Silent No More: Bob Jones University

Brethren:

Today I would like to direct your attention to an article by Pastor Travis D. Smith of the Hillsdale Baptist Church (Tampa, FL). The article title is: Silent No More, which appears at his From the Heart of a Shepherd blog.

Dr. Smith’s article opens with this introduction,

This brief blog post serves as an introductory post to one that will follow titled, “A Failure to Stay the Course: Bob Jones University Student Handbook Changes, Fall 2018”.  I am a 1977 graduate of Bob Jones University and one who has been a loyal alumnus.

Later this paragraph appears,

“There were many irritants in the BJU culture that were not only exasperating, but provoking.  There was a discipline that gave little grace and even less understanding for the excuses and failures of youth.  Outside the campus fence my generation was bold and rebellious; casting aside disciplines and morals that had shaped the ‘Greatest Generation’.  Inside the campus fence little had or would change for another twenty-years.”

Continue to Silent No More: Bob Jones University for the complete article.

The primary article A Failure to Stay the Course has posted 

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

Yours faithfully,


Lou Martuneac

Sharper Iron: Does This Sharpen Me?

Dear Guests of IDOTG: I am republishing here an article I first published September 2010 at my secondary blog Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet. I think this is a timely reminder of and historical look at what SI had become.

Last week I posted two articles in regard to Sharper Iron (SI). The first was posted at this, the Iron Skillet, blog. The article was composed by Ps. Brian Ernsberger who recently quit SI and explained his departure. Please see, SI's Deplorable Moderator Actions Run Off Another for details. The second article I posted was a response to Aaron Blumer’s article (9/2) A Few Answers to SI Critics. An article in which he complains about long time, wide spread legitimate criticism of SI. You may read SI Sizzles In & Over the Iron Skillet for a complete reaction to Blumer’s complaints. Today, (Sept. 7, 2010) Aaron is hearing from another former, long time member of SI who shares his experience with SI. An experience, which typifies what is commonplace at SI and why so many have quit SI or would never join in the first place. Let’s now consider why one would ask: Does This Sharpen Me?

I’ve recently come to a decision. It wasn’t earth shattering, and quite honestly, the effect of my decision will likely go unnoticed by the very individuals that necessitated it. In May 2005, I joined the self-identified, fundamentalist website, Sharper Iron. Since that time I posted literally hundreds of times on a variety of topics, some serious and others not. My purpose in joining was to reacquaint myself with some of the current issues in fundamentalism as I approached my ordination some twelve years removed from my graduate work. In those early days, I found much to praise at Sharper Iron. I learned a lot. I solidified a number of positions as I observed, and occasionally partook in, the discussions. I entered the fray decidedly separated in my personal life, as well as, ecclesiastically. I am also convinced of the superiority of the traditional family of Greek texts, and I am a non-Calvinist.

While I rarely dealt with threads on Calvinism or the text issue, I derived much personal edification from the interactions of men like Scott and Christian Markle, Jon Gleason, Lou Martuneac, John R. Himes, and others. These men represented a brand of fundamentalism with which I identify. It is a thoughtful, church-centered fundamentalism, but not one that easily tolerates error or compromise. It is also a loving fundamentalism, although you would never know that by listening to its detractors. (I have more than a few anecdotal stories to prove my point here, however). Unfortunately, those men, and effectively this whole segment of fundamentalism, are gone from the threads and pages at Sharper Iron.

 Increasingly, the threads are filled with intimations of serious doctrinal error hurled toward fellow fundamentalists, while the compromise and errors of Conservative Evangelical personalities are glossed over as praise is lavished on their ministries, as in a recent series of articles by Dr. Kevin Bauder.

When a concerned member recently posted a thoughtful response to one of Dr. Bauder’s articles, his response A Letter from Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters to Kevin Bauder  was sharply criticized by SI moderators (Rogier, JayC and Linscott) and ultimately removed by Aaron Blumer. A few days later, an SI Filing/thread was posted by Sharper Iron leadership (Jim Peet, Aaron Blumer) introducing and eagerly promoting a website that was nothing more than a vicious personal attack on Lou Martuneac.

Just last week an SI filing referencing a blog post by Dave Doran provided an illustration of some of the concerns I am articulating in this article. It was one of the clearest examples in a long line of the double standards that exist at Sharper Iron. Doran hurled an ad hominem attack at an unnamed fundamentalist(s) using the phrase “pathetic and disingenuous” to describe those who opposed or were relieved the merger of Faith and Central had not gone through. When one commenter called SI to the carpet over this filing he was firmly rebuked. It appears there is a lot of “respecting of persons” going on over there, and now I suspected and have confirmed yet another conservative fundamentalist has left the SI ranks.

If homogeneity was their goal at SI, they have very nearly accomplished it.

It seems serious concerns brought in from the “right end” of the fundamentalist spectrum are scrutinized far more closely at SI than the attacks thrown back the other way. I find that disheartening at best. My alma mater has been a regular source of ridicule, yet such ridicule is rarely hurled at Conservative Evangelical institutions. It smacks of a bias away from the southern brand of fundamentalists and away, it seems, from me.

I’ve watched over the years as non-Calvinists, traditional text men, and those who hold to a certain standard of personal separation were repeatedly shouted down by SI moderators and other members. Of course, a vigorous debate is desirable in many cases; however, on the internet, such debates often become a numerical dog-pile where reasoned arguments carry less weight than the shear number of responses. The result is that the admittedly minority viewpoints eventually “wore out” and stopped posting.

Today SI is a place where Calvinism is the settled opinion of the overwhelming majority of posters. The traditional text family is seen as inferior and those who hold to it are routinely labeled obscurantist or ignorant. Personal separatism to a degree held by our parents and grandparents is regularly declared legalism and almost anything now appears acceptable under an understanding of Romans 14 that puts the perceived rights of the “strong” over concern for the weak.

I find that SI is not a place that welcomes my viewpoint, nor is it a place that holds the Conservative Evangelical camp to the same standard it hold my “camp.”



Well, I, for one, am tired. The old caricature of the angry, fightin’ fundy, so repudiated by the SI majority is quickly becoming the new face of that very site (moderators and remaining membership), only in reverse. It’s a strange, almost surreal thing to realize that you’ve become the very thing you’ve opposed. Unfortunately, I am almost sure the SI leadership does not even recognize the shift.

I am sure there will be those who believe my assessment is wrong, but I know that I am not alone in this opinion. When a number of different individuals with no connection to one another outside of this website bring the same concerns to light, it should raise the concerns of the site leadership. As for me, I wish them no ill, but I had to ask, “Does this sharpen me?” So, I’ve chosen to leave Sharper Iron for good. As I said, in the beginning, I doubt they even noticed.

(Disclaimer: I have submitted this article anonymously. I am obligated to do so by my current ministry situation.)

Site Publisher’s Addendum:

The author is one of many who have quit SI because of its obvious bias. Many of these raised and tried to resolve genuine concerns with SI’s leadership prior to departing, but without success. Aaron Blumer claims he wants to hear from critics, but when wide spread legitimate concerns with SI were posted in his (9/2) thread by a fundamentalist pastor (Marc Monte) SI moderators immediately set upon him. Blumer responded with, “It’s not like everybody has to like SI. If a few dozen or a few hundred don’t see much value in it (or worse yet, think it’s toxic) that’s OK. They have no obligation to even care about what happens here. But if they do, the contact form is there. I have nothing more to say than that…. And we’ve given folks lots of opportunities to communicate. Until they do, the whole matter is moot. I’m not going to chase ghosts”

That reaction typified why the pseudo-fundamentalist SI has hemorrhaged so many members over the last several years. Typifies why SI will never be able to win back those departed. Typifies why SI is not a welcome place for fundamentalist preachers like Marc Monte, Brian Ernsberger and the author of this article. SI is a place whose leadership eagerly welcomes those who wish to heap lavish praise on the star personalities of the so-called “conservative” evangelicals, welcomes those who will tolerate and excuse the aberrant theology and ecumenism of conservative evangelicals, welcomes those who castigate fundamentalism with the broad brush and line up against any who dare to offer legitimate criticism of conservative evangelicalism, defend fundamentalism or question SI’s obvious bias.

Separation: Vitally Important, But Not The Main Thing

This week I am bringing you a new article by Dr. John Van Gelderen.  For the past ten years or so certain men who circulate in Fundamental circles, have been steering our younger generation toward and embracing the compromising  so-called “conservative” evangelicals. I trust this insightful article will be a help to you in your walk with the Lord Jesus Christ.

Dr. John Van Gelderen

Some gardeners put up small fences or screens to protect their gardens from little intruders. For the gardener, the barrier is important, but it’s not the main thing; the garden is.

This simple picture helps to put into perspective the matter of biblical separation, whether speaking of separation from the world or separation from ecclesiastical unbelief. Separation is important, but it’s not the main thing; it protects the main thing. The main thing is your relationship with Jesus. Your walk with God, loving Him with all your heart, soul and might, trusting Him, glorifying Him—this is the main thing. Separation provides barriers to protect your relationship from harmful influences, and this is truly important. But the big deal is not separation; it’s Jesus.

The Scripture does not say that the greatest commandment is separating one from another. Yet, the greatest commandment, which is to love God, will involve separation. Jesus did not say that by this shall all men know that you are my disciples, that you separate one from another. Yet, love, the greatest sign of discipleship, will not leave the boundaries of light and walk in darkness in order to love. The fruit of the Spirit is not that you separate one from another. Yet, the fruit of the Spirit, which is love, includes temperance, which necessarily includes matters of separation.

The key here is priority. If you make separation the main thing, the real main thing gets trampled in the fray. Speaking broadly, some of us in the last quarter of the twentieth century somehow got the idea that separation was the main thing.

Ecclesiastically, the problem at that time was that the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy involving separation from theological liberals had already been fought. We weren’t in ecclesiastical organizations with unbelievers. We didn’t have any true liberals (unbelievers) to separate from. But because we had begun to think of separation as the main thing, we separated from each other!

On the level of personal separation, this wrong priority led to pride as focus centered on maintaining and promoting one’s version of how separation should play out. Inevitably, this led to condescension toward those who differed. The emphasis on rituals over relationship gave a false sense of spirituality and obscured the truth that genuine spirituality is being in right relationship with the Spirit. The Holy One got lost in the focus on holiness.

By God’s grace some have awakened to the fallacy of this wrong priority. Others, perhaps, have yet to see this, and some may think an article like this seeks to deny separation’s importance. But that misses the point. Less important does not imply unimportant. It’s a matter of priority.

Separating is not what you live to do; it’s what you sometimes must do. (And as you wholeheartedly follow Jesus, you may even become the object of such an exercise and witness others’ separation from you.) In all this, remember, the main thing is our relationship with Jesus. As we maintain our walk with Him, we must apply necessary separation.

Dr. John Van Gelderen

Revival Focus

Related Reading:

Al Mohler: “So Much for Sola Scripture”

Kevin Bauder: When Facts Give Way for the Sake of an Agenda

Marc Monte’s, It Won’t Fly With Those of us Who Know

A Tribute to America & Her Flag

The Star Spangled Banner Lyrics By Francis Scott Key 1814

Oh, say can you see by the dawn’s early light.
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?



You’re a Grand Old Flag by George M. Cohan - 1906

You’re a grand old flag, You’re a high flying flag And forever in peace may you wave. You’re the emblem of
The land I love. The home of the free and the brave. Ev’ry heart beats true ‘neath the Red, White and Blue,
Where there's never a boast or brag. Should auld acquaintance be forgot, Keep your eye on the grand old flag.



America, The Beautiful Lyrics by Katharine Lee Bates - 1913


O beautiful for spacious skies,
 For amber waves of grain,
 For purple mountain majesties
 Above the fruited plain! 
America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
 And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!



O beautiful for pilgrim feet,
 Whose stern impassion’d stress
 A thoroughfare for freedom beat 
Across the wilderness!
 America! America! God mend thine ev’ry flaw,
 Confirm thy soul in self-control,
 Thy liberty in law!



O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife,
 Who more than self their country loved,
 And mercy more than life! 
America! America! May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
 And ev’ry gain divine!



O Beautiful for patriot dream
 That sees beyond the years
 Thine alabaster cities gleam,
 Undimmed by human tears!
 America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
 And crown thy good with brotherhood 
From sea to shining sea!

1 John 1:9 – Salvation or Sanctification

This article, Salvation or Sanctification, written by Dr. John Van Gelderen, appears at his Revival Focus site and blog.  The article speaks to one of the major errors of those teaching  the “Lordship Salvation” theory of salvation. That being their failure to distinguish between the two separate and distinct doctrines of salvation and sanctification/discipleship.

Dr. John Van Gelderen

 

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

 

For much of my lifetime, I heard this verse referred to as a cleansing and restoring truth for believers who in some way had stumbled into sin. Such an interpretation affects sanctification. About fifteen years ago, however, I began to hear some claim this verse refers to the moment of salvation, insisting that it is really a salvation verse. So, is 1 John 1:9 a salvation or sanctification verse? After considering the various arguments, I believe for several reasons that 1 John 1:9 is a sanctification verse.

 

First, the stated purpose and audience addresses believers. The Apostle John repeatedly notes in the Gospel of John that when you believe in Jesus you have eternal life. He now begins 1 John, declaring that Jesus is “that eternal life.” Eternal life is ultimately someone, not something. Then, he states that his purpose for declaring this eternal life of Jesus is for “fellowship” among believers and especially fellowship with the Father and the Son (1:3), and for realizing “joy” in such fellowship (1:4). Both purpose statements use the word ἵνα (that) meaning “in order that” or “for the purpose that.” John’s focus, then, is not receiving eternal life, but having fellowship with that Life and so experiencing the joy of experiencing Jesus. Scripture does not use the word fellowship to denote getting saved but uses it instead to describe a blessing potential for those who are saved.

 

In the epistle, John addresses his audience as “my little children” (seven times) and “beloved” (four times). Also, John includes himself in the subject matter, using the pronouns we, us, and our more than 30 times in the ten verses of the first chapter. All this supports the conclusion that John is writing to believers regarding the privileges of their salvation—and not about how to get saved.

Second, the immediate context of chapter 1 and its grammar support the process of sanctification, not the moment of salvation. Verse 7 speaks of walking in the light. The word walking is never used interchangeably with standing. The moment of salvation provides you with a new standing in Christ. It is because of your new standing you can have a new walk. But walking is beyond standing, and therefore, beyond the salvation moment.

 

The words walk and cleanse in verse 7 are in the present tense, revealing they are repeated matters, not once for all. In keeping with this more-than-once emphasis, the word confess in verse 9 (explaining how to walk in the light) is also in the present tense.

 

Verse 9 specifically says, “If we confess our sins.” The plural sins reveals specific stumblings for which we must agree with God. If 1 John 1:9 is a salvation verse, it would need to say sin (singular) referring to the sin nature. The use of the plural cannot be referring to salvation or you would have to remember and name every single sin you ever committed to get saved! The issue here is simply the specific sins committed as a believer that grieve the Spirit. God never leaves us or breaks fellowship with us. But our sins break fellowship with Him.

 

But when we walk in the light by getting honest and agreeing with God, He is faithful (every time) and just (because we do have a right standing with Him) to (ἵνα, “in order to”) forgive us our sins. The verb forgive is in the subjunctive mood indicating possibility. This implies that which is future contingent upon agreeing with God. It is also in the aorist tense indicating the fact of an action. Therefore, God cleans us all up every time we side with the light of His truth.

 

Some argue that since all your sins are forgiven at salvation, there is no more need of forgiveness. But Romans 4:7-8 clarifies, “…Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.”

 

Technically, according to this passage, when you trust Christ as Savior, all your past sins are forgiven, and all your future sins will not be charged to your account. In this sense your sins are covered past, present and future, and you are safe. But even though future sins will not be charged to your account, they do break fellowship with God (not Him toward you, but you toward Him); thus, the need and provision for 1 John 1:9.

 

And third, other passages support the conclusion that 1 John 1:9 is a sanctification verse. Some truths are provisional but must be accessed by faith to be experienced. Galatians3:26-27 declares believers “have put on Christ.” Yet Romans 13:14 commands, “But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Why does Romans command what Galatians declares? It is because positional and provisional realities must be depended upon to be experienced. The same is true regarding forgiveness. The provision was made at the cross. It’s done. But the access is by faith. Passages like James 4:7-10 [see article Draw Near to God] also concur with the interpretation that 1 John 1:9 is a sanctification verse.

 

While some may misuse or abuse 1 John 1:9, and even though our provision in Christ for experiencing His victory is more than enough, what would we do without the blessing of cleansing and restoration through the brokenness of this great verse? Many revivals start when some walk in the light and get appropriately honest before a holy God.

 

 

Dr. John Van Gelderen

Revival Focus

 

Related Reading:

The Relationship Between God's Grace & Lordship Legalism

 

Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page

Archival Series: Kevin Bauder, There He Goes Again, Redefining Fundamentalism

Pastor Marc Monte

In his recent essay, “Another One Bites the Dust,” Dr. Kevin Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary, analyzes the unfortunate trend of the dissolution of Fundamentalist institutions of higher learning.  Dr. Bauder is a brilliant man and prolific writer who has bequeathed a wealth of thought-provoking material to the Lord’s church.  His book, Baptist Distinctives and New Testament Church Order, is a poignant defense of the Baptist position concerning both the polity and the practice of Baptist churches.  This author uses Dr. Bauder’s book and he recommends it widely.

Dr. Bauder’s recent article seeks to address reasons for the demise of many prominent Fundamentalist colleges and seminaries.  Going beyond the standard arguments of cultural shift and constituency alienation (both of which, he postulates, are legitimate issues), Dr. Bauder presents additional, not-often-considered factors pertinent to the death of these institutions.  His analysis deserves thoughtful consideration as Fundamentalist institutions move into the “brave, new world” of the 21^st Century. 

In such a thoughtful article, it is unfortunate that Dr. Bauder could not resist his penchant for trashing what he describes as the “King James Only orbit.”  It appears to this avid Bauder reader that the good professor harbors unreasonable angst toward fellow fundamentalists who hold to a view of manuscript evidences different from his own.  His classification, “King James Only orbit,” paints with a broad brush, thereby unfairly dismissing legitimate theological positions within that orbit.

More than most men, Dr. Bauder understands that precise theology is nuanced theology.   For example, Dr. Bauder would not accept the tenants of every form and presentation of Calvinism.  He would be careful to distinguish his brand of Calvinism from others, emphasizing the nuances of his position as opposed to others.  This author contends that the same careful, nuanced approach should apply to the “King James Only orbit.”  There are some within the “orbit” who hold to a false theory of double inspiration.  There are others, however, who simply appeal to the Textus Receptus manuscripts as their authority, rejecting other differing manuscripts as spurious.  Such a view is not heterodox.  It is a legitimate, nuanced theological position.  To hold such a position does not place one outside the fundamentalist theological sphere.  Indeed, the Lord’s church held to the infallibility of those apographs (manuscript copies) for over 1800 years.  Only in the late 1800’s did the text of the New Testament suffer significant destabilization with the publication of newly discovered, variant manuscripts.

Dr. Bauder’s most jarring and politically charged statement appears with his textual position playing loudly in the background:

“The King James Only crowd likes to boast that schools like Pensacola Christian College and West Coast Baptist College are thriving, and that may be true. These colleges, however, are not representative of fundamentalist institutions, and their prosperity does not do anything to help normal fundamentalism.” (Emphasis added.)

Herein, Dr. Bauder grievously errs. To say that Pensacola and West Coast are not “representative of fundamentalist institutions” redefines, once again, fundamentalism.  Neither school denies nor do they adulterate any point of the classical fundamentalist credo.  Their doctrinal statements are readily available for anyone’s inspection.  In addition, both schools practice personal and ecclesiastical separation, the hallmark of fundamentalism. The fact that these schools specify allegiance to a specific Greek text in no way diminishes their fundamentalist credentials.  In addition, both schools have a strong fundamentalist heritage.  In the case of Pensacola, it has flourished within the sphere of fundamentalism for decades.  Many fundamentalist churches recommend both Pensacola and Bob Jones as options within the fundamentalist realm.  Dr. Bauder’s needlessly divisive statement lacks both theological and historical support.

The second portion of his statement is even more troubling:  The prosperity of these colleges “does not do anything to help normal fundamentalism.”  Frankly, this author could scarcely believe a man of Dr. Bauder’s intellectual stature would make such an all-encompassing, condemnatory statement.  To claim disagreement with a nuanced theological issue is one thing; but to claim that these schools do “not do anything to help normal fundamentalism” demeans the work and dedication of sincere servants of Christ.  His statement slanders thousands of pastors who recommend Pensacola and West Coast, classifying godly men as somehow as not “normal.” And his statement simply isn’t true.  Thousands of fundamentalist pastors find in these schools a place of believing scholarship for their students.  Both of these schools have sent out thousands of Christian workers into the harvest fields of the world.  Both of these schools proclaim and defend the “faith once delivered to the saints,” (Jude 3).  Both take missions, church planting, and evangelism seriously and both have seen stellar success in these areas.  Both are filling the fundamentalist pulpits of America with men sound in the faith and zealous for the redemption of the lost. 

Succinctly stated, Dr. Bauder’s declaration is both irresponsible and indefensible. 

While Dr. Bauder has presented much good analytical material in his article—material that deserves thoughtful consideration—he has, once again, marred his work with an unnecessary rant against Christian people—fellow fundamentalists—who love and serve the Lord.  He seems bent on making enemies where he could have found friends, and, in so doing, he repeats an error plaguing fundamentalism from its inception—an error which increasingly alienates intelligent young men and women from the fundamentalist movement.


Ps. Marc Monte
Faith Baptist Church, Avon
Originally Published on March 9, 2015.

For a continuation of this discussion from Pastor Monte, please see:

An Antecdotal Answer to the Demise of Fundamentalist Schools

Related Reading:
We’re Not Convinced Kevin Bauder is a Help to Fundamentalism

Previous Articles by Ps. Monte:

Muddying the Clearwaters 

Bauder’s position differs markedly from the strong stance of R.V. Clearaters. “Doc,” as he was called, had no trouble “calling a spade and spade.” Bauder struggles with that…. For reasons known only to himself, Bauder mocks those whose doctrinal concerns include bibliology, the blood atonement and sovereignty/free will.

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

“If Kevin desires to take Dr. Clearwaters venerable institution a different direction from the founder, he should do so without pretending to be the 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.”

 Genuine Integrity Demands a Simple Admission 

What troubles [me], however, is the nagging feeling that Jeff Straub was attempting to convey more than just mere admiration for stands well taken. His not-so-subtle mention that both of these pastors are entrenched in the SBC appears to lend tacit approval to the denominational organization…. Dr. Clearwaters was not one to speak well of the “denominational machine.” Genuine integrity demands a simple admission from institutional leadership that they are moving from the separatist principles of their founders.

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

Kevin, while reading your articles I have observed an inordinate affection towards pseudo-intellectual teaching, and a disdain for old-fashioned, confrontational Bible preaching.  Make no mistake, old fashioned, confrontational Bible preaching is exactly why I founded Central Seminary.  My burden was to train men with an air-tight understanding of the Scriptures, with the ability to stand in pulpits across the land and preach, “thus saith the Lord,” with the desire to start churches and win souls to Christ.  To the contrary, I did not start the school over which you [Bauder] preside, for men to flounder in unbelief, for them to wonder for decades where they stand, or for them to be given to counseling, teaching and academic idolatry.  I often told the men I was training, “We use the mind here, but we do not worship it.” Dr. Bauder, all given appearances seem to indicate that you are intentionally trying to lead those who follow your writings…away from the testimony upon which [Central Seminary] was founded and into the compromising orbit of protestant evangelicalism.

Piedmont/TTU: A Predictable Pattern of Mergers With Only One Survivor

What Do NIU, Pillsbury and (NOW) TTU Have in Common?

A Revival M-O by Dr. Rick Flanders

“And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.  And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.  And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.  And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people.  And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”

(The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 2, Verses 42 through 47)

When God sends revival to a congregation of the saints, there is a natural interest in prolonging the good effects of what has happened.  One of the most important factors in extending the blessings of the revival is for the church to adopt what could be called “a revival M-O.”  Probably one of the unfortunate aspects of my childhood was that I watched too much television.  For a few years, the networks were airing a surprising number of detective shows, mysteries and crime dramas, and I watched a lot of them.  Anyone who liked the crime shows would pick up some of the supposed police lingo, and one of the terms often used by television cops was the “m-o” of a perpetrator of crime.  These letters abbreviated a Latin-based term for the criminal’s usual way of doing things, his modus operandi (means of operating).  His m-o often led to a criminal’s apprehension as investigators came to recognize his usual method of doing what he did, and were able to connect crimes with crimes.  Churches that have experienced a revival need to adopt a revival m-o, a revival-based way of doing things, in order to move forward in the way of revived Christianity.  Often the lifelessness, carnality, worldliness, and barrenness of churches in an unrevived state are caused by operating in an unrevived way.  So going forward in ministry in the new way requires a new m-o.

On the great Day of Pentecost, the church at Jerusalem experienced revival.  Not only was that day the day of transition from the Old Covenant to the New, with the coming of the Holy Spirit to live in believers, it was a revival for the one hundred twenty who waited before God the ten days before the Spirit came.  They were “filled” with the Spirit (Acts 2:1-4), and not merely “sealed” with Him (see the significance and distinction between the two by studying Ephesians 1:12-14, 4:29-30, and 5:18).  Not only did He come to dwell within them as part of the dispensational change, He took control of their lives and began to empower their witness for Christ.  They experienced a revival.  And the revival continued as the church adopted a revival m-o, described for us in Acts 2:42-47.

So what should change in a church when revival comes, so that the community will be impacted with the Gospel in the days ahead?  Right away the renewed church should adopt as the “new normal” the following things that the Jerusalem church followed:

1.       Revival theology.  The record says that they “continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (according to Acts 2:42).  That is what was supposed to happen.  Jesus had told the apostles that, when they baptized new disciples, they were to “teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20).  This was “the apostles’ doctrine (teaching).”  A certain kind of doctrine goes along with revival, generates it, and moves it along.  A very serious obstacle to revival in a church can be the doctrine that is taught.  But the apostles’ doctrine was favorable to the faith that is behind revival, to expecting the supernatural involvement of God in church life (see verse 43), to the ministry of the Holy Spirit (note verses 4, 17-18, 33, and 38-39), and to bold evangelism (verse 40).  A revived church will get a steady diet of revival theology from the pulpit.  For more than a century now, many Bible-believing churches have been scared away from preaching on the Holy Spirit because of the false teaching on this subject that has been spread by the Pentecostals.  But heresy about a certain doctrine is not effectively challenged by avoiding the subject.  False teaching must be met with the truth.  And spiritual Christians have always known and taught the basic Bible truths about the Spirit’s ministry, about faith, about answered prayer, and about the victory of Christ over sin and Satan, and a church today that will go forward in the revival mode must have this kind of teaching.  Fatalistic preaching that says, for all practical purposes, that “what will be will be” and that whether we pray or believe or repent or not, God will do what He was going to do all along, quenches revival fires.  We must learn again the truth about abiding in Christ (John 15) and about drawing nigh to God (James 4) and let it permeate all we do and say.

2.       Prayer meetings.  They also continued in “prayers” (verse 42).  Pentecost was preceded by ten days of prayer.  And the prayer meetings continued afterward.  Prayer and prayer meetings played a big role in the life and work of the first church.  Find Peter and John going to the temple “at the hour of prayer” (in chapter 3).  Find the church gathered for prayer in the face of difficulty and persecution (in chapter 4).  Find them coming together for prayer again to heal and energize the Body for renewed evangelism after a trial of discord (in chapter 6).  Find them gathered in prayer meetings all over town in chapter 12 to get Simon Peter out of jail, and to save his life.  Prayer meetings were the means of the church getting things done, as Jesus taught them that they would be in Matthew 18:18-20.  Every revived church will be empowered, guided, driven, and regularly impacted by prayer meetings.  The pastors must learn to lead them in a spiritual and Biblical Matthew 18 way, and members must get into the habit of participating in them.  New Testament churches engage in prayer meetings.

3.       Healthy church life.  We find that the revived church at Jerusalem engaged in warm fellowship together (verse 42), observing the Lord’s Supper regularly (verses 42 and 46), bearing one another’s burdens (verses 44-45), and coming together often for church (verses 46-47).  Church is really good for Christians, if the church is on the right track (although we must heed the warning in First Corinthians 11:17-22). The church should pray and plan to connect the members’ lives and families together for ministry (read First Corinthians 12:12-27).

4.       Revival campaigns.  For a while, they had church every day: “continuing daily with one accord” (verse 46). Eventually the main meetings of Christians were held on Sundays (Acts 20:7), but sometimes, such as the days that followed Pentecost, they met every day.  Such protracted meetings provide believers an opportunity to exhort one another regularly and raise the spirituality of the congregation (read Hebrews 3:12-13 and 10:24-25).  So revived churches should plan to have special meetings to revive the revival.

5.       Fervent praise.  All the time, the practice of praising God was common when believers gathered together.  The church meetings were characterized by “gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people” (verses 46-47).  They were happy and exuberant meetings, not dull and formal.  The Holy Spirit “livens up church.”  “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace” (Romans 8:6).  Church meetings should always be orderly (First Corinthians 14:26, 32-33, 40) but they should also be alive (verses 23-25).  Attention must be given to encouraging praise and testimony when we come together, letting the Lord fill the room with joy and gratitude (Ephesians 5:19-20).

6.       True Christianity.  It was the real thing that these Christians practiced.  See how they loved each other in verses 44 through 47.  Tradition must give way to scriptural reality.

7.       Ongoing evangelism.  “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”  It was every day that the congregation took in new members who had just come to Christ.  The harvest of souls that began at Pentecost continued as the evangelization of the city (Acts 1:8) continued.  Both public and personal proclamation of the Gospel got the message of salvation to everyone in town (look up Acts 5:27-29 and 42).  A revived church must operate as an aggressively evangelistic church, with everybody witnessing and bringing people to Christ every day.

When God sends revival to a church, the people and their leaders should take a good look at how they have been doing things.  Ministry methods based mainly on public relations, hard work, manipulation, promotion, and worldly wisdom should be re-examined, and unspiritual philosophies and practices dropped.  The mission of the church must be adjusted to match Acts 1:8 and the methods book of Acts.  The people should learn to hold prayer meetings in order to cooperate with God and to get things done.  The preachers must examine their teaching in the light of revival truth.  The church should get ready for scriptural change, and be excited about it.  Everybody should re-dedicate his life to the service of Christ, and lean on the Holy Spirit for the power to spread the Gospel in the town and to minister to the needs of the saints.  Let’s have revival the way we are told in James 4:8-10, and plan to go forward on the higher plane to which we have been lifted!


Dr. Rick Flanders
Revival Ministries

Why Your Town is so Hard

Across the nation, pastors and the members of their churches have convinced themselves that the

reason that they are not reaping a spiritual harvest that could be called “plenteous” is that their town is hard, and unusually unresponsive to evangelism.  It is as if we think that souls could be won and churches could be built some places, but not in our town.  It is true that for various reasons response to the Gospel differs from place to place.  We cannot expect that evangelism will produce the same exact results from house to house, individual to individual, and even from city to city.  Yet we are still looking at promises from our Lord that “the fields…are white already to harvest” (John 4:35), and that we can expect to “bear much fruit” (John 15:1-8), based not on any favorable circumstances in the world, but rather on the continuing realities of Christianity.  Paul expressed hope that he would indeed bear much fruit from evangelism in Rome, a city he had never visited before (read Romans 1:13-15).  “I am sure that, when I come unto you [he wrote to the Roman Christians], I shall come in the fullness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ” (Romans 15:29).  To the church at Colossae he said that “the truth of the gospel…is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it” (Colossians 1:5-7).  The Gospel of Jesus Christ is powerful, and brings results wherever it is spread, and to blame the fields for the failure of the harvest is not consistent with the Word of God (read again Matthew 9:37-38).  Actually there are other reasons why we are having trouble reaching people.  It is not that our town is too hard to reach.

1.       BECAUSE IT’S NOT REALLY BEING EVANGELIZED!

In Jerusalem the Christians were accused of saturating the city with the Gospel.  The authorities complained to the apostles, “Ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine” (read Acts 5:17-32).  This should be the goal of people who were commanded by Jesus to “preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15).  The fact is that most cities that are labeled by the church as Gospel-hardened are really Gospel-ignorant.  In Ephesus (read the story in Acts 19 and 20), the Gospel was spread “publicly, and from house to house” so that “all that dwelt in [the province of] Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus” in two years’ time.  What about your town?  Has every home received an evangelistic visit?  Has the city been covered with Gospel literature?  How many evangelistic meetings were held in the last year to which believers were actively urging the attendance of unbelievers?  Is witnessing a part of the pastor’s life, and does his example, encouragement, and instruction help his members be soul winners?  The truth is that very little spreading of the Gospel is going on in your town, and there is something you can do about it.  It isn’t the town that’s so hard; the problem is that the church is not really evangelistic.

 

2.       BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT REALLY FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Our witness to Christ is supposed to be given in the power of the Spirit of God.  The Lord Jesus made this clear before He went back to Heaven.  Remember that on the Mount of Olives, His parting words were, 

“Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”

(Acts 1:8)

In the book of Luke we are told that we must preach “repentance and remission of sins…among all nations,” but that in order to accomplish this mission, we must be “endued with power from on high,” referring to the power of the Spirit (read Luke 24:46-49).  Speaking of spreading the Gospel, Simon Peter testified, “We are witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey Him” (Acts 5:32).  The night before He died on the cross, the Lord introduced His disciples to the new ministry of the Holy Spirit which would begin on the day of Pentecost.  He would live within them, and would act as their “Comforter” (Helper), giving them the power to obey the commands of Christ (see John 14:15-17). He explained His role in our witnessing with these words:

 

“When the Comforter is come, Whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me: and ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with Me…It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you [believers]; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you.  And when He is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment…”

(John 15:26-27 and 16:7-8)

The Holy Spirit in believers will reprove the world and prepare lost men to receive the Savior.  With the Holy Spirit testifying to the truth as we witness for Jesus, sinners will see their need of Jesus.  In this way we can expect to bear fruit (read again John 15:1-8).

 

Now every Christian got the Spirit when He believed in Jesus (Ephesians 1:13), but every believer, thus sealed with the Holy Spirit, is commanded to be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18-21).  That happens when we surrender to obey the Lord Jesus, absolutely (see John 14:15-17 and 15:14).  Before fulfilling our horizontal duty to evangelize, we must address the vertical issues we have with God, just as the first Christians in the days before Pentecost.  When we line up with Jesus and are thus abiding in Him we are filled with the Spirit for evangelism and our witness is made effective.

Spirit-filled Christians have power in their witness, and men will saved (look at Acts 4:31-33).  God gave us all we need to meet the needs of our town (Luke 11:1-13), but the town seems hard when sins and rebellion keep us from being filled with the Spirit.  We need to get on our knees before we start blaming our town.  That’s what the first Christians did.

3.       BECAUSE SATANIC INFLUENCES ARE NOT BEING RESISTED.

Often we fail to fix spiritual problems because we fail to take into account activity in the invisible world.  We are told, 

“Stand against the wiles of the devil.  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.  Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day…”

(Ephesians 6:11-13)

Not every spiritual problem is caused by Satan, but there is a hierarchy of evil powers active in this world that must be confronted by anyone who wants to do any good for God.  We must “resist the devil” for him to “flee” from us (see James 4:7 and First Peter 5:8-11).  Sometimes the problem in our town is in the invisible world.  Perhaps we are opposed in our work of evangelism by satanic principalities and powers.  Thankfully, the Lord Jesus Christ defeated the devil and his angels (Ephesians 1:15-23), and we can stand against them successfully in the authority of our Lord.  And we must do it in order to reach a community blinded by the god of this world.  In prayer, let’s bind them, fight them, cast them out, and bring them to defeat.  It can be done, and generally must be done before the truth can advance.

4.       BECAUSE NOBODY YET HAS HAD THE PATIENCE TO PREVAIL.

Persistence is an essential element in winning spiritual victories.  Have you run across the scriptures that call on us to persist and not give up (such as Matthew 15:22-28, Luke 11:5-8, and Luke 18:1-7)?   In the New Testament, the work of evangelism is compared to the work of farming.  We plow and sow and water and reap, and it is God that gives the increase.  Farming requires patience and persistence (be sure to read Matthew 13:1-9, Mark 4:26-29, and First Corinthians 3:6-9).  We must stay at it if we are to reach our town: stay at evangelizing, stay at praying, stay at seeking the Lord, stay at letting God lead us, stay at living for Jesus, and stay at believing for results.  When our church persists in such things, it looks like the church in Acts! Often a town gets the reputation of hardness because nobody has stayed at it long enough to reap a harvest.  The city of Ephesus finally saw the triumph of the Gospel only after several years of sowing the seed in the power of the Spirit.  Read the story again in Acts 19:1-20.  Somebody will have to persist in the important work of getting the love of Jesus to everyone in your town, and sticking with people until they are made into His disciples!

It never helps to make excuses for the lack of results, especially when the Bible promises them.  Let every preacher and every witness for Christ focus scripturally on spreading the Gospel, learning to be filled with the Holy Ghost, standing against the powers of darkness, and persisting in the work until we see a powerful, soul-saving work done in our own town.

 

Dr. Rick Flanders

Revival Ministries