perfect righteousness of Christ, no matter how good we think we perform and that perfection is only attainable by faith alone. (Philippians 3)

This is the root of why religious systems like Calvinism do not lead people toward godliness. A person believes that Christ’s provision can save them, but the actual foundation for their life is how they perceive God working in their lives. This is where they get their assurance. Not that He faithfully will accept all who depend on His provision on the Cross, but that He will only accept those who persevere to the end of their life.

“There is no doubt that Jesus saw a measure of real, lived-out obedience to the will of God as necessary for final salvation.... What God will require at the judgment is not our perfection, but sufficient fruit to show that the tree had life-in our case, divine life.” (John Piper, What Jesus Demands From the World, pp. 160, 221.)

“Endurance in faith is a condition for future salvation. Only those who endure in faith will be saved for eternity.” R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown, p. 198.)

It would seem that this would inspire a godly life, but what it does is force a person to continuously re-define what righteousness is, and how it is manifest in order that one can find a spurious assurance. Calvinism becomes the person’s identity, and hope and then they are trapped and the true downward spiral begins. Effort spent in endless arguments with anyone who dares to question Calvinism is only matched by deeper and deeper studying of the theology and refusal to consider any attempted correction. Instead of becoming more Christ-like, the person becomes combative, harsh, and often resorts to hero worship of various popular Calvinist preachers.

The fallen nature’s mantra resounds as they find confidence in things other than the Cross alone: You can be like God, you are like God, you don’t need God’s mercy.

However, when we instead of looking at ourselves look upon the Christ crucified for our sins we behold absolute pure perfection. There is no level of performance that can offer assurance when compared with His perfect standard, leaving us to know beyond the shadow of a doubt that we need His mercy and grace. When the Apostle Paul went to the most worldly assembly of truly saved people noted in the Bible, the Church at Corinth, he set out to know NOTHING among them except Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2). It was his solution to get them to look again at the Cross, not themselves. Their doubts about a future hope, their worldliness, their religion - all of it, was to be solved by looking at the Cross. Their only instruction to look at themselves was in defense of Paul’s apostleship, not their salvation and growth.

Beloved the whole of Scripture tells us to surrender the struggle to become good enough for God to accept us and to instead be still and know that He is God (Psalm 46). We are told not to be like the work animal that must be bridled and bound but instead willingly come sit and learn from God (Psalm 32). We are told to have assurance because God said it, not because we have responded in a particular way (Gen. 15:6). We are told that we ungodly sinners are justified through faith apart from any works (Romans 4, Eph 2:8-9).

Calvinism would have you find assurance in your submission to the Lordship of Christ and by seeing that you have continued in good works. An entire religious system of outward performance and effort is laid on the believer’s shoulders. (Of course the performance is said to be God’s work, so any who tire of keeping up with expectations feel shame for it.) We are however warned that on the day of Judgment many will approach God confidently, assured of their salvation, because they have emphatically called Him “Lord, Lord” and done wondrous works in His name.

The Lord sends such people away to the Lake of Fire. They didn’t have assurance in His finished work alone, they found it in their continued works; their religion, their efforts to please Him. He will call their religion the practice of lawlessness. I wonder how worldly these people will have been, having found confidence by looking at their performance? Can one look at himself, see that he is going the right direction, and not be satisfied that at least to some extent he is “good enough”?

Beloved, look toward the splendor of the Cross where God demonstrated His love for us. It is through the Cross we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. If you must look at yourself; judge yourself guilty and trust that guilt is paid for at the Cross, then get on with it. Any other practice leads to religion that leads to worldliness and judgment.

Kevin Lane
On My Walk

*TULIP: T- Total Inability; U- Unconditional Election; L- Limited Atonement; I- Irresistible Grace; P- Perseverance of the Saints

FOOTNOTES:
1) Young, Restless and Reformed

2) Fail-Safe for Fallacy (Kindle edition for $0.99)

3) Confirmation Bias

Is That The Voice of a “Proud [SI] Fundamentalist?”

2011-08-12T10:45:00.005-05:00

Today, at Sharper Iron (SI) site publisher Aaron Blumer has posted a new article in which he attempts to portray himself and SI as if he and the site are loyal and long time friends of historic, balanced Fundamentalism. It is beyond question that from its inception SI has been at best lukewarm toward Fundamentalism and most often hostile toward it and those who post there that have identified with Fundamentalism.

In recent history SI moderators and some of the more aggressive angry former YFs have been especially hostile toward members many of whom finally quit SI such as: Ps. Marc Monte, Brain Ernsberger, Evangelist Dwight Smith, Lance Ketchum, et. al. When these men sought to defend some principle of or assault against their Fundamentalism conviction(s) they were each set upon by what might be best described as mob action with SI moderators in the lead.

This irrefutable pattern at SI, the greatest source of frustration and members quitting the site has been over the bent and bias of SI and especially its moderators actions toward self-identified Fundamentalists (who also reject the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism) who take opposing views to certain favored persons and positions at SI.

IMO, Aaron’s article is reactionary and political in nature. Reactionary because of a growing awareness that SI is biased and plays favorites with personalities, doctrinal positions and fellowships. Political because SI attempts to persuade readers that SI is and always has been for and on behalf of historic, balanced Fundamentalism.

On Friday, August 5 an article was posted at SI that has stirred yet another contentious debate. That debate disintegrated into another example of SI moderators (Jim Peet, SusanR) and Aaron Blumer gang-tackling certain men posting in the thread that were taking legitimate exception to elements of the article. The author Steve Davis was also quite hostile toward several who posted, but he was not approached by moderators for his harshness.

On Aug. 5 Aaron posted a comment (#6) in the article by Steve Davis

“Then you have guys like me who would never have considered naming a church ‘independent fundamental...’ in the first place. And a couple decades later, I'm not far from the same place I started.”1

Is That the Voice of a “Proud [SI] Fundamentalist?”

A man, “who would never have considered naming a church ‘independent fundamental’.”

I am not sure what more anyone needs to know to be convinced that the SI site publisher/owner cannot be considered a friend of historic Fundamentalism. He has stated that he would never include “fundamental” as part of the name for a church he would pastor? IMO, it is impossible to be honest on SI’s About SI page claiming that SI is friendly and/or positive toward Fundamentalism with the leadership openly reluctant to even be identified with the term, “fundamental.”

SI is NOT a fundamentalist place, nor a place for fair and open discussions of how the fundamentalist sees the world. SI is in fact a place where fundamentalism is ignored by the leadership and/or routinely vilified, redefined and skewered by the SI moderators when someone attempts to post on behalf or in defense of Fundamentalism. The Steve Davis discussion thread under his article Church Planting Thirty Years Later is the latest and one of the starkest examples of SI moderator aggression toward those who took an opposing view to Pastor Davis’s legitimizing theories of creation, other than a literal 6 day creation, and non-cessation of the Charismatic sign gifts.

The actions of SI moderators and the numerous articles at SI’s front page, its Forums and Blogroll evidence the truth that SI is primarily hostile toward Fundamentalism. The actions of SI’s moderates have historically been biased and hostile toward participants that attempt to define and defend Fundamentalist principles. SI moderators, including Aaron Blumer have gang-tackled Fundamentalists at SI who have attempted to address and/or criticize articles or personalities that attempt to redefine, besmirch, demonize chip away at Fundamentalism's high-water mark: biblical separation, ecclesiastical and personal.

For two years I have been challenging Aaron Blumer to produce even one article from the many hundreds of front page articles at SI that is thoroughly positive toward Fundamentalism and edifying to Fundamentalists. To reiterate, the qualifier has always been to produce an article from the SI front page that is “thoroughly positive.”

Today, Aaron has offered two articles that he must believe meets the test to produce a SI front page article that is thoroughly positive toward Fundamentalism and edifying for Fundamentalists. The first he offers is his own article, I Learned it From Fundamentalists. I answered that article at length the day Aaron published it, which was in March 2010. The article appears at the SI: In the Iron Skillet blog and I encourage you to read it there. Please see, Aaron Blumer: “I Learned it From Fundamentalists”

Aaron negates the value of his Learned It... article by equating what he learned of Fundamentalism by saying he could have learned the same things in the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism. No objective individual who knows the primary differences between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism would suggest he could have learned the principles and application of authentic biblical separation from the evangelicals.

In 2010 Aaron Blumer at the site defined SI this way,

“The site has four thousand members (several hundred active) who identify with conservative evangelicalism of the fundamentalist variety.”

Acknowledging SI as a site for those who identify with conservative evangelicalism was most truthful description of SI to date. Aaron, however, pulled that statement when I: 1) Challenged his cooking the membership count books to reflect 4,000 members SI 3.0 did not have, and 2) Brought to his attention that he had affirmed that SI is for and about the advancement of the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism.

Aaron’s second offering is, Why Stay in Fundamentalism?

My heart goes out to Joe and to his family because it’s evident to me that he or someone in his family (or both) has suffered something very painful at the hands of fundamentalists. (In the talk, Joe doesn’t target Fundamentalism by name but clearly includes it under the “high-control groups” label.) Whether what was painful was also wrong I’m not in a position to know, but it’s certainly possible.

“Suffered…at the hands of fundamentalists?” And we are to take this as a thoroughly positive article on behalf Fundamentalism and edifying for Fundamentalists? Hardly!

Furthermore, in 2007, under pressure from Joe Zichterman, SI took down all articles that it had posted on Zichterman’s departure from Fundamentalism for the Willow Creek church. I was also contacted by Joe and asked to remove my article on his departure, I refused. You can read that article today at this blog with an added section in the thread about his contacting me to remove the article. Please refer to, The Joe Zichterman Issue

I would, furthermore, like for Aaron to produce that article from the SI site or the SI 2.0 archive. Is it still open, and accessible or was it taken down as the others on Joe Zichterman were at SI in 2007?

The history of SI is one of open hostility toward Fundamentalism and certain persons from the history of Fundamentalism. One of the most stark examples was the 2009 three part series by Dr. Kevin Bauder in which he besmirched and demonized the legacy of both Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. and Dr. John R. Rice. SI moderators and Aaron Blumer happily published those articles and joined Bauder in the free-for-all at SI to lambaste those men and any in the threads who attempted to speak for or on behalf of them. Especially memorable is the way in which SI moderators and Aaron gang-tackled and their manhandling of Missionary John Himes, grandson of John R. Rice. See- Kevin Bauder: A Call for His Removal From the Platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship. There was also SI’s publishing Kevin Bauder’s inflammatory, Let's Get Clear on This. Please see, Let’s Get “CRYSTAL” Clear on This: A Response to Kevin Bauder’s “Cannonball” Cogitations

For what must be the few left participating at SI who are Fundamentalists by conviction, with Bible reasons for identifying oneself as a Fundamentalist, should seriously consider departing SI entirely. For three years I tried to present a voice of reason and conviction for the best of what Fundamentalism can be for the lurkers. Maybe you are there for the same reason. After three years of being ridiculed, vilified and gang-tackled by SI moderators and the angry former yf’s that dominate the threads I had had enough and quit SI on my own terms in June 2009.

Since its inception SI has (its moderators in particular) intimidated, gang-tackled, run off and/or demeaned… virtually every caring Fundamentalist that once did or might have participated in discussions there. That pattern continues today. Then, of course, SI has been allowing for the propagation of aberrant theology. Case in point Steve Davis postulating teachings such as: that beyond a literal six day creation there are valid theories, and that the signs and wonders movement is valid today.

Any church or college that identifies with Fundamentalism that is considering or presently financially supporting SI through advertising might seriously reconsider supporting a site that is hostile toward Fundamentalism from its front page, Forums, Filings and Blogroll. Is it a sound investment of the Lord’s resources to direct funds into a sight that, among other disconcerting issues, has been one of the most aggressive conduits for the tearing down of Fundamentalism’s high-water mark, which is: fidelity to authentic biblical separatism?

LM

1) Aaron Blumer Friday, August 5, Comment 6, Church Planting Thirty Years Later

For more on the “pseudo- fundamentalism” of SI please see my secondary blog, Shaper Iron: In the Iron Skillet:
“SI is a Fundamentalist Place?” The Facade & Veneer Is Stripped Away
“The facade that SI exists for and on behalf of Fundamentalism has never been a credible claim. With the latest article at SI [Aug. 5], an open attack on Fundamentalism written by a self-described former Fundamentalist, any legitimacy of the SI statement has been stripped away.”
New Article Today:
“SI May Fit the Description of Being ‘PSUEDO- FUNDAMENTALIST’”

SI’s Deplorable Moderator Actions Run Off Another

He’s Leaving Fundamentalism

2011-08-07T23:00:00.005-05:00

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him,” (Proverbs 26:4).

Once in a while we will hear about a preacher who has announced that he is “leaving Fundamentalism.” This is never good news, and it provokes several questions. It also calls for a response from those who are wiser.

The book of Proverbs contains in its twenty-sixth chapter two precepts in consecutive verses that seem to contradict each other. Verse 4 tells us not to answer a fool according to his folly, and verse 5 tells us to go ahead and answer a fool according to his folly. Of course these divinely-inspired wise sayings do not contradict each other but instead present two legitimate responses to a fool’s folly. One way to respond to folly is to reject the very premises upon which a fool’s statements are based, “lest thou also be like unto him.” The other way is to accept for argument’s sake the wrong premises of the fool and then turn his foolishness back on him. We find examples of both these approaches in the recorded words of Jesus responding to inquirers and critics. We also find both approaches in the New Testament epistles. The first approach, not to answer a fool according to his folly, is the right one for dealing with the “leaving-Fundamentalism” kind of foolishness.

Now nobody has a right to call someone else a fool. The Lord made this clear in Matthew 5:21-22. However, His point was not that there is no such thing as a fool. Very many Bible passages describe fools. He was saying that nobody has a right to say to his brother, “Thou fool,” because everybody plays the fool from time to time. Even the human writer of the Proverbs played the fool. So we do not have the right to belittle others by calling them fools. However we have occasions to rebuke folly and hope to recover people from it.

There is folly in “leaving Fundamentalism,” and we ought to examine it in the light of the wisdom of God. What shall we say to such an announcement, whether it comes from a preacher, from a young man entering the ministry, or from a Christian family leaving a church?

So What?
First of all, let us recognize the veiled pride in such an announcement, and respond by saying, “So what?” Why is it important for us all to know that this person is making such a change in his life and ministry? What great consequences will result from his change and his announcement, and why should the Christian world sit up and take notice? Perhaps we have made too much of the unhappy defections from the truth we have witnessed in the past. Perhaps some immature souls are attracted to such things because of the attention it brings to those who commit them. But defection from the truth is no new, cataclysmic event. It is as old as the story of Demas. Defections happen, but they do not hinder the truth.

“For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth,” (2 Corinthians 13:8).

“There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD,” (Proverbs 21:30).

“The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect. The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations,” (Psalm 33:10-11).

Defections only hurt the defectors, and those who pay attention to them. If a believer for conscience sake must leave an organization, withdraw approval from a ministry or a minister, stop cooperating with somebody, or take some stand, let him simply do it, and not say things to cast reflection on Fundamentalism, a legitimate spiritual movement, “lest haply ye be found even to fight against God” (Acts 5:39). One man’s “leaving Fundamentalism” will do no harm to Fundamentalism itself.

Doing What?
We wonder what the brother means by saying he is “leaving Fundamentalism.” Although there is a human religious movement called the Fundamentalist, and also distinct movements legitimately labeled Fundamentalist, Fundamentalism itself is not a human movement, but rather a divine truth. A hundred years ago there was a grass-roots uprising in the evangelical American denominations to oppose the infiltration and influence of Liberal theology in their churches. Those who joined the protest were called Fundamentalists. They spoke out based on the premise that Christianity is not defined by a certain spirit, or by certain experiences, or by a certain way of living, or even by the teachings of Jesus as they apply to society, but rather by certain fundamental doctrines. These doctrines are the tenets of the Gospel, as spelled out in First Corinthians 15 and other New Testament scriptures. They are not only truths to be believed, but also the pillars on which Christianity stands. The Fundamentalist insists that the doctrines of the Gospel (including the authority of the Bible, the deity of Christ, His blood atonement, His bodily resurrection, and justification by faith alone) are fundamental to Christianity. In other words, without all of them, religion is not Christianity. Machen correctly contrasted Christianity and Liberalism. Something that is fundamental to something else is essential to it. Fundamentalism is the insistence that the fundamentals of the faith are fundamental to the faith.

It is the scriptural approach to dealing with heretics who have “crept in unawares,” according to Jude 3 and 4). We are to “earnestly contend” with them. We are to reject them from the Christian family, and refuse them Christian recognition (Titus 3:10-11). Evangelicals believe in the pillars of the Gospel, but not all of them insist that these doctrines are fundamental (essential) to the Gospel. Those who do are properly called Fundamentalists. Evangelicals who are willing to recognize Liberals as  Christians are not Fundamentalists. Years ago “New Evangelicals” began saying that although they believe in the tenets of the Gospel, they recognize that some true Christians do not accept them all. This is why the New Evangelicalism refused the label “Fundamentalist.”

Men and movements are properly defined by their actions as well as their words. We are to “walk in the truth” (Second John 4 and Third John 3 and 4). Evangelicals who treat Liberals (who by definition reject certain of the fundamentals) as Christians by yoking with them in denominations, ministerial associations, evangelistic efforts, public declarations, and joint services are not Fundamentalists even if they will argue with you about it (2 Corinthians 6:14-18). Fundamentalism is the dividing of light from darkness, and is nothing but a good thing. Is that what our disillusioned brethren are leaving?

Now, as we have noted, there is a movement correctly labeled Fundamentalist. However it is not the monstrosity invented and mislabeled by academia and media. About twenty years ago, anti-religious teachers and writers began calling the conservative wing of any religion “fundamentalist.” The P.B.S. broadcast a series of programs on what they called “fundamentalism,” which according to these shows is basically a mental illness. They diagnosed Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, Hindu fundamentalism, and Islamic fundamentalism as a mindset of fear, suspicion, anti-intellectualism, hatred, and fanaticism. It is and was an unfair and untrue definition of an historic and specifically Christian movement in the United States. Now the media calls the violent radicals of Islam “fundamentalists.” In a strictly historic sense, there is no such thing as Islamic fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a distinctly Christian movement. The new and popular way of defining Fundamentalism is intellectually dishonest.

It is also dishonest to define Fundamentalism by just one of its many fellowships or networks. The Fundamentalist movement of the early twentieth century has evolved and splintered into many diverse but truly fundamentalist movements. Some who think they are “leaving Fundamentalism” are actually disassociating themselves from one grouping of Fundamentalists. Their mistake is understandable because some such groups try to define Fundamentalism itself as their own group (see the warning in Luke 9:49-50). What are you saying when you say you are “leaving Fundamentalism”? Do you mean that you are quitting a fellowship, or renouncing a Bible college, or disagreeing with a church or ministry? If that is what you mean, just make the break you need to make (according to Ephesians 5:11), and don’t give the impression that you are leaving the truth of the Gospel and of separation to the Gospel. There is nothing wrong with Fundamentalism, although the men who have espoused it have been flawed, and the human movements that have promoted it have sometimes gone astray. The men and organizations you have defined as “Fundamentalism” are not what you are calling them. Fundamentalism is a far greater thing.

Too Bad!
Whatever the people are doing who are “leaving Fundamentalism,” it is bad. “Leaving Fundamentalism” inevitably means backing off from policies and principles that have characterized those who stood most faithfully for the Bible in our lifetime. The mainline denominations have not stood for the Bible or the Christian faith. Broad evangelicalism has not really stood for the Truth, although they work to spread it. Fundamentalism is contending for the faith, and good men have paid a great price to follow it. The ministries and crusades of men like Torrey, Riley, Shields, Ketchum, Jones, McIntire, Vick, and Clearwater ought to be honored and appreciated by all who love the truth. What a man is leaving if he leaves Fundamentalism is something he should not leave.

In some cases he is rejecting separatism in some form of its application. Let everyone beware who considers abandoning Biblical separation. It is a scriptural principle, and walking away from any policy that has been based upon it should not be done without considerable study and seeking of counsel. Just because a non-separatist challenges separatist policies does not mean that his criticisms are valid. Our spiritual forefathers had amazing insights, and none of their policies or practices should be discarded lightly.

In some cases he is rejecting personal separation while holding on to some degree of ecclesiastical separation. Men who are doing this want to call themselves “historic fundamentalists,” pointing out that the original Fundamentalists fought over such cardinal doctrines as the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection, and the Inerrancy of Scripture, and not over such comparatively small issues as dress, music, drink, amusements, and Bible versions. They like to label those who do fuss over these issues “old-time fundamentalists,” using the label in a condescending manner. They like to label issues of personal separation (holy living) as “non-issues” because the Fundamentalists of 1910-1930 never wrote about them. But the scripture says that there are kinds of behavior which “become [are becoming or suitable to] sound doctrine” (review the epistle to Titus). Early Fundamentalists did not argue for modest dress, but what did their women wear? They did not denounce sensual music in church, but what kind of music did they use? They did not make an issue over English translations, but what version of the Bible did most of them use almost all the time? Because they did not preach sermons on these issues does not mean that the original Fundamentalists would have gone along with the horrible changes in practice that the past hundred years have brought into the churches. And these smaller issues actually do relate to the great issues, and are legitimate matters of concern.

In some cases the defector is parting from evidence of carnality in some of the Fundamentalists he has known. But Fundamentalism should not be rejected because Fundamentalists need revival. Tell us what you mean. Surely you do not mean that you are giving up truth because men who have taught it have been found to be less than spiritual all the time. Many Fundamentalists are sincere and holy people, although some have been found to be less than so. Fundamentalism should not be abandoned just because Fundamentalists need revival.

In some cases, the one making the change has come to view certain issues in ways contrary to his former views. But he is not really “leaving Fundamentalism.” However, he may be making the big mistake of abandoning the wisdom of the godly of former days and jumping to conclusions that are wrong. Paul warned the Corinthians not to take lightly the issue of male and female hair-length and head-covering because the change in policy some wanted to make was contrary to the “custom” of the “churches of God” (1 Corinthians 11:1-16). We are not to “despise [belittle]…the church of God” (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) or its customs. Give the views of Fundamentalists and the practices of the Fundamentalist churches the benefit of the doubt.

Fundamentalism has a wonderful future because it is based on the truth of the Bible. Nobody should leave it now for any reason. If Bible-loving people will yield their lives to the truths they believe, we will see a revival sweeping the family of God all over the world. Don’t leave. Kneel and pray with us as we seek the blessing and power of the God of our fathers!

Dr. Rick Flanders, Evangelist
Revival Ministries

Site Publisher Addendum:
This article by Dr. Flanders could not have been more timely. On Friday (8/5) at Sharper Iron (SI) an article was published on SI’s front page. The publication of this article ends the discussion and removes any lingering doubt that SI is hostile toward historic, balanced Fundamentalism. Following is a brief excerpt from one pastor commenting on the SI article.

“I am still struggling to see the publishable value of this article….If you are going to leave the ‘IFB’ orbit, just go ahead and do it. But do it quickly. Do whatever it is that you think God has called you to do. However, leaving in this manner makes you look a bit ugly and even desirous to take as many people with you as possible. Go do the missiological work that you have done and for which you have trained, but please stop writing to us, if you are no longer among us.” (David Marriott)

For more reaction from the SI thread and commentary please continue to the Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet blog for, “SI is a Fundamentalist Place?” The Façade & Veneer is Stripped Away

UPDATE (8/8 10am)
Aaron Blumer links to the Iron Skillet blog article above from the controversial Steve Davis article at SI. Please continue to “SI is a Fundamentalist Place?” The Façade & Veneer is Stripped Away for my reaction to his comment at and link from SI.

Dr. MacArthur, “Reforming” Is Not The Answer. Repentance Is!

2011-08-01T01:00:00.057-05:00

From his Grace to You blog Dr. John MacArthur laments what has become of the so-called “young, restless and reformed [Calvinists],” (YRR). John MacArthur is telling the YRR to “grow up…settle down.” In his introductory article, Grow Up. Settle Down. Keep Reforming: Advise for the Young, Restless, Reformed MacArthur wrote,

“[The YRR,] “cannot be genuinely ‘Reformed’ and deliberately worldly at the same time. The two things are inconsistent and incompatible. To embrace the world’s fashions and values—even under the guise of being ‘missional’—is to make oneself God’s enemy (James 4:4).”

In my previous article1 I demonstrated how John MacArthur shares in the culpability for having contributed to the worldliness among the YRR, which he now laments and admonishes them for. Since the initial article Dr. MacArthur has posted the second in his Grow Up series with additional installments to follow. With the research assistance of Brother Ken Silva of the Apprising Ministries blog2 I was directed to the following video at You Tube titled, JMac RAP.3 John MacArthur agreed to participate with and appear in this video.

Dr. MacArthur admonishes the YRR for being “deliberately worldly,” when it is he who has in part lead them there through his own personal examples of worldliness. MacArthur’s college, seminary and through Rick Holland’s annual CCM/Rock concert Resolved young people are being taught that it’s acceptable, that it’s even desirable to be worldly.

In his first admonition to the YRR MacArthur wrote, “There is even a surge of interest in Jonathan Edwards.” Dr. Peter Masters had it exactly right when he noted what the reaction of Edwards would be to how John MacArthur and Rick Holland through Resolved have besmirched his (Edwards’) Resolutions.

One of the vaunted new conferences is called Resolved, after Jonathan Edwards’ famous youthful Resolutions (seventy searching undertakings). But the culture of this conference would unquestionably have met with the outright condemnation of that great theologian.

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

The organisers of Resolved’s totally worldly, showbusiness atmosphere are Rick Holland and John MacArthur. In MacArthur’s opening Grow Up article he wrote, “We still have a lot of reforming to do. And let’s face it: the besetting sin of young Calvinists is a brash failure to come to grips with that reality.”

“We have a lot of reforming to do?” Dr. MacArthur, may I ask: Are you speaking of “reforming” as if being a better Calvinist will make a less worldly Calvinist? In my opinion, the theology of Calvinism (a theology with which I disagree entirely) has nothing to do with the worldliness that has infected the YRR. Could Dr. MacArthur possibly be telling the YRR to reform their lives and cut the worldliness from out of it? Wouldn’t Dr. MacArthur understand that if reforming the life could have worked it would have worked a long time ago?

No, Dr. MacArthur, “reforming” is not the answer, Repentance is!

Dr. MacArthur “reforming” won’t solve anything. Begin by biblically REPENTING! Start with yourself! Repent of the “deliberate worldliness” in your own ministry. Demonstrate biblical repentance by rooting out the “deliberate worldliness” you have introduced into, tolerated and allowed for in your own ministry. Call a halt to the “deliberate worldliness” in entertainment at Resolved. Only through a demonstration of personal repentance can you hope to have any credibility with the YRR when and if you will call on them to repent.

To the YRR Dr. MacArthur wrote, “To embrace the world’s fashions and values—even under the guise of being ‘missional’—is to make oneself God’s enemy (James 4:4).” Dr. MacArthur has propagated and embraced the world’s fashion and values. He as well as many of his ministerial friends in the leadership of T4G/TGC have made the world’s fashions fashionable to a whole generation of young people. Their example, the example set by leadership among the so-called “conservative” evangelicals has lead many in the younger generation to make themselves into and behave as God’s enemy. Repent!

LM

1) Has John MacArthur Promoted the Creation of the Young, Restless & Reformed Who, “Embrace the World’s Fashions and Values?”

2) Apprising Ministries

3) A source who has a son who attending the Master’s seminary indicates the JMac RAP was a video from a recent talent show. It seems it was part of the “Spring Sing 2010 at the Master’s College.” It is reported that MacArthur, furthermore, appeared in additional videos for the same contest. JMac RAP finished in 2nd place.

4) The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness

For another video example that typifies the worldliness John MacArthur has fostered and encouraged among young people under his watch care see, Master’s College Medley- Kids at a Church

For Related Reading:
The RAP on Mark Dever