January 31, 2011

1994 & 1995 Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Resolutions: Southern Baptist Convention

REGARDING THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION (1994)
While applauding the attempts of conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention to reemphasize the doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, we do not believe that these men are “fundamental” Southern Baptists. Our reasoning is twofold: first, they still accept the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham which makes them New Evangelicals; and second, they do not desire to be known as Fundamentalists. Writing in “The Church God Approves,” James Draper, conservative in the Southern Baptist Convention, condemns Fundamentalists for their divisiveness, bigotry and unfairness; and says that they have a wholly negative approach and show little love and compassion. Those who call for cooperation in pulpit ministries between Fundamentalists and Southern Baptists either misread the nature of the conservative movement in the Convention, or themselves have compromised the cause of Biblical separation.
REGARDING THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION (1995)
The FBF applauds those in the Southern Baptist Convention who fought a battle for the inerrancy of Scripture, but disagree with Jerry Falwell and Tim Lee who attempt to convince followers that the SBC conservatives are Fundamentalists. At best, conservative Southern Baptists are New Evangelicals who cooperate with and promote the ecumenical evangelism ministry of Billy Graham. The Southern Baptist Convention dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, the two Southern Baptist leaders who signed the 1994 ecumenical Evangelicals and Catholics Together* agreement (the furor created caused them later to ask to have their names removed), and statements made by Convention leaders embracing charismatics indicate dangerous drifts in the SBC.

We believe that statements made by Charles Stanley, twice elected president of the SBC, such as, “If it’s a Southern Baptist seminary, it should be balanced in its approach. If you’re going to have liberals, you need strong conservatives . . . if you’ve got people who don’t believe in the virgin birth, you need people who do,” lead to unscriptural confusion. Adrian Rogers, elected to two terms as president of the Southern Baptist Convention, has said, “I don’t want any witch hunt to purge the seminaries.” Statements such as these reveal that even conservative leadership in the SBC will not take the strong stands necessary to rid the Convention of its liberal and neo-orthodox factions. Until this happens, we do not see how independent fundamental Baptists can make common cause with Southern Baptists.
In recent years some strides have been made to rid the “convention of its liberal and neo-orthodox factions,” but not all of them.** Many of the “dangerous drifts” described above, however, remain in the SBC.
What is glaringly left out of this issue is the matter of separation. [Kevin] Bauder claims that the “conservative evangelicals” aren’t New Evangelicals and he conveniently defines New Evangelicalism in a way that proves his point (whereas his predecessors at Central, Richard Clearwaters and Ernest Pickering, understood New Evangelism much more clearly).

While there are many aspects of New Evangelicalism, the defining principle from its inception was a “repudiation of separatism.” That was the way that Harold Ockenga put it. That is Billy and Franklin Graham’s foundational working principle.

And by that definition, every Southern Baptist conservative is a New Evangelical. That is evident by the simple fact that they remain in the SBC, which is an unholy organization that encompasses theological liberalism, Charismaticism, Masonism, ecumenical evangelism, modern textual criticism, Amillennialism, the rock & roll emerging philosophy, female preachers, psychoheresy, Catholic mysticism, and other errors and evils. (David Cloud: Conservative Evangelicals, Jan. 27, 2011.)
On February 22-25 at Calvary Baptist Seminary (Lansdale, PA) Dr. Dave Doran and Dr. Kevin Bauder will be participating in a cooperative pulpit ministry with SBC pastor Dr. Mark Dever. The 1994 FBF resolution above warns of compromising the cause of biblical separatism. Dever maintains close friendships with and participates in cooperative efforts with ecumenical compromisers and charismatics. Does the common cause cooperative ministry of Bauder and Doran with Dever at Lansdale compromise the cause of biblical separatism? How do Brothers Doran and Bauder justify their “cooperation in pulpit ministries” at Lansdale with SBC pastor Mark Dever?

Dr. Rick Arrowood details the current posture of SBC pastor Mark Dever,
Just because a man like Dr. Dever is seen by some as a “conservative Southern Baptist, who fights for truth in the SBC,” does not mean he fits in as a separatist and should be called a fundamentalist. Matter-a-fact, he would not want to wear that name tag. He is a leader among Southern Baptists:

•He 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: Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism)
Does that read like the personal resume of a man who is committed to the theology, application and cause of biblical separatism? It appears troubling inconsistencies among evangelicals such as Mark Dever are no longer a barrier to fellowship and cooperative ministerial efforts for certain men in Fundamental circles who profess allegiance to the cause of biblical separatism as defined in the 1994-95 FBF resolutions on the Southern Baptist Convention.
Who really is changing as we see this new wave of picking and choosing, applying and justifying, defending and mitigating, “mixing and mingling?” If it is right for us to “platform fellowship” with new-evangelicals and those in the SBC, why have we not had them preach in our colleges, seminaries and fellowships over the past sixty years? A Southern Baptist teaching theology in a fundamentalist church, college or seminary has his roots in Southern Baptist soil, and when transplanted temporarily to a fundamental church or school brings that soil with him. If our position has been wrong, then we have missed the placating of well-organized denominationalism with its comforts and retirement benefits. Perhaps we should go to those retired fundamental Baptist missionaries, who have sacrificed term after term on a foreign field, who may be physically and financially struggling in some nursing home, and apologize to them, admitting the Lottie Moon Missions Program would have been a better choice for them. Can you see the shifting of the sand and how it strikes at the foundation of our fundamental Baptist history? (Dr. Rick Arrowood: Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism)
For those who may not be aware the 1994 FBF resolution on the SBC was prepared and submitted by the resolutions committee that included Dave Doran. Brother Doran signed on to and therefore endorsed the 1994 resolution on the SBC, which closed as follows,
Those who call for cooperation in pulpit ministries between Fundamentalists and Southern Baptists either misread the nature of the conservative movement in the Convention, or themselves have compromised the cause of Biblical separation.
The 1995 FBF resolution was prepared and submitted by the committee that included Dave Doran, Matt Olson and Tim Jordan. The 1995 resolution closed with,
…we [Doran, Olson, Jordan] do not see how independent fundamental Baptists can make common cause with Southern Baptists.
Yet, Matt Olson will be featuring SBC theologian Dr. Bruce Ware at NIU later this year. In a matter of days Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder will join SBC pastor Mark Dever, invited by Tim Jordan, in a ministerial effort at Calvary Baptist Seminary, Lansdale.

"Changing?"
Who’s changing? The men who co-drafted and signed the 1994-95 FBF resolutions on the SBC, or the non-separatist evangelicals in the Southern Baptist Convention? Brother Dever, what do you say?

We will continue on these themes later this month.


LM

*In 2009 Southern Baptist leaders including Dr. Al Mohler signed the Manhattan Declaration (MD). The MD is the first cousin of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Signing the MD extended Christian recognition to Roman Catholics and apostates. Mohler and other SBC signatories have been admonished by their peers, but have not repented of their deed, which compromised the Gospel. (See- Al Mohler Signs the Manhattan Declaration)

**2001- 01.6 Regarding the Southern Baptist Convention
The FBFI expresses gratitude to God for the changes in the Southern Baptist Convention nationally since 1979. We commend the reaffirmation of inerrancy, now a confessional requirement for its agencies—the seminaries, Mission Boards and its publishing arm. Furthermore, we applaud the repudiation of homosexuality and the confessional commitment to a biblical role for women. However, we exhort our brethren to continue reformation by opposing the ecumenism of Billy Graham and “Evangelicals and Catholics Together.” We also urge perseverance at the state and local levels, purging the theological and moral decay. And, where purging is not possible, we urge Southern Baptists to withdraw and rebuild, showing fidelity to the Scripture. Until Southern Baptists fully recognize and repudiate the destruction of Neo-evangelicalism that has weakened their churches and seminaries, the Scriptural response of Fundamental Baptists must continue to be separation.
Site Publisher’s Note:
See the FBFI Resolutions for access to the resolution archives.

17 comments:

  1. I think the following resoltutions, both from 1981 are also illuminating.

    REGARDING FUNDAMENTALISM

    The FBF believes that there is a subtle undermining of historic fundamentalism by definition; that a true fundamentalist not only believes in such fundamentals of the faith as the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, the incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection and glorious ascension and second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, the new birth through regeneration by the Holy Spirit, the resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death, and resurrection of saints to eternal life, but also exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that faith and refuses to be tolerant of believers who are tolerant of unbelievers; we believe that those who hide their "soft" stand on separation by hiding behind what they term "the modern fad of secondary separation" espouse a position that will eventually destroy historic fundamentalism.

    REGARDING THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION

    The FBF recognizes as dangerous the growing rapprochement between fundamental independent Baptists and groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention through pulpit exchanges, speaking together in evangelistic conclaves, having Southern Baptists to speak at schools and colleges that profess to be fundamental; believes that since the Southern Baptist Convention is filled with neo-orthodoxy and liberalism in its theological seminaries and colleges and that all movements within the Convention over "the battle for the Bible" are sham conflicts as long as those in the Convention continue to support the enemy with their gifts through the Cooperative Baptist program; we call upon fundamental Baptists to shun association with this group which daily goes deeper into the apostasy.

    David Oestreich

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lou,

    Most revealing that some who are espousing this "careful, limited forms of fellowship" are the ones who help craft and sign on to those resolutions. Were they wrong back then but right now? If that is indeed the case, then their argument would go further by then saying that the fundamentalists were wrong back in the 50's in the Fundy/New Evangelicalism battle.
    Sorry, Dr. Bauder/Dr. Doran/Dr. Jordan/Dr. Olson, I have not imbibed this kool-aid that seeks to justify the Conservative New Evangelicals as men to cooperate with, even in "careful, limited forms of fellowship."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian:

    Most revealing that some who are espousing this ‘careful, limited forms of fellowship’ are the ones who help craft and sign on to those resolutions.

    Exactly! And that is why I held the names until the end.

    My goal here is to show that they (Doran, Olson, Jordan, et. al.) are changing/moving away from the “militant” separatism what they once believed, articulated and practiced despite protests and denials to the contrary.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why are you highlighting resolutions from 16 and 17 years ago regarding the SBC? That is really old news and out of date. My question is why the Fundamentalists were not out cheering for someone like Al Mohler when he did what he did at Southern Seminary and in the SBC. Instead it is just more of the same old criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. KD:

    Why show the 94-95 FBF resolutions? To demonstrate that some of the men who drafted and signed them are changing, despite their denial and/or protests to the contrary. I refer to Dave Doran, Tim Jordan and Matt Olson.

    Cheer for Al Mohler? Serioiusly? Cheer for his:

    1) Signing the Manhattan Declaration, which gave Christian recognition to the deadly enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18) and compromised the Gospel.

    2) Chaired the 2001 Billy Graham crusade.

    3) Honored liberal past SBTS president Duke McCall?

    4) Sits on the board of Focus on the Family.

    You should weep over these things, and join me in rebuking him, and call on Mohler to repent and obey the Scriptures.

    Of course all of these things by Mohler have been allowed for, tolerated or excused by other so-called “conservative” evangelicals as well as Doran and Bauder.

    See, Al Mohler Signs the Manhattan Declaration: Was This a First Time Foray Toward Ecumenism?


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  6. I understand all of that. Your premise is that Fundamentalism has no problems. In your world Fundamentalists are perfectly sanctified and therefore justified to separate from anyone for any sin. I am not saying you cannot criticize, but separation must be something that is done after prayerful consideration. You list Calvinism in your laundry list of along side of worldliness. I have no doubt that you would separate from those who are Calvinist. Why? How can you draw equivalency between worldiness and Calvinism? This is the type of bizarre applications of separation that hyperfundamentalists employ. If I were you I would be applauding the good things about Al Mohler realizing that he is not perfect. Like Martin Luther, he led a movement to reform the SBC which he has done. Is it perfect? No...but then neither are you or I. A little Christian charity would probably help your cause more than the continual criticism of everyone that is not uniform to your brand of Fundamentalism. Unity is important among Christians. Unity is not uniformity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. kd:

    Your premise is that Fundamentalism has no problems. In your world Fundamentalists are perfectly sanctified and therefore justified to separate from anyone for any sin.

    Never said any such thing, if you can find anywhere I have ever said/written that I will retract and apologize. Please stick with what I have written.

    I have no doubt that you would separate from those who are Calvinist.

    And again you are mistaken.

    How can you draw equivalency between worldiness and Calvinism?

    Dr. Peter Masters does, The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness

    On Al Mohler I will simply direct your attention to this exposé of his egregious ecumenical compromises. Would you agree that he should be rebuked and called to repent of these things?


    LM

    PS: Next time you want to post a comment, full name please.  I am beginning to move away from allowing anonymous posting.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You lumped Calvinism in with all the other items on your bad list when you enumerated all your issues with NIU - "John MacArthur (Calvinism, Lordship Salvation), Rick Holland (LS, CCM, Resolved), Bruce Ware (compromised SBC theologian), Wayne Simien (CCM and dance)" Did I misinterpret what you said? I know you abhor LS, and CCM. You included Calvinism in the list so I inferred you felt it was also a sin or grievous error from which you must separate. Many "good" Fundamentalists, who are my friends, have no problem with going out to eat, participating in sporting events or other secular activities on Sunday. They also have no issues with pictures of Christ or even having actors portray Christ in productions. I know that a major Fundamentalist school in Greenville, SC puts on a production every year and in it they use actors to portray Christ. This to many on the Reformed side is a violation of the second commandment. Indeed the Reformed side could make a very good case to separate from BJU for this. However, out of Christian love and a desire to get along, they do not. Many even choose to "wink" at this and give it a pass because of who the school is. Would you consider this a violation of the second commandment and something from which you had to separate? I have never seen you write a blog article on this. There is a lot of inconsistency when it comes to applying separation principles. When the gospel is compromised in an overt way it separation is most certainly warranted, however, when it is based merely on association or a difference of interpretation, one needs to be careful not to cause unnecessary division. I hope you see my point?

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Kirk:

    You wrote, “When the gospel is compromised in an overt way it separation is most certainly warranted, however, when it is based merely on association or a difference of interpretation, one needs to be careful not to cause unnecessary division.

    Let me be clear. Lordship Salvation as it is defined by its prime advocates such as John MacArthur and Steve Lawson, et. al., is a false, non-saving message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

    LS, therefore, demands separation and that we mark and avoid men who teach this aberrant soteriology.

    Now, that is blunt, but I know of no other way to be concise on your comment above on LS and teachers of this error on the Gospel.

    For an example from John MacArthur’s TGATJ (all three editions) on how LS corrupts the Gospel I suggest the following article, Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page.

    There are several links to additional articles at the end of that one.

    That article appears as an appendix in my book, In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.

    BTW, did you read Peter Master's article that I linked you to above? The Merger of Calvinism With Worldiness.


    LM

    PS: I appreciate the first name ID, but... Additional comments need to include your full name. I don't always require that, but that is the direction I'm going at my blog as I noted above.

    ReplyDelete
  11. kirk dickerson2/05/2011 10:08 PM

    I have read Master’s article and I don’t agree. I really don’t agree with you on MacArthur or Lawson either. You failed to answer my question regarding the inconsistency in Fundamentalism with regard to applications of separation. You also skirted the question I asked you about Calvinism and MacArthur.
    You and I may not agree on election, infant baptism, the sovereignty of God in salvation, and man's total inability to have any cooperation with God in salvation. Though I consider these to be clear doctrines of scripture and those who deny them to be in error, I could still have fellowship with those who disagreed as long as they considered Christ to be the only means of salvation. I am Presbyterian, I assume you are Baptist. We could still have fellowship with each other in Christ. We don’t have to agree with each other on our denominational distinctives. We may disagree on certain items, but we could still have true fellowship in Christ. This is how I see it with anyone. I think this is how you should treat MacArthur, Mohler, Dever, Bob Jones III, Stephen Jones, Charles Stanley, Steve Lawson etc. None of them have denied the gospel. They are all brothers in Christ. They all have their faults and some are more obvious than others, but they are Christians washed in Christ's blood. I consider separation from these men to be schismatic. Doesn't this make sense? This is what Kevin Bauder has been saying for months. He has been saying it ever since Sweatt went on his foolish tirade last April at The Wilds. It is time for Fundamentalists to deal with each other and other Christians charitably. That is why I think many of your posts are wasting time with MacArthur and Bauder. The real enemy wants you at MacArthur’s throat and you and Bauder exchanging jabs. I believe the devil is winning this particular battle and laughing the whole time at all the infighting.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kirk:

    Just some quick responses as I am time pressed this morning.

    1) The Peter Master’s article is objective and thoroughly accurate as he describes The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness.

    2) Inconsistencies in some segments of Fundamentalism over separatism is a given. But what are occasional inconsistencies are far outweighed by the decades worth of inconsistencies in separatism, which gave the NT church New Evangelicalism, ecumenical compromises and worldly methods among the evangelicals.

    3) Calvinism, per se, is not in and of itself a separation issue, which I’ve made clear publicly. Ask any of my fids who are Calvinistic to one degree or another whom I communicate with in private regularly.

    4) “ I think this is how you should treat MacArthur, Mohler, Dever, Bob Jones III, Stephen Jones, Charles Stanley, Steve Lawson etc. None of them have denied the gospel.

    MacArthur, Mohler, Dever Lawson have clouded, confused and corruted the Gospel with the man-centered, works based Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel. When they meet at T4G they meet around the LS Gospel. I invite you to read, Foremost Defenders of the Gospel Today?

    After LS all other considerations for separatism from evangelicals are trumped. These men believe, preach and defend a false gospel. That alone is more than enough to separate from them.

    5) “Sweatt’s tirade?” That did stir the pot, I agree. Did you read Bauder’s attack on the John R. Rice and Bob Jones, Jr. An unprovoked attack on those men and their legacy, which he has never edited or retracted. Lumping Rice/Jones into the same mold as Hyles/Gray and never stepped away from. All of which Sharper Iron happily supported and defended. See-

    KB: A Call for His removal From the FBFI Platform

    Muddying the Clearwaters

    BTW, I was at the 2009 FBFI conference. In the Q&A that was supposed to be on the evangelicals Bauder purposely attacked and besmirched BJU, as he dodged a direct question about the evangelicals he is calling on the rest of to follow him in embrace of. Why don't you contact Bauder and ask why he went after BJU from the platform with no just cause whatsoever? IMO, you'll be ignored by him.

    Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran are the most passionate apologists for evangelicalism in Fundamentalism. They have routinely, which I’ve documented from their own writing tolerated, allowed for and excused aberrant theology, ecumenical compromise and worldliness in ministry because they are rallying to the evangelicals around Calvinistic soteriology in the form of Lordship Salvation.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kirk:

    Let's go to the question at the end of this article.

    Who’s changing? The men who co-drafted and signed the 1994-95 FBF resolutions on the SBC [Doran, Jordan, Olson], or the non-separatist evangelicals in the Southern Baptist Convention?

    What do you think?


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  14. To Kirk,
    It is most interesting that you would bring up Pastor Sweatt's message from 2009 and call it a "tirade." Have you heard the message yourself? If you have then you would know by both the overall tone of the message and the specific 5 minutes or so of the message where he mentions Calvinism, that this is hardly reaching the point of being called a tirade. The dictionary (Webster's New College) defines tirade as "a long vehement speech, esp. one of denunication; harangue." After listening to that message at least twice, I would hardly call it a tirade by dictionary definition. On the other hand, I will use the word "tirade" to describe the three articles that Dr. Bauder wrote in response to the message.
    Have you extended your call for charity amongst brethren to Dr. Bauder?
    I can agree to disagree on alot of things with lots of people, but I cannot compromise "the faith once delivered." That faith is not just the Gospel message, like some would have us to believe, but the whole body of truth given to us. These men who are starting to encourage us to "careful, limited forms of fellowship" are the start of a slide away from solid, Biblical truth. I don't buy into it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kirk:

    Before I post anything new from you I asked for you to answer a question from the article.

    Who’s changing? The men who co-drafted and signed the 1994-95 FBF resolutions on the SBC [Doran, Jordan, Olson], or the non-separatist evangelicals in the Southern Baptist Convention?


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  16. kirk dickerson2/07/2011 7:25 AM

    Lou,

    The SBC has changed dramatically since the 90s. No one on earth would doubt that. Southern Seminary had to replace 90% of its faculty who left when Al Mohler became president and insisted that all faculty adhere to scripture as infallible! The denomination began to close ranks and many churches left because it was becoming too conservative. I live in Greenville SC and Furman University which was the crown jewel college of the SBC, withdrew in the 90s taking the land and buildings with it. They hated the new conservative stance of the SBC. The denomination created resolutions condemning and boycotting Disney World for its homosexual agenda and promoting a pro-family platform. There is no way you can say the SBC of today is what it was 20 years ago. That is why it struck me as strange that you would reference 1994 and 1995. Is the SBC perfect today? Not by any stretch - but you cannot deny that a monumental change occurred. It is very uncommon to see a denomination get to the point the SBC did in the 70s and 80s, and then have it do a 180 degree turn. It was the supernatural grace of God that did it. You can continue to offer wholesale criticism of the SBC or you can appreciate what they do right and pray things continue to change. The same thing you would apply to any denomination that was seeking to uphold the gospel truth. By contrast, you could not apply this mentality to the PCUSA or the Roman Catholic church. Both of which are apostate denominations and rotten at the core. You should be aiming your largest criticisms at denominations like these for being poisonous heretics. The SBC has many good churches, and many good men. It deserves support when it endeavors to move forward for Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Kirk:

    No one I know of would deny there have been changes within or that there are good men in the SBC, however, as noted above in the article the,

    SBC...is an unholy organization that encompasses theological liberalism, Charismaticism, Masonism, ecumenical evangelism, modern textual criticism, Amillennialism, the rock & roll emerging philosophy, female preachers, psychoheresy, Catholic mysticism, and other errors and evils.”

    You wrote, “…the PCUSA or the Roman Catholic church. Both of which are apostate denominations and rotten at the core. You should be aiming your largest criticisms at denominations like these for being poisonous heretics.”

    And there you provide an opportunity to demonstrate how the alleged conservatives in the SBC have NOT changed in some of the most important areas. Al Mohler signed the Manhattan Declaration (MD) along side “rotten at the core, poisonous heretics” Roman Catholics and apostates. His action in signing the MD gave Christian recognition to the deadly enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18). Mohler has rejected the admonitions of his brethren and is unrepentant. That was not his first act of egregious ecumenical compromise.

    Mohler presently and has for years sat on the board of Focus on the Family, another ecumenical organization. In 2001 Mohler sat as chair for the Louisville Billy Graham crusade. After liberal SBTS president departed Mohler presided over a ceremony to honor this liberal theologian and name a new structure on campus for him. Changed? No, not really have they? Not in the most important areas that the Bible speaks to and forbids, which is to separate from unbelievers and the disobedient among us.

    For documentation of all these things see- Al Mohler Signs The Manhattan Declaration, Part 2: Was This a First Time Foray Toward Ecumenism?

    And in spite of all this men who claim to be loyal and militant toward biblical separation (Doran, Bauder, Olson, Jordan, et. al.,) are reaching out to and working toward greater fellowship and cooperative efforts with these men in the SBC and their T4G counter parts.

    Furthermore, I want to reiterate that many of the star personalities of the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism believe, preach and defend the false interpretation of the Gospel commonly known as Lordship Salvation.

    Changes that are good and in the right direction we can acknowledge, but the SBC is still the home of many egregious errors, doctrinal and practical.

    Twice now you’ve submitted lengthy comments for posting and have not answered my question to you in the way I’ve asked you to address the question. This blog is not a bully-pulpit for guests to promote their own views, denominations or organizations (like the SBC).

    I think we’ve come to the end of our discussion.


    LM

    PS: Your comment to Brian I am not posting for reasons I will explain if you e-mail me.

    ReplyDelete