Bob Jones University: The Driving Force Behind the Departure From Its Historic Legacy

We have been discussing the current controversy at Bob Jones University (BJU). Previous articles include, 

• Steve Pettit's Break with the "Conservative" Base, 
• Dr. John Lewis Resigns BJU Board, 
• Dr. Mark Minnick's The Issues Nearly Everyone Would Be Familiar With, 
• We Deserve Our Troubles, But He Deserves NONE..., 
• Steve Pettit Resigns BJU Presidency

In this article we will consider the forces behind Dr. Steve Pettit’s erasure of Bob Jones University’s historic fundamentalist, separatist foundation. We will consider the underlying theme driving these shifts.

The transformation of BJU did not begin with Steve Pettit. Surely some elements of change were evident prior to Pettit’s arrival. That said, without a doubt Pettit made it his business to erase the university's fundamentalist, separatist legacy as well as saturate the college and seminary with Reformed theology.

Erasing Biblical Separation
We've coined a phrase that in part sums the denigration of biblical separation at BJU. Steve Pettit and his executive administration's, "sacrifice of spiritual sanctification for secular pragmatism." We've seen a modernized version of Shakespeare and presentation of a Disney production. Steve Pettit opened the campus facilities for Catholic and New Evangelical groups to conduct conferences. The sponsorship of a sacrilegious Fashion Design Runway Show. These things wouldn't raise an eyebrow at a secular or new evangelical school, but at BJU grave concerns naturally followed.

The most stark example of the school's rejection of separation took place in December 2021 when Steve Pettit entangled BJU with Franklin Graham's ecumenical movement. See- BJU Embraces Franklin Graham's Ecumenical Movement. Pettit raised over $23,000 for, and guided students into cooperative ministry with Franklin Graham, a new evangelical who gives Christian recognition to apostates, to the "enemies of the cross of Christ," (Phil. 3:18). These are but a few examples among many that typify what Dr. Bob Jones III described as, "embarrassing, antithetical things historically uncharacteristic things, which never would have happened in the past...."

Instead of looking to apply the best of what the Bible says in matters of personal holiness and "spiritual sanctification," to instill those things into the college's culture, Pettit sought to accommodate the preferences of immature young people through diminished separatism, worldly methods and ecumenical compromise. That mindset lead Pettit to recruiting, pandering and catering to students within non-separatist churches and conferences.

Steve Pettit and his executive administration err grievously with the doctrine of separation. They approach the biblical mandates for personal and ecclesiastical separation as if they are merely suggestions, open to novel interpretation, even ignored.1

Reformed Theology & New Calvinism
We will define each of these theological systems because they have been deeply infused into the university's fabric by Steve Pettit. Some readers may not be familiar with Reformed theology, New Calvinism and their inherent dangers. Following is a compilation of notes, from various sources, on these systems.

It is not possible to thoroughly discuss each, but we can provide enough to give readers the ability to recognize these systems and their inherent dangers to the New Testament church. And especially the danger to impressionable students who are coming under the influence of these doctrinal aberrations on the BJU campus. For further study we will provide links to articles that deep dive into these systems of thought.

In a previous article one man submitted the following observation,

As a 1983 grad, I fear the issue that has received little attention in the many writings on the internet is the school’s slide from a separatist stand under Pettit. This [biblical separation] is the historical stand of BJU....  they [Pettit and the executive administration] are redefining fundamentalism into believing in all the fundamentals of the faith, minus separation. This was the classic difference between fundamentalism and new evangelicalism.

Steve Pettit's mission from the president's office has largely been to diminish BJU's fundamentalist, separatist foundation in favor of a non-separatist compromising evangelicalism. The base was never going to stand for or go along with Steve Pettit's compromising evangelicalism. Most have departed en masse.

Reformed Theology

In Steve Pettit’s Break with the "Conservative" Base it was noted, "At the 2017 meeting organized by Tom Farrell there were a few pastors concerned that Steve Pettit had Dr. Michael Barrett (former faculty and committed covenant theologian) speak at the first Bible Conference he hosted."

Upon the arrival of Steve Pettit a pattern of joint ministry with Reformed ministries, conferences and men ensued. A proliferation of Reformed Theology at the university became abundantly clear. Read Dr. David Beale's FACTS article in which he cites numerous examples.

Under Dr. Pettit's administration, BJU students are allowed to bond with churches of denominations harboring apostasy. The following churches are among those...

• Covenant Community, An Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC)
• Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, PCA
• Second Presbyterian Church, PCA 

At the 2022 Foundations Conference and prior conferences the platforms were overwhelmingly dominated by Reformed, Covenant theologians.

• Michael Barrett, 2016 Bible Conference
• Ken Ham, 2017 Bible Conference
• Stuart Scott and Tim Geiger, 2019 CoRE Conference
• John Street and Mark Shaw, 2020 CoRE Conference
• Joel Beeke and Steve Lawson, 2022 Foundations Conference

Recent hires include Stuart Scott (see Education bio) a committed Reformed theologian.

What is Reformed Theology?

Reformed Theology is a theological system of thought based upon Augustinian theology of the 4th century. Augustine, the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, based his doctrines on the Bible and substantial philosophical thinking of his day. As it follows a literal-historical-grammatical hermeneutic combined with allegorical interpretation that results in a misunderstood eschatology.

The Reformers recovered much truth which had been lost, for which we are thankful. The Reformers, however, never totally freed themselves from the allegorical, non-literal method of Origen and from the church/kingdom concept of Augustine (as reflected by the “kingdom now” proponents of today).  Most Reformed men deny the rapture and the millennial reign of Christ, and many embrace Preterism (the belief that most prophecies relating to the tribulation and second coming were fulfilled on or around 70 A.D.).

Reformed Theology is often identified with five-point Calvinism, although Luther and Calvin both taught that Christ died for the sins of all men without exception.  Thus, Calvin was not as Calvinistic as many who now bear his name. Today most men (though not all) who embrace Reformed Theology embrace Covenant Theology.

What is Covenant Theology?

Covenant Theology emphasizes two or three main covenants:  the covenant of grace, the covenant of works; some add the covenant of redemption. In contrast, Dispensational Theology focuses on the covenants which are specifically mentioned in Scripture such as the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and New Covenants.

"The traditional way of distinguishing the different approaches to [biblical] interpretation is to state that dispensationalists advocate a literal Interpretation of the Scriptures, while Covenant Theologians spiritualize certain prophetic passages.... It is our contention that Covenant Theology begins with a false premise that the unifying principle in Scripture is the covenant of grace. This covenant is plainly not taught in Scripture. This false premise leads to wrong conclusions about Israel and the Church and matters of prophetic interpretation. Covenant Theology imposes a system upon Scripture rather than finding its system in Scripture."2

The time when Covenant theology was taught at BJU as a competing view to Dispensationalism has passed. Several years ago students in the college and seminary began reporting that Reformed and in particular Covenant theology was being taught as the correct hermeneutic. Is this view being taught by every Bible professor? We do not know. What we do know, however, is that Steve Pettit is hiring Reformed theologians for the faculty, and conference speakers are almost exclusively Reformed.

For further reading see The Dangers of Reformed Theology by Brother George Zeller and Moderate Evangelicals by Dr. Clay Nuttall, "...an effort to build a bridge between standard dispensationalism and covenant theology...is impossible. The gulf between them is as wide as the Atlantic Ocean, and it is impossible to bridge the two."

What is New Calvinism?
New Calvinism is the old Calvinism in new clothing and is very popular among the younger generation.  New Calvinism is a system built largely upon a system of theology that combines: Reformed, Covenant, Puritan, and Augustinian theologies with present day, Post-Modern culture in an attempt to make Christianity seem more relevant to today’s Christian. It is “repackaged” in a form attractive to the Millennial and Z Generation.

It is quite ecumenical in its fellowship unions. It actually represents three groups that span the doctrines from strict following of Puritan/OT Law to a non-separation policy that accepts anyone who holds to the five key principles of Calvinism's TULIP.

1. Relevance is a key goal of New Calvinism.
2. New Calvinism seeks to create and redeem culture.
3. New Calvinists are often worldly, especially in the areas of worship and music;  
4. Many New Calvinists influenced by the Charismatic Movement believe some of the sign gifts are still operative today.
5. Many New Calvinists hold to Lordship Salvation, which in addition to saving faith demands an upfront commitment from the lost to perform the good works (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again Christian to become (justified) a born again Christian. Lordship Salvation changes the terms of the Gospel, corrupts "the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Cor. 11:3) and "frustrates grace" (Gal. 2:21).

"The New Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world.... These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety." (Dr. Peter Masters, The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness.) For additional reading on New Calvinism see,

New Calvinism & the Millennial Generation: The Perfect Storm

The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness: "A New Calvinism with New Calvinists."

Characteristics of New Calvinism

Close

When we reflect on the definition of New Calvinism and note the radical shift in doctrine, practice and culture Steve Pettit engineered on campus we conclude he is a passionate advocate for the advancement of New Calvinism.  Steve Pettit stands alongside well known gurus of New Calvinism.3 New Calvinism is the driving force behind the departure from BJU's historic legacy.

Dr. Clay Nuttall wrote, "I am frequently asked why so many of our young men are following the pied pipers of theological error. Immature students are apt to be fooled quite easily by intellectual gurus."

What we did today is lay out the pathway that lead to the current crisis. Steve Pettit, with the support of the BJU executive committee, achieved a pernicious infusion of non-separatist evangelicalism, Reformed theology and New Calvinism into the university. 

Going forward BJU surviving Steve Pettit's presidency is questionable. Numerous times we have seen the tragic results of men coming to a fundamentalist school, attempt to transform it into a non-separatist evangelical school, and its closure soon followed- Pillsbury, TTU, Clearwater and Northland.

If Steve Pettit were to somehow remain in the president's office beyond May 5 he will be emboldened to continue transforming BJU into a Reformed new evangelical school and in no time either closes like those above or becomes the first cousin of Liberty and Cedarville.

LM

Just Announced: The Board of Trustees of BJU elected a new Chairman, Sam Dawson. He has been a board member since 2001. What Dawson's election means for the university going forward is unclear.  His educational bio, however, contributes to a less than cautious optimism.

Footnotes

1) No two men in our circles have done more to undermine the scriptural principles of separation than Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder. Few are the doctrinal aberrations or worldly practices they would not tolerate, allow for, excuse or ignore to have cooperative fellowship or ministry with non-separatist evangelicals. Doran and Bauder have encouraged younger men to emulate their disobedience to the Lord’s commands. See, Dave Doran: Is There a Second Definition for Separation in Academic Contexts?  and 

Kevin Bauder Discussing Al Mohler's "Occasional Inconsistency?"

2) Fundamental Distinctions Between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism

3) In addition to Dr. John MacArthur (pictured alongside Steve Pettit) advocates of New Calvinism include, but not limited to: John Piper, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, Steve Lawson and most of the membership of both T4G and The Gospel Coalition.

Related Reading

Here is a series of 10 sermons by Michael Barrett on "Refuting Dispensationalism," preached in Faith Free Presbyterian Church while he was still teaching at BJU. Barrett paints Dispensationalism as a cult.

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

The Dangers of Reformed Theology [PDF Format] 

Consistent Literal Interpretation--A Study Showing the Inconsistencies of Non-Dispensationalists

An Anecdotal Answer to the Demise of Fundamentalist Schools

Archival Series: Moderate Evangelicals, by Dr. Clay Nuttall

The following is a republication of an (2012) article by the late Dr. Clay Nuttall.  I draw special attention to his addressing Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (CT).  Why? Because today, more than ever, CT is making inroads into some of our colleges and local churches.

Ecumenical evangelicalism is alive and thriving. Like a pack of wolves, the left leaners are devouring the stable theology of the right. There appears to be some kind of death wish on the part of those who feel driven to erase a theology that is biblical by merging it with all kinds of aberrations. This ecumenical activity is willing to set aside important doctrine in order to draw people together. Their argument is that only love, the gospel, unity, or any such singularity is all that matters, along with getting people together; as long as you have the central doctrines, whatever they are, you can trash the rest of the text. This is done by stealth and the redefining of such things as the gospel itself.

Defining the main players is easy; they regularly confess their participation in print. Placing them in categories is another matter altogether. There is no single category where everyone holds to the same views. Terms like atheist, agnostic, infidel, apostate, modernist, liberal, or neo-orthodox is one thing; dealing with evangelicalism, neo-evangelicalism, conservatism, and fundamentalism is something else altogether. Trying to sort them all out is like trying to pick up mercury. In general, each designation does have some major things in common; but none of these is equal to the others.

When individuals try to straddle the theological fence between liberal and conservative, they are most often referred to as moderates. This position of compromise gives credence to the views of both sides. It always means, however, that they have to give up something to the right of them. You cannot hold two contrasting views at the same time; one of them will have to be damaged or disrespected. Part of this problem comes from the desire to be tolerant. We ought to respect others in that they have a right to a view, but that does not mean they are right. The moderate, however, sees tolerance as allowing a broad range of theological positions with a focus on just a few things that are often unstable in themselves.

Recently, discussion has centered on a group called conservative evangelicals. The term alone admits that not all evangelicals are conservative, so this designation is an effort to build a bridge between two divergent positions. It is true that there will be some common ground between them, but they are two distinct views. In light of the forgoing discussion, those who stand in between the two views are really moderate evangelicals.

THE MODERATE PROBLEM

The moderate position has to surrender something. One cannot hold to a theology that is biblical and blink at the error of another. We don’t have to attack the persons who hold them, but we are obligated to state the contrast of biblical doctrine and to reject error. An example of this is what happened with the invention of progressive dispensationalism. Admittedly, it was an effort to build a bridge between standard dispensationalism and covenant theology, but that is impossible. The gulf between them is as wide as the Atlantic Ocean, and it is impossible to bridge the two. In this case, the moderates had to give up something. While they continued to claim to be dispensational, they departed from the true meaning of the word and developed something new. This, of course, leaves serious questions for them to answer; but this is the nature of the moderate position.

What brought them to this place? Why would anyone want to be caught in the middle? One of the reasons is an insatiable lust for intellectualism. The pseudo-intellectuals have painted fundamentalists and dispensationalists as being a little less than bright. The truth is that some of the finest minds we know are in the ranks of historical dispensationalists; many of these trusted scholars, however, have not felt the need to appease those on the left of the discussion. It is a serious flaw to “want to be like them” so much so that you would walk away from, or be embarrassed about, key doctrines of the faith, because you end up joining the moderates’ choir singing “the time of rapture is not something to separate over.”

I am frequently asked why so many of our young men are following the pied pipers of theological error. Immature students are apt to be fooled quite easily by intellectual gurus. They reveal their passion by repeating telltale buzzwords and questionable theological pretzels such as a “misguided kingdom theology.” Like their mentors, they are quick to discard such important parts of the theological puzzle such as cessationism and to adopt such things as the replacement theory. This not only identifies spiritual immaturity, but also shows that they have had poorly-taught biblical theology in their seminaries. The real bombshell, though, is the absence of the one biblical hermeneutic that would have prevented them from gulping their minds full of doctrinal error. This ministry tragedy can be placed at the feet of the moderates.

WHAT MODERATES ARE MISSING

Every doctrinal error and theological diversion comes from an erroneous hermeneutic. This is the heart of the moderate problem. The one biblical hermeneutic is exact; it is mathematical. Letting the text speak for itself will bring us to common conclusions. This process would exclude any moderate. On the other hand, the hermeneutical system used by moderates actually lets them conclude anything they wish - and they do. So why would anyone who is committed to a theology that is biblical, established by a biblical hermeneutic, want to hold theological hands with the moderate?

It is one thing for the authors of the “theological error of the month” to ignore the one biblical hermeneutic. Their bad hermeneutical habits go way back to the Jewish rabbis, Origen, Clement of Alexander, Thomas Aquinas, and – surprise! - to Luther and Calvin. To argue that some of them were right some of the time is to argue for the value of a stopped clock. It is true that some of them claimed to own a literal hermeneutic, but their writings tell us otherwise.

The most disturbing thing about this subject is that there are so few people among us who really understand what the plain, normal, consistent, literal hermeneutic is and fewer yet who actually use it. Using the biblical system will not let you agree with the wayward theological ideas that are being fed to young minds these days by the moderate evangelicals.

CONTRAST TO THE MODERATES

The liberal mind infects the moderate mentality. It will focus on form instead of content and meaning. It loves complication that creates a smokescreen for the infusion of human reason into biblical text. Such thinking is so well practiced that it is hard to peel the layers off. This is where the biblical system of interpretation is so valuable. When you are following the biblical system, it is impossible to arrive at the many theological errors that exist and are even now being created. On the other hand, there is real joy in knowing that we are allowing the text to speak for itself. Leaning on the grammar, the context, and the historical setting of the text will produce that purity of doctrine that our Lord desires us to have.

SHEPHERD’S STAFF – September 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.

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

Site Publisher’s Commentary:

Dr. Nuttall’s timely article is much appreciated.  Within the article we read a clear definition of a “moderate,” or as I have identified, new wave Evangelicalism of Matt Olson, Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran and Tim Jordan. 

“Erase a theology that is biblical by merging it with all kinds of aberrations…. Their argument is that only love, the gospel, unity, or any such singularity is all that matters…. Straddle the theological fence between liberal and conservative…. The desire to be tolerant…. An effort to build a bridge between two divergent positions.”

Over the last several years we have examples of how Bauder, Doran, Olson and Jordan and their followers (at sites like Sharper Iron) will tolerate, allow for, ignore and excuse the doctrinal aberrations, ecumenical compromise and cultural relativism of the so-called “conservative” evangelicals to have fellowship and cooperative ministry with them.