Why This Issue Should Matter To All Fundamentalists
The importance of ecclesiastical separation in Fundamentalism is such that I believe that it is necessary to reinforce its proper place amidst the present critics’ attempts to cull men away to a fresh, more “accurate” perspective.
It is evident from Dr. Kevin T. Bauder’s writings that he sees problems within Fundamentalism. No doubt the heads of many genuine, committed Fundamentalists would nod in agreement with this statement of his,
Much of what transpires under the name of fundamentalism is not the idea, but rather appurtenances. If fundamentalism is going to be made healthy, it needs a good expectorant. A few boils need to be lanced. Perhaps some tumors will require surgery. These procedures may cause discomfort, but they are done for the health of the body.
Someone who criticizes the phlegm and pus may not hate the body, but rather desire its health. Someone may lay a tumor bare because the tumor disfigures and threatens the body. The body is healthier without it. (Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, “Now about Thoses Differences, Part One: Why This Discussion?” In the Nick of Time, May 28, 2010.)
However, there is a real difference in what men believe the appurtenances in Fundamentalism are. We can be confident, though, that most self-identifying Fundamentalists do not believe that ecclesiastical separation which focuses on church purity is one of them. Dr. Bauder in attempting to set the record straight for future generations of his “ideal” Fundamentalism wrote the following:
It has been suggested that we practice ecclesiastical separation because we are concerned about the purity of the church. Strictly speaking, that is not true. We practice ecclesiastical separation because we are concerned about the purity of the gospel. (Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, “Thinking about the Gospel, Part 5: The Gospel and Christian Fellowship,” In the Nick of Time, July 13, 2007.)
Let us examine what a few unashamed, self-identified Fundamentalists have previously written on the subject of Fundamentalism’s ecclesiastical separation. It should not be missed that all of these men were associated with prominent Fundamentalist seminaries (Central, Faith, and Detroit).
FUNDAMENTALISM HAS THE DISTINCTIVE OF ECCLESIASTICAL SEPARATION
Another vital facet of the self-identity of fundamentalism is the doctrine and practice of ecclesiastical separation. It is at once both the most maligned and/or misunderstood distinctive of fundamentalism and probably the most defining one. Fundamentalism and separatism walk in lock step. James Singleton said correctly, “Without an authentic separation there can be no authentic fundamentalism.” pp. 27-28 (Dr. Rolland D. McCune, “The Self-Identity of Fundamentalism,” Detroit Baptist Theological Journal 1, Spring 1996, pp.27-28.)
In short, what makes fundamentalism distinct is the doctrine of ecclesiastical separation. Article 15 of DBTS’s doctrinal statement clearly affirms this doctrine: “Ecclesiastical separation is the refusal to collaborate with a church, ecclesiastical organization, or religious leader which does not hold to the fundamental, cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, and a like refusal concerning those who maintain connections or are content to walk with those who do not hold to the fundamental, cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.” As this article affirms, the doctrine of ecclesiastical separation focuses upon local churches and ecclesiastical organizations in the church age. (Dr. Robert V. McCabe, “The Old Testament Foundation for Separation,” Detroit Baptist Theological Journal 7, Fall 2002, p. 4.)
In a previous Faith Pulpit article (May/June 1996), Dr. Robert G. Delnay discusses “Third-Generation Christians.” He states that “in the third generation the importance of deliverance and of the founding issues gets less and less.” He further warns of the possibility that “the third generation will have brought about the end of the founder’s dream.” These trends can also be a possibility within Fundamentalism. Personal and ecclesiastical separation, and an exposition and defense of the faith can all become less significant to one who is unaware of their importance or Biblical basis. One may even reject the whole stand with the excuse that “he knows better.” He may struggle with the pride of youth and view himself as superior to those who have sacrificed for his spiritual growth. (Dr. Alan C. Cole, “Three Perils of Fundamentalism’s Next Generation,” Faith Pulpit, February 2000.)
Being a Fundamentalist is not just wearing a label. It is a firm exposition of and commitment to a theological position, and, in particular, to personal and ecclesiastical separation. It is the application of all doctrine to everyday life. It seems that some, in their attempt to promote a softer and less distinct Fundamentalism, have forsaken their commitment to its declaration and practice. At the heart of this issue is an attempt to be more relevant to mankind while forgetting faithfulness to the Lord and to His Word. When one attends ecumenical conventions for male leadership, when one uses “Christian Rock” or Contemporary Christian Music to build his youth group, when one is unwilling to defend and declare personal and ecclesiastical separation, he is guilty of religious pluralism. He is combining the world with the Word and clouding the lines of distinction between them. (Dr. Alan C. Cole, “Three Perils of Fundamentalism’s Next Generation,” Faith Pulpit, February 2000.)
The Board of Directors of Faith Baptist Bible College and Theological Seminary published in both the college and seminary catalogs a document entitled Historic Position Statement. In it the reader is told, “Since mid-century, the school has taught secondary ecclesiastical separation.”
It is the purpose of this article to try to explain what is meant by this term, to examine several biblical passages traditionally used to defend this view, and to provide an example of this practice in a contemporary situation.
An Explanation of Secondary Separation
Paul Enns believes Christians should organizationally separate from apostasy but not from other Christians. He describes those who separate not only from men who deny the Christian faith but also from believers who cooperate with apostates as neo-fundamentalists who are guilty of practicing secondary separation.
Paul R. Jackson, National Representative of the GARBC in the 1960s, said, “The position that we hold is set forth in three subdivisions. First, separation is an eternal and unchanging principle of God. . . . Second, God has commanded that we should be separate from unbelievers. . . . Third, it is God’s commandment that we separate from our brothers when they walk in disobedience.” It is this third point that makes Jackson’s statement a good example of secondary separation. (Dr. Myron Houghton, “Secondary Ecclesiastical Separation,” Faith Pulpit, November 2003.)
FBBC&TS has long been associated with the separatist movement. It has stood against religious apostasy, and sought to maintain a Biblical position in the area of ecclesiastical relationships. Its institutional Statement of Belief states: “We believe that progressive sanctification involves separation not only from ungodly living but also from ungodly teaching; that though we love all men and seek their salvation, there are areas in which we cannot have fellowship with unbelievers; that, in areas of ecclesiastical fellowship, it may be necessary to separate even from our brethren in Christ, if they in turn maintain fellowship with unbelievers” (FBBC College Catalog, 1992-1995, p. 15).
Although the fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the early part of the century is past, the present theological trends prevalent in much of evangelical Christianity make the issue of ecclesiastical separation just as relevant today. The old modernism may have died out, but newer forms of theological liberalism have risen up to take its place – all committed to the premise that the historical, scientific, and other factual content in the Bible should be viewed as containing error. And even within so-called Bible-believing circles there are those who agree with this liberal concept of a Bible with errors in it. Thus, one is faced today with mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic denial of the Bible’s factual accuracy and those with evangelical backgrounds and credentials agreeing with them – yet continuing to teach at well-known evangelical schools. Other Bible-believing leaders and institutions, while not condoning this major departure from historic Christianity, act as if it did not exist or is no big deal. (Dr. Arthur B. Walton, “Ecclesiastical Separation,” Faith Pulpit, September 1993.)
Separation is necessary for purity and for the stability of the Church. Consider II Thessalonians 2:15, the church in Thessalonica was exhorted by Paul to stand fast to the true doctrine which he taught. True doctrine cannot be maintained when believers collaborate with unbelievers! The way to maintain doctrinal purity is to withdraw oneself from apostasy and those who would cooperate with apostates. In this day of compromise and ecumenism, let the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ stand fast and hold the traditions which are taught in the Word of God. (Dennis Zuber, “A Call for Separation,” Faith Pulpit, July/August 1995.)
One of the chief differences between New Evangelicals and fundamentalists concerns the views of each regarding what we call “ecclesiastical separation.” Fundamentalist separatists believe that there should be complete separation from all churches and fellowships of churches that tolerate unbelief or compromise with error. In contrasting fundamentalism and evangelicalism, [J. Randall] Peterson observed, “The spirit of evangelicalism . . . is more amiable. We consider it important to maintain fellowship with other Christians, even if they are mistaken on certain issues, especially if they can join us in advancing the gospel.” This observation is quite typical of the general attitude of New Evangelicals–”let us compromise doctrinal matters for the sake of evangelism.” (Dr. Ernest Pickering,The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism, Bob Jones University Press: Greenville, SC, 1994, p. 21.)
Here is some of what I note from all of the above quotes.
- Ecclesiastical separation is seen as a distinctive of Fundamentalism and a chief difference between it and Evangelicalism.
- Fundamentalism’s ecclesiastical separation includes both separation from unbelievers and believers who compromise with them.
- Ecclesiastical separation is focused on the purity of the church.
- Evangelicalism halts at a separation that extends beyond the Gospel boundaries.
What are the implications of changing Fundamentalism’s ecclesiastical separation away from the purity of the church to the purity of the Gospel and forging strategic alliances with Conservative Evangelicals around that Gospel? At least one Fundamentalist suggests that to do so should only come with a change of labels as one is no longer in accord with historic Fundamentalism.
Clearly the answer to the question, “Are conservative Southern Baptists fundamentalists?” is “No.” This answer does not mean that Southern Baptists are not good people who genuinely want to serve the Lord or that the conservatives have not made advances within the Convention. Rather, the answer reveals that the conservatives are not going in the same direction as fundamentalists. Organizations which have been historically identified as separatist and fundamentalist need to decide whether they are willing to partner with conservative Southern Baptists and thus depart from their historic direction. If they are willing to do so, they should drop the fundamentalist identification. (Dr. George Houghton, “Are Conservative Southern Baptists Fundamentalists?” Faith Pulpit, January/February 2004.)
If you are going to change your stance on ecclesiastical separation, please do not forget to change your name, as the two go hand-in-hand.
Returning to the physician analogy, it seems to me that Dr. Bauder’s diagnosis and prescribed remedies go beyond the acceptable practice of general medicine and is more akin to Dr. Frankenstein’s theory in that he desires to put a new brain into what he sees as a dead movement. But just as with Dr. Frankenstein, what he is presently doing appears to be giving the new life-filled movement of his “ideal” Fundamentalism the compromised thinking of Neo Evangelicalism rather than a greater degree of Biblical fidelity.
What more needs to be said?
July 16, 2010 at 12:19 am |
For those desiring interaction on this post, please note that I will not be available until perhaps late in the evening to get back with you.
July 16, 2010 at 8:00 am |
Gordon:
You are doing a great service in your articles on ecclesiastical separation and the apparent paradigm shift we are witnessing away from it in recent months.
What are the implications of changing Fundamentalism ecclesiastical separation from the purity of the church to the purity of the Gospel and forging strategic alliances with Conservative Evangelicals around that Gospel?
IMO, it is important to identify that the interpretation of “that Gospel” that the men like Kevin Bauder Dave Doran want to unite around with the so-called “conservative” evangelicals is a Calvinistic soteriology in the form of the Lordship Salvation (LS) interpretation of the Gospel. I think this is an important discussion that is not being fully disclosed by the men who are calling for unity with the evangelicals around this so-called “pure [LS] gospel.”
The evangelicals are in lock step on LS; they all agree that anything short of LS is a false “easy-believism” Gospel.
Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran are trying to influence men in traditionally Fundamentalist circles to unify with the evangelicals around a so-called “pure gospel” and that being unity around the non-saving, works based LS gospel. The problem in forging strategic alliances with Conservative Evangelicals around that Gospel” one must agree to tolerate the doctrinal aberrations, cultural relativism and ecumenical compromises of the evangelicals to forge those alliances.
We are witnessing a willingness to nullify and/or abandon the God-given mandates for separatism (Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3: 6, 14-15) for the sake of forging strategic alliances with conservative evangelicals around another tragic error- Lordship Salvation.
These are potentially tragic days for authentic biblical separatism.
LM
July 16, 2010 at 1:39 pm |
Gordon,
I do appreciate the posting. It is becoming more and more evident that another major break within Fundamentalism is just around the corner. It was not a pretty site when the New Evangelicals broke with Fundamentalism and this new “mood” is just as divisive, if not more so, and is becoming vocal. As you mention, “guys, please change your name and be careful of the door on your way out.” It is fidelity to God and His Word not just the Gospel.
July 16, 2010 at 2:44 pm |
Excellent article. Thank you for your work.
I will be posting comments on my blog on Monday dealing with these same issues.
July 16, 2010 at 5:03 pm |
I am not going to engage in a discussion, but I did want to simply offer a denial of this statement for myself (and I believe Kevin would for himself): “Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran are trying to influence men in traditionally Fundamentalist circles to unify with the evangelicals around a so-called “pure gospel” and that being unity around the non-saving, works based LS gospel.”
This is a false accusation. Sad, but not surprising that Lou would do this.
July 16, 2010 at 5:26 pm |
Dave Doran:
Then come out openly against the interpretation of the Gospel commonly known as Lordship Salvation (LS).
Be open and honest and tell the IFB community that you believe John MacArthur is in error with his LS interpretation of the Gospel. Tell the IFB community that there can be no cooperative fellowship with the so-called “conservative” evangelicals because they teach and preach the works-based Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel. Tell us that a your own Gospel-Driven separation necessitates separation from the ce men who teach LS.
Do that and I will print a retraction and apology. But you aren’t going to do that; are you?
IMO you don’t want “to engage in [that] discussion;” you don’t want “to engage in a discussion” around, as Gordon noted, “That Gospel,” which is LS; Isn’t that it? Isn’t that why you drop in for a drive by posting and duck out?
Finally, your Gospel-Driven separation surely did not have any genuine traction when Al Mohler signed the Manhattan Declaration as you dismissed his giving Christian recognition to the “enemies of the cross of Christ” and compromising the Gospel as merely, “a wrong decision based on bad judgment.”
LM
July 16, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
Dr. Ketchum:
Please send me an e-mail alert on your Monday article, I’d like to make my readers aware of it.
Thanks,
Lou
July 16, 2010 at 5:44 pm |
Brian:
“I do appreciate the posting. It is becoming more and more evident that another major break within Fundamentalism is just around the corner.”
Without a doubt! I have been saying that for two years and furthermore I’ve been encouraging the angry YF’s to just go ahead and get it over with.
IMO there need be no break in IFB circles over Calvinism, but the LS gospel and this growing affinity for conservative evangelicals, the tolerance for their doctrinal aberrations, cultural relativism and ecumenical compromise signals we are near the end of cooperative efforts with men like Kevin Bauder who are trying to influence the younger men to embrace evangelicalism’s star personalities and their fellowships.
One can never forget Dr. Gerald Priest’s commentary on Bauder’s incendiary Let’s Get Clear on This
Dr. Priest wrote, “Kevin has been quite lavish in his praise of conservative evangelicals while castigating so-called fundamentalists…. What I fear is that we may be allowing a Trojan horse into the fundamentalist camp. And after a while, if we keep going down this track, any significant difference between conservative evangelical and the fundamentalist institutions may disappear.”
Lou
July 17, 2010 at 12:12 am |
It is late, and my day has been extremely busy and tomorrow appears to be offering the same thing.
I do want to at least generally acknowledge those of you that commented and regret having to put off interacting with you until another time. When my schedule allows me to do so, I will get back with you.
July 17, 2010 at 11:20 am |
Here’s exactly why there won’t be (and really can’t be) any discussion, Lou. You don’t even seem to understand what you yourself have written, let alone what anybody else has written. Reread the quote from you that I provided and you should be able to see that you accused me of “trying to influence men in traditionally Fundamentalist circles to unify with the evangelicals….” Yes, you alleged that this unity would be built around an understanding of the gospel that embraces Lordship salvation, but the heart of the accusation is that I am trying to promote unity between Fundamentalists and evangelicals. That is a lie and false accusation. I am not doing anything of the sort.
As for shifting the subject to John MacArthur, I am not going to play your games. For the record, I’ve never read any of MacArthur’s books on the subject. If you want to know what I believe about the power of the gospel, then read chapter four of For the Sake of His Name (available through the Missions Mandate website).
I know an online controversy would be good for your book sales, but please don’t lie about people to acheive it.
July 18, 2010 at 4:12 pm |
Dr. Doran,
Would you be in agreement with Dr. Bauder about his “strictly speaking” definition of ecclesiastical separation as focused on the purity of Gospel or do you agree with the words of the men I quoted in my article?
When you wrote at your blog about changing the application of your fellowship and separation from following a map to now following a compass heading, are you essentially arguing for what Dr. Bauder is articulating about ecclesiastical separation? If not, what are the differences?
Are the specific examples of limited fellowship with CE men cited by Brian some of what we can expect of you, ICBC, and DBTS in implementing this compass orientation?
Finally, inside what he calls the boundary of the Gospel I note that Dr. Bauder never speaks of separation but speaks of only limits on areas of fellowship, do you believe that there is Biblically mandated separation from some who are within the bounds of the Gospel or do you agree with Dr. Bauder that there are only limits to your fellowship with them? As for me, I think there is a difference between separation and limited fellowship.
July 17, 2010 at 12:34 pm |
To Dave Doran,
As I look at the landscape that is Fundamentalism, I do wonder about your stance. As Lou pointed out, you tried to quickly sidestep the Al Mohler signing of the MD when in reality it is just one more step in the new evangelical walk of compromise and ecumenism that Mohler has been a part of. You say you are not influencing the Fundamentalists to unite with evangelicals, then, for example, why have Conrad Mbewe (sp?) speak at your church? In looking at Conrad Mbewe’s blog posting of his trip to America, it is clear he is of an evangelical stripe (conservative maybe, but evangelical just the same) and by no means a Fundamentalist. As a president of a seminary as well as pastor you have the influence of not just your congregation but young people from across our country and beyond as well. As a fellow pastor who has the care of my flock at heart I must be kept abreast of the workings of colleges and seminaries for my young people. I must wonder then about DBTS with the uncertain sound you are sending when it comes to the conservative evangelicals. Paul makes it quite clear in Romans 16:17 what we are to be doing with the CE crowd, to mark and avoid them. Are they (the CE crowd) causing divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you learned Dr. Doran? Then mark and avoid them. Simple enough. If you are not willing to mark and avoid then you leave those of us who are out here to then wonder if there is no difference between you and the CE crowd. Give us a certain sound, Dr. Doran.
July 17, 2010 at 1:48 pm |
http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/2010/07/census-consensus-and-censorship.html
July 17, 2010 at 3:21 pm |
Dave:
I can add more to Brian’s comment. He has this issue and your role in it pegged!
“ but the heart of the accusation is that I am trying to promote unity between Fundamentalists and evangelicals. That is a lie and false accusation. I am not doing anything of the sort”
Really? Is that right? Then please tell all of us why you brought in a faculty member from John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary, MICHAEL VLACH in particular to teach at your Seminary, DBTS in March of this year.
You are bringing evangelicals to DBTS a self-identified Fundamentalist seminary, a ministry of your own local church, ICBC. And you have the nerve to suggest that you are not “trying to promote unity between Fundamentalists and evangelicals?”
If there is lack of truth and lack of transparency here it is yours!
Shall we again consider what Dr. Gerald Priest had to say about Bauder’s incendiary Let’s Get Clear on This especially since his words now have special bearing on your opening the doors of DBTS and thereby exposing its pupils to evangelicals.
Dr. Priest wrote, “What I fear is that we may be allowing a Trojan horse into the fundamentalist camp. And after a while, if we keep going down this track, any significant difference between conservative evangelical and the fundamentalist institutions may disappear.”
Your actions are directly contributing to the blurring the lines of distinction between conservative evangelical and fundamentalist institutions.
And now back to Lordship Salvation- You’re expecting men to believe that you, a long time senior pastor, with a Ph.D., and a seminary president has no idea what LS is, has no idea how MacArthur, for virtually every evangelical, defines their interpretation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
If you are actually that naïve, have no clue what LS is as is it taught and preached by MacArthur, the faculty of The Master’s Seminary, thousands of the so-called “conservative” evangelicals and many of our Calvinistic IFB men, you had better do the study and figure it out because when you brought Michael Vlach to DBTS you brought in Lordship Salvation. But I suspect you already knew that; didn’t you Dave?
LM
July 17, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
Dr. Doran,
As the pastor of a large, conservative Baptist church and president of a conservative Baptist seminary, I am more than a little astonished to hear you say that you have never read ANY of John MacArthur’s books on the subject of Lordship Salvation (The Gospel According to Jesus, Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles, Saved Without a Doubt, Hard to Believe, etc.). The Lordship Salvation issue has been arguably the most controversial and hotly contested soteriological subject within conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism in the last two decades; and John MacArthur is the leading spokesman on this topic. This would be similar to living in 1530s Europe and never having read anything by Calvin or Luther on the subject of justification.
That aside, I have personally read all of your book, For the Sake of His Name. On the whole, it is a very good book on missions in my estimation. I greatly appreciated and agreed with your position on missions and the local church and even your historical analysis about the detrimental effects of neo-evangelicalism and ecumenical parachurch organizations.
However, in your fourth chapter you plainly espouse Lordship Salvation. As one who has carefully read your fourth chapter, I have a question for you about salvation. In the chapter you maintain that when the lost believe the gospel they necessarily follow Christ thereafter as disciples; and if they do not, that means that they do not possess genuine saving faith and are not regenerated. While I also believe that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all those who believe, you clearly require a life of service and obedience in order to make it to heaven.
For example, on pp. 84-85 you say, “The biblical gospel makes disciples who have turned to Christ, not simply added him to their collection of gods or squeezed Him into an unaltered life. This is why Paul cold express confidence in the salvation of the Thessalonian believers . . .” and then you go on to quote 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 about turning to God “to serve” Him, followed by Matthew 6:24 about not serving two masters. You use the word “serve” three times in that paragraph on p. 85. This leaves the distinct impression in the mind of the reader that people had better “serve” Christ or else they are not truly saved and they will go to hell. How is that not salvation by works/service?
You also close the chapter by saying on p. 92, “Christ commanded us to make disciples who would follow Him in baptism and obey all that He commanded, so our missionary efforts must settle for nothing less.” Few would deny that the Great Commission entails more than preaching the good news of how a person may be justified in God’s sight. It also involves teaching them Christ’s commands and baptizing them as believers.
But this leads to another problem and question I have in regards to your chapter on the gospel, discipleship and the Great Commission. If baptism and obeying Christ’s commands is part of discipleship (and it is), and discipleship is part of believing the gospel as you argue throughout the chapter, then how does one escape the conclusion that baptism and obedience to Christ’s commands are not ultimately necessary for eternal salvation?
Tom Stegall
July 17, 2010 at 5:48 pm |
Seeing much go on over the years, it is truely sad when some seperate from others when traditionally in the past-there was no differance in the original ideals of fundamentalism.
When we do not know our history, we will fall divided against each other while the new modernism-post modern emergent church will I believe devour and destroy quite a few fundamentalist churches. I honestly believe between 30-50 yrs, countries will be sending missionaries to the United States of America.
At the start of the fundamentalist movement, Calvinists absolutely had no problem yokeing with non Calvinists in the fundamentals of the faith. When we say we are a fundamentalist in our doctrine and then judge Calvinists for being in false doctrine bec ause of Calvinism-i.e. in need of salvation as Calvinism and Lordship Salvation seen as heretical ideals of another gospel.
Many fail to realize this one truth-Calvinists were very much a big part of originating fundamentalism and propogating it. When I see what many others judge as heretical and these holding those doctrines for myself shows a lack of understanding of our fundamentalist history.
As I left the independent Baptist fundamentalism expressly for this reason, when encountering others who judge like this, I tend to encourage to rip the fundamentalist moniker off your church. Christ taught if a house is divided against itself will fall, this was one of the ideas that prompted me to leave Baptist Fundamentalism. Am still a Baptist and a fundamentalist(reformed Baptist), but I see quite a bit coming down where I do not think anyone will remain an Independant Fundamental Baptist and in 50 yrs will be a historical footnote and not a vibrant community who stand for truth.
July 17, 2010 at 6:48 pm |
To David Emme,
You ought to read the thread a bit better than you did. No one has blasted Calvinism in this thread. Quite the contrary, Lou stated, “IMO there need be no break in IFB circles over Calvinism” and he is right. You see Calvinism is not the issue here.
You should read of the history of Fundamentalism a little more closely. Our history is one marked by separation because of aberrant doctrine on the part of some. Be it the liberal/modernists of the 1920′s or the inclusivists/ecumenists of the 1950′s. While some have made it their duty to separate over everything under the sun and thereby hurt those who hold to a true Biblical doctrine of separation, the doctrine of separation has always been the touchstone “in the pursuit of purity,” to slightly paraphrase the title of an outstanding book on the history of Fundamentalism.
David, read Romans 16:17. Regardless of who holds the aberrant doctrine, I am commanded to mark and avoid that man. This will make my life uncomfortable because I may very well have to speak to some who I count as friends but fidelity to God and His Word is far more important than retaining friends.
July 18, 2010 at 4:00 am |
Au Contraire
Lou: ”IMO, it is important to identify that the interpretation of “that Gospel” that the men like Kevin Bauder Dave Doran want to unite around with the so-called “conservative” evangelicals is a Calvinistic soteriology in the form of the Lordship Salvation (LS) interpretation of the Gospel. I think this is an important discussion that is not being fully disclosed by the men who are calling for unity with the evangelicals around this so-called “pure [LS] gospel.””
I offer this from wikipedia: Some of the historical advocates of the Free Grace position are Johannes Agricola, Nicolaus von Amsdorf, Andreas Osiander, John Cotton,[6] Anne Hutchinson,[7] Henry Vane, William Dell, Thomas Boston, Robert Sandeman[8] and Jesse Mercer. Its more recent adherents include L. S. Chafer, Harry Ironside, Lance Latham, J. Dwight Pentecost, John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, Miles J. Stanford, Warren W. Wiersbe, Zane C. Hodges, Charles Stanley, Tony Evans, Ernest Pickering, Curtis Hutson, Bruce Wilkinson, Erwin Lutzer and William Newell [1].[9] Its prominent present-day expressions are the Grace Evangelical Society, the Free Grace Alliance [2], the Plymouth Brethren, Calvary Chapel, and the Chinese-American local churches movement. Free Grace theology, under this name, originated in the late 20th century as a critical response to a perceived legalist abuse of the New Testament by Calvinism’s Lordship salvation, Catholicism, and Arminianism. These teach that perseverance in good works is obligatory as believers can never be completely sure that they are going to Heaven. [1][10]
Here is the point of all this, almost just about anyone claiming Independent Baptist Fundamentalism in any sense who strays from certain ideas and adopt others such as no longer believing KJV onlyism while adopt5ing Calvinism and Lordship dsalvation-yep-you got it, on the official word of someone you never met in real life-you are officially a heretic.
I have no problem being against heresy-the real kind. For me, the whole point is for all you are against when in the past-Calvinbists(somehow I remember Meachem being a Calvinist at a Calvinist Seminary-Princeton who did quite a bit to propogate the fundamental truth and defend the word of God).
Do we even know what it means to be a Fundamentalists or understand the fundamentals of the faith-or only our own private interpretation?
July 18, 2010 at 4:03 am |
I apologise on this and se where some confusion can be. Originally I had stated about how often our fundamentalists borrow from Evangelicals and took some parts out and did not notice this as basically-the wikipedia article was to show how we often say we are against evangelicals which I often think is opposite of what people say they do.
I apologise for that bitty slip up.
July 18, 2010 at 8:29 am |
Dave Emme:
While I appreciate some of what you are trying to communicate I want to reiterate that Calvinism is not necessarily a test of fellowship in IFB circles. Lordship Salvation, on the other hand, is a false, non-saving interpretation of the Gospel. Any man who holds to that position as MacArthur defines LS is in grave error.
If he is unrepentant, will not listen to correction from the Scripture and insists on propagating Lordship’s works based message then we have a mandated course of action to obey from the Bible. That mandate is, as Brian has noted,
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them,” (Romans 16:17).
We have no choice, but to separate from any and all advocates of Lordship Salvation as it (LS) is “contrary to the doctrine.”
I’ve been sharing for some time that the time may be upon IFB men for a parting of the ways over Lordship Salvation. I would direct your attention to an article I wrote to speak to this matter. Please see, What is the Fault Line for Fracture in Fundamentalism?
Kind regards,
LM
PS: I’ll drop it there as I trust we are all quite interested in what will be Dave Doran’s response to Tom Stegall’s legitimate comments/question to Doran about excerpts from For the Sake of His Name.
July 19, 2010 at 4:41 am |
Brian:
Earlier in this thread you wrote to Dave Doran, “You say you are not influencing the Fundamentalists to unite with evangelicals, then, for example, why have Conrad Mbewe speak at your church? In looking at Conrad Mbewe’s blog posting of his trip to America, it is clear he is of an evangelical stripe (conservative maybe, but evangelical just the same) and by no means a Fundamentalist.”
I read from Conrad Mbewe’s (aka., the Spurgeon of Africa) blog about his being hosted by Dave Doran and speaking on a Sunday evening at Inter City Baptist Church. Mbewe opened a paragraph on his visit to ICBC this way, “ Sunday saw me ministering at Bethesda Baptist Church in the morning and at Inter-City Baptist Church in the evening.” See- The 2010 True Church Conference in the USA, paragraph #6.
You closed to Doran this way,
“I must wonder then about DBTS [and ICBC] with the uncertain sound you are sending when it comes to the conservative evangelicals. Paul makes it quite clear in Romans 16:17 what we are to be doing with the CE crowd, to mark and avoid them…. If you are not willing to mark and avoid then you leave those of us who are out here to then wonder if there is no difference between you and the CE crowd.”
Thanks for sharing this example of Doran opening the doors to his own local church to another evangelical (Michael Vlach at DBTS) and setting Mbewe before his congregation to be influenced by him toward unity among Fundamentalists and the so-called conservative evangelicals.
Lou
July 19, 2010 at 3:51 pm |
Brother Phillips,
I am always curious when people such as yourself take others to task on the issue of separation. I see that you are a graduate of Pensacola Christian College. Have you ever confronted them with regard to their unorthodox stance on Bibliology? Have you confronted them and/or separated from them with regard to this issue and the division they have caused? Do you separate from independent, fundamental churches who are unorthodox on this issue (i.e. those who would be KJV only)? I am going to assume that the answer to all of these questions is: “no”. I would gladly stand corrected if that is not the case. But if my assumption is correct, than you are speaking hypocritically on this issue. You are taking others to task when you aren’t willing to abide by the same rules on an issue that is indeed a fundamental of the faith (preservation).
This example is the problem with fundamentalist separation over the past decades. It has been grossly inconsistent. That is why the message of Bauder and Doran is resonating with so many I believe. They are at least calling for consistency on the issue of separation. Unfortunately, the old guard doesn’t like that so they do what they’ve done for years – attack. What a tragedy. What a disgrace.
July 19, 2010 at 6:03 pm |
Bro. Mincy,
While I am not answering for Bro. Phillips, one must ask you why you are doing a bait and switch from the initial article? What Bauder and Doran are doing resonates not because they are consistent (case in point with Doran, he wrote a good separation article for Frontline years ago{1995 to be exact vol. 5 number 5}, yet now has openly brought in within the past year two evangelicals into the church/seminary, Conrad Mbewe and Michael Vlach) please, how is that being consistent? The perceived problems of past Fundamentalists is not the issue with those who are looking/moving toward or are already in the conservative evangelical orb. Rather they are no longer willing to self-identify with the historic Fundamentalist position. If you have been reading any of Bauder’s articles over the past year, it has been evident that he is seeking to redefine a number of terms/positions in order promote his own ideas which to this point seem to indicate his willingness to at least on some level have a working relationship with conservative evangelicals. Again, how is that being consistent with the historic Fundamentalist position? How is Bauder following in the steps of Dr. Clearwaters or Dr. Pickering former presidents who stood firmly in the Fundamentalist movement and were actively and Biblically denouncing the compromise of their day? Answer; he is not.
You say, ” This example is the problem with fundamentalist separation over the past decades. It has been grossly inconsistent.” Really, please cite some examples of mainstream fundamentalists who have been inconsistent with the doctrine of separation? Those who I know were called out and criticized by the rabid KJVO crowd. No problem separating from the KJVO crowd because they want nothing to do with anyone who is the least bit different from their particular brand of KJVOism.
You also say, “They (Baduer and Doran) are at least calling for consistency on the issue of separation.” As I have already stated, neither Bauder nor Doran are being consistent when it comes to separation.
“What a tragedy.” Indeed, yes, a tragedy that men like Bauder and Doran are willingly compromising the clear Biblical mandates of Romans 16:17 and II Thess. 3:6, 14, 15. That is the disgrace in all this.
July 19, 2010 at 7:17 pm |
Dr. Doran, thank you for your unwavering stand on the gospel. Thank you for your stand in fundamentalism. Thank you for not taking the bait of foolish and ignorant men who seek to only argue and not learn. Hilarious line about the book sales by the way. We will probably see another edition soon with an update regarding you and Dr. Bauder.
July 19, 2010 at 7:36 pm |
James,
Oh I indeed have learned from men like Dr. Doran and Dr. Bauder. I’ve learned that men may change their position over time. James, take the time to read Dr. Doran’s 1995 Frontline article on militancy and see how he measures up against his own words. He condemns himself. Here is a quote: “Unfortunately, those who reject our position are quick to paint caricatures of our movement. The liberals did it; the New Evangelicals followed their example; and every defector from militant Fundamentalism has used the same tactic to ‘prove’ his position while rejecting militant separatism (cf. the writings of Jerry Falwell, Jack Van Impe and JOHN MACARTHUR {bold is my emphasis}).” That was 1995, now in 2010 the same Dr. Doran has Michael Vlach of Masters come and speak at the William R. Rice Lecture series.
Really, James, who are the foolish and ignorant men? Sadly, your compliment to Dr. Doran is not based in reality, for he has not been unwavering.
July 19, 2010 at 8:15 pm |
Probably against better judgment, I’ll reply to a few things.
To Tom Stegall, thank you for the kind words regarding the missions book. I am sorry that you are disappointed by my not having read MacArthur on this issue. In my defense I will offer that: (1) the initial book came out at an inoppportune time for me (finishing ThM, working on DMin, beginning a new pastorate), so my reading list was pretty full; (2) the books are really more like published sermons, so not really the kind of stuff that I would base my study of these issues on anyway; (3) this really isn’t a new issue at all, so one doesn’t need to be up on what contemporary authors say about it to understand what is at stake; and (4) you’re thinking that his books are essential reading probably reflects more on your view of theology and ministry than mine.
As to your concerns about my position as presented in FSN, I think, at least based on what you’ve written, that you are assuming too much and committing at least one logical fallacy. To argue that the truly regenerate will follow Christ is something different from saying that being saved is based on following Christ. If we disagree with each other on the former, that is truly significant, but it really isn’t what the OP and my comment were about.
To Brian Ernsberger, I hope you’ll excuse me for thinking that the impression you gave early on that you’d like me to be clear about my position on things rings hollow since you seem to think you know exactly what I think about all of this. Likewise, my guess is that you’ve never recommended anyone to come to DBTS and have no intentions of doing thus, so that too rings hollow. To my knowledge, I don’t know you and you don’t know me beyond what you’ve picked up here and there. I find it funny, though, that you would feign to not know what my views are when I’ve been abundantly forthright about them on my blog, in conferences, etc. In reality, it’s just that you don’t agree with me and don’t like what I’ve said and written. That’s fine, but lose the impression of inquisitiveness when you’re aren’t inquiring, you’re passing judgment.
Gordon, fight over the name all you want. I’ve been very clear about where I come down on that one. The irony of the meta here is that about the same time I was writing that Frontline article, your alma mater was describing me as leaven in fundamentalism. So, this is nothing new. People with turf to protect (and books to sell) will keep on framing debates in their own terms so as to have the upper hand. I personally don’t care what you call it at this point in the game. I just want to pastor and train biblical separatists who will pastor and plant separatist churches.
In the end, we will all give an account to the Lord Jesus Christ, not each other (1 Cor 4:1-5). I am content to leave it there.
July 20, 2010 at 8:39 am |
Dr. Doran,
Perhaps your comments about the importance of the name would be better directed at Dr. George Houghton than me.
As I pointed out to Mark, trying to make hay with the fact that I graduated from PCC is improper.
With all due respect, I do not believe that you have the right to redefine what a Biblical separatist is so that you can continue to wear that label and at the same time have limited fellowship with the CE crowd as you have begun to do. If keeping old labels isn’t important to you, come up with a proper label for what you believe and practice and leave historic meanings and their labels alone.
July 19, 2010 at 9:12 pm |
Brian:
You gave the right response to Brother Mincy. When I read his note, which you’ve replied to it made me think of the Obama regime’s “blame Bush” mantra instead of taking ownership of your own issues. To what you noted I want to add the following.
Ps. Mincy wrote, “They [Bauder and Doran] are at least calling for consistency on the issue of separation.” The Scriptures you cited (Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15) are crystal clear. There is no subjective decision to make. Yet Bauder and Doran are wholly inconsistent to the point of selective application of the biblical mandates for the sake of encouraging acceptance of and unity with the so-called conservative evangelicals (ce) where they (the ce men) are in doctrine and practice. There has been no call whatsoever that I am aware of from them to the ce men to move toward faithfulness to the God-given mandates for separatism.
Both Bauder and Doran dismissed Al Mohler signing the Manhattan Declaration; an action that compromised the Gospel and gave Christian recognition to the deadly enemies of the cross of Christ. John Piper’s invite of Rick Warren has been entirely ignored by them. The charismatic teaching of Piper and Mahaney is tolerated or ignored as well as the cultural relativism and worldliness in ministry of the ce camp. Men like Bauder and Doran are willing to and have tolerated, allowed for, ignore or dismissed these kinds of issues that they, as far as I know, would never allow for or tolerate in their own ministry. Why?
I’ll make a little prediction here. In Bauder’s current series he will never touch on any of these things I noted above. Why? Because to do so would bring the biblical mandates for separatism from erring or disobedient brethren into play and he is not going to open the door for that application. Kevin, prove my prediction wrong.
I would remind our readers how Dr. Gerald Priest reacted to Kevin Bauder’s incendiary article, “Let’s Get Clear on This. He wrote, “Kevin has been quite lavish in his praise of conservative evangelicals while castigating so-called fundamentalists…. What I fear is that we may be allowing a Trojan horse into the fundamentalist camp. And after a while, if we keep going down this track, any significant difference between conservative evangelical and the fundamentalist institutions may disappear.” IMO, Doran’s presenting evangelicals in his pulpit (Carlos Mbewe) and in the seminary (Michael Vlach) is hastening the day when, “any significant difference between conservative evangelical and the fundamentalist institutions may disappear” his institutions in particular.
Peter Masters writes like more of a biblical separatist than Bauder or Doran in regard to the star personalities of the new Calvinists of the T4G camp. From, The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness,
“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. Why have the leading preachers servicing this movement compromised so readily? They have not been threatened by a Soviet regime. No one has held a gun to their heads. This is a shameful capitulation, and we must earnestly pray that what they have encouraged will not take over Calvinism and ruin a generation of reachable Christian young people.
A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm in the book is the Together for the Gospel conference, running from 2006. A more adult affair convened by respected Calvinists, this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every -error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked. These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety.”
We never read anything like that from Bauder or Doran.
Brother Mincy, I appreciate you, but on this issue you are wrong.
LM
July 19, 2010 at 9:54 pm |
Gents:
First, from my view, Doran and Bauder are not the ones in violation of the scripture passages you site. But we will never agree on that. Continued discourse is futile unfortunately.
Second, I don’t believe that my first post was “bait and switch” as you say. Rather, I believe it was spot on. The issue within fundamentalism has been gross inconsistency in separation. Bringing up the KJV issue is not bait and switch. It is a completely legitimate example of where fundamentalists have been hypocritical in their treatment of conservative evangelicals. You guys (Gordon, Lou, et al) cry foul when Doran has a Masters’ guy as a guest at DBTS. But you could care less when your friends cozy up to the Hyles’ crowd. At the very least, that’s inconsistent. It might even be hypocritical.
Third – Lou, just for clarification, I’m probably not the Mincy you are thinking of. We (you and I) don’t know each other.
Finally, separation is a “family” issue. It is very instructive for me to watch some of the hardline fundamental separatists have to deal with their own family members (i.e. – children) as they grow up and come to different “positions” on some of the issues that would formerly merit separation. Do they separate from their family? None that I know of do. They still love them. They don’t “call them out” in front of the whole world. Sure there is a kind of “practical separation” (i.e. they don’t go to their child’s church when they visit, etc.). But they don’t air all the dirty laundry for all the world to see. There is a sense in which that is how it should be in the family of God. Unfortunately, there are still too many folks who would rather live out their days by publicly bludgeoning their brothers and sisters in Christ. In fact, some seem to “make their living” doing such things. That is truly tragic and truly disgraceful.
May God help us to examine ourselves and insure that we are faithful and consistent before Him.
July 20, 2010 at 8:14 am |
Mark,
When an individual engaged in a discussion attempts to redirect it away from its point and onto the qualifications or lack thereof of the others involved in the discussion, that person is regarded to be using an ad hominem argument. Ad hominem arguments are unbecoming and uncharitable and a direct violation of this blog’s comment policy. Please keep this in mind when commenting in the future.
Therefore, the fact that I graduated from a certain institution or anywhere at all for that matter is irrelevant.
Nevertheless, I do plan on writing about Bibliology in the distant future. However, I do not think that I should presently be spending my time commenting about those who have added on to a house, whether necessary or unnecessarily, when others in the house are eagerly chipping away at its foundations.
For the record: As I recall, the pastor of the church where I was a member at the time of the PCC controversy did send a letter to Dr. Horton. Concerning myself, I truly doubt that anyone of importance down at PCC would recall who I was without some kind of prompting of their memories.
For the record: My own position on Bibliology was covered at my ordination counsel, and my ordination certificate was signed by the likes of Pastor Bob Taylor and even Dr. Sam Harbin who is now at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary in PA.
You could not have been more wrong about your generalizations written in haste and in the absence of any knowledge of me personally.
I would encourage individuals who wish to post here to spend more time reading the whole of this blog rather than its insignificant “About” page when attempting to understand who I am in my beliefs and practices. Even though this blog is new since November, individuals including you, Mark, could have found important information which would have prevented you from writing in haste the several things that you did. Building arguments from the “About” page at any blog could give the other readers the impression that someone has no substance to offer on point and is only attempting to engage in a use of words that are unbecoming and uncharitable in light of who we are to be in Christ. I never mind passion, but have it coupled to the point not the person.
Now then, even a casual glance reveals that the bulk of this article were the words of other men and not my own. In this article I simply have taken portions from these men’s works pertaining to ecclesiastical separation and set them in direct context with the words of Dr. Bauder. These men were chosen specifically because of their institutional ties. These institutions chose to publish the words of these men and in most cases did so allowing these words to represent their own institutional position on ecclesiastical separation. Some of these institutions are no longer true to their past. That is important.
Because the essence of this article is the words of these men, anyone who reacts against them has a problem with these men and their respective institution’s position on ecclesiastical separation more than who I am or even what little I wrote herein.
I am sure that Dr. Bauder knows that the things he writes are in direct contrast to historic Fundamentalism. Other men particularly the younger generation may not know that. I intend to let them know so that they can make an informed decision about whether to forsake historic Fundamentalism as they are being encouraged to do.
July 20, 2010 at 2:37 pm |
Mark Mincy,
You again bring up the hypocrisy of Fundamentalists who denounce one side but not another, again, cite examples? Being old enough to remember what took place in Hammond, the mainstream Fundamentalists had nothing to do with Hyles and said as much. His aberrant view of KJVOism’s incorruptible seed was denounced. Just because there were some who did not speak up doesn’t mean that they spoke for all of Fundamentalism. As has been noted by many in other places, Fundamentalism is not monlithic. There is not just one voice to Fundamentalism. We must also be aware that means of communication were different prior to the internet and much of what is done in “public” via blogs, etc., was done through the more private medium of letters and would to this day still be largely unknown to those outside of who wrote the letters and who received them.
To speak of your “family” issue. Sad, indeed, that separation must at times be taken within a family. Been there done that! And yes, I have had to at times make that public just like Paul did with Timothy when warning him about certain individuals. Is it pleasant? NO! Is it fun? NO! Is it necessary? At times, YES!
Mark, you keep making these general statements, hypocrisy in the old Fundamentalists, speaking out against CE but not hyper-fundamentalism, etc., as if to say that everyone who claims to be a Fundamentalist is guilty of such things. That simply is not true.
Yes, I would agree that some have abused the calling out of others, but just because some have abused the Scriptual admonitions doesn’t mean that others must stop using those same admonitions in their proper usage.
You would have us to be silent because some of bygone years have abused and misused Scriptural admonitions. Please, would you really? I cannot answer for others, I must answer for myself and I cannot be silent when the Scriptures tell me to speak out.
July 20, 2010 at 7:40 am |
Brian:
Very noteworthy that you reference Doran’s 1995 article In Defense of Militancy (IDOM). You wrote to another person in this thread, “…take the time to read Dr. Doran’s 1995 Frontline article on militancy and see how he measures up against his own words. He condemns himself.”
I read and archived Doran’s article when it was published in 95. I believe the motivation for the IDOM article may have been to deal with Evangelicals & Catholics Together (E&CT). That article was as powerful a polemic for biblical separatism that you will ever read and I was grateful for it then as I am now.
Now 15 years later it is irrefutable, from his own on line evidence, that Dave Doran no longer stands on IDOM’s solid, biblical separatist platform as he defined it in the 95 article.
In February I was asked to write an article for FrontLine magazine on the Manhattan Declaration. The article appeared in the March/April edition under the title, The Manhattan Declaration: Is This Another Step Toward the Supra-Religion?
The MD is the first cousin of E&CT. Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan and other so-called “conservative” evangelicals signed the MD. It is irrefutable that for Mohler to sign it he gave Christian recognition to the deadly “enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil. 3:18) and compromised the Gospel. Dave Doran’s final position on Mohler signing the MD was that is was merely, “a wrong decision based on bad judgment.” Bauder dismissed it as nothing more than an “occasional inconsistency…a single episode.” Bauder (and Doran) know that signing the MD was not Mohler’s first or only foray into ecumenical compromise. See- Al Mohler: Was This a First Time Foray Toward Ecumenism?
Back to my FrontLine article. In it I purposely included an excerpt from Doran’s IDOM. This is that excerpt:
“The Fundamentalists’ compelling belief that separation was a thoroughly biblical command, coupled with a deep understanding of the sinister nature of unbelief, led to a militant commitment to separation from those who disobeyed God’s command to break with religious apostates…. It seems to me that those who want to rid contemporary Fundamentalism of its alleged belligerence should watch the pathway carefully. The last group of people to take that path found it to be a winding road which ends up in a theological wasteland.”
I included it in my FrontLine article for two reasons:
1) Because it is a powerful statement for biblical separatism and thoroughly applicable to the Manhattan Declaration.
2) To in a subtle way demonstrate that Dave Doran, by virtue of his dismissing Mohler’s signing the MD, no longer believes or stands for what he wrote in IDOM.
Compare how Dave Doran dismissed Mohler signing the MD, compare how he is encouraging unity between Fundamentalist and the so-called “conservative” evangelicals, compare his opening his church and seminary to the evangelicals, compare how he now tolerates, allows for, ignores or excuses the doctrinal aberrations, worldly methods of ministry, cultural relativism and ecumenical compromises of the evangelicals- compare all of that to what he wrote in IDOM and as you say, “he condemns himself.”
LM
July 20, 2010 at 9:08 am |
I find it interesting that many of the comments going on in this discussion are exactly what I refer to in the article, Census, Consensus, & Censorship.
http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/2010/07/census-consensus-and-censorship.html
There are those trying to redefine Fundamentalism by creating a pseudo-consensus. Young Fundamentalists (now Conservative Evangelicals) believe that the “old guard” are the dinosaurs of Fundamentalism that are about to become extinct. Self-censorship by many of the “old guard” is done to protect themselves against being relegated to obscurity by the younger men. Those who self-censor are the ones who are really guilty in the attempt to redefine historic Fundamentalism. It reminds me of a young man telling a World War II veteran that what the veteran remembered is not right because the young man had learned it differently.
There are also those trying to censor certain individuals by painting them as extremists who should not be heard.
July 20, 2010 at 9:55 am |
Dr. Ketchum,
Thanks for your observations.
Without betraying any confidences, let me assure those that are following this issue here or elsewhere that there are others (“Old Guard” men) who though are quiet at this time are paying close attention to what is occurring. No doubt in the future some of these men will be responding.
July 20, 2010 at 9:40 am |
Dr. Doran,
Thank you for writing a reply to my comments and question.
Regarding the doctrine of salvation expressed in your book, For the Sake of His Name, I would welcome the opportunity to further address with you the subject of Lordship Salvation and particularly the nature of saving faith.
My concern with your view of saving faith expressed in your book is that it confuses the condition for eternal life (faith alone) with the commands placed upon the believer for discipleship in the Christian life. It seems that your definition of even initial, saving faith and repentance involves more than a trust or reliance upon the finished work of Christ and a persuastion of one’s need for Christ and the truthfulness of the gospel. You effectively “front-load” the gospel with meritorious requirements that go beyond biblical saving faith and repentance. This is the essence of Lordship Salvation.
Hence, this is not a matter of committing a logical fallacy about whether regeneration will or will not necessarily result in obedient discipleship. That is a separate, though related, subject matter.
Let me reiterate that I would be willing to continue addressing this subject with you from Scripture. If you prefer to do so privately rather than publicly, you may contact me through our church’s address (info@wogbc.org) and I would be happy to continue a cordial, biblical correspondence with you.
Out of concern for the gospel,
Tom Stegall
July 20, 2010 at 10:06 am |
Gordon,
I’m wondering if we are reading the same material here
. I close and exit with the same words I finished my earlier post with:
May God help us to examine ourselves and insure that we are faithful and consistent before Him.
July 20, 2010 at 10:13 am |
Brother Gordon,
What are the “old guard” waiting for? Are they waiting to reinforce those wounded and bleeding on the front lines of the battle? If anyone should be on the front lines, it is the “old guard.” One “old guard” told me once that he was just tired of the fighting. I told him to get off the battle field and quit pretending he was still a warrior. The moment a Fundamentalist loses his militancy, he ceases to be a Fundamentalist.
I am reminded of the statement by David Ben-Gurion in the Zionist Review from 1944:
“What have you done to us, you freedom-loving peoples, guardians of justice, defenders of the high principles of democracy and of the brotherhood of man? What have you allowed to be perpetrated against a defenseless people while you stood aside and let it bleed to death, without offering help or succour, without calling on the fiends to stop, in the language of retribution which alone they would understand. Why do you profane our pain and wrath with empty expressions of sympathy which ring like a mockery in the ears of millions of the damned in the torture house of Nazi Europe? Why have you not even supplied arms to our ghetto rebels, as you have done for the partisans and underground fighters of other nations? Why did you not help us establish contacts with them, as you have done in the case of the partisans in Greece and Yugoslavia and the underground movements elsewhere? If, instead of Jews, thousands of English, American or Russian women, children and aged had been tortured every day, burnt to death, asphyxiated in gas chambers-would you have acted in the same way?”
July 20, 2010 at 10:28 am |
Dr. Ketchum,
That is a good question and hopefully will provoke some of them that are halting into quicker action.
However, sometimes I wonder if perhaps some of them are watching to see who among the younger generation will arise to the occasion just as they had to do in their day by which they became the “Old Guard” as we know them as. Some day soon they all will be gone, and we who are here must carry the burden of earnestly contending for the Faith.
By the way, I count myself among the wounded, bleeding, and left behind on the battlefield for the defense of the Faith.
July 20, 2010 at 10:40 am |
Gordon:
IMO, they should not be leaving the job to among others a Christian bussinessman that they should be doing as well and themselves.
Lou
July 20, 2010 at 10:52 am |
Lou,
I believe that in the classic The Fundamentals that a few articles were written by non-ministers including at least two by lawyer Philip Mauro. You are in good company.
Thanks for your labors!
July 20, 2010 at 10:35 am |
Lance/Gordon:
I too have been privately encouraging some of the “old guard,” the good balanced men in fundamentalism, to engage this necessary battle for the sake of fidelity to God’s Word on separatism. I have also asked some of them, “what are you waiting for?” I am aware of some movement in some of our Bible colleges to address these things, but precious little else.
How many obvious betrayals, compromsies and articles encouaraging redefintion of and/or abandoning biblical separatism for the sake of fellowship with evangelicals will it take to stir men to action on behalf of the Scriptures? Hasn’t there be enough just cause already?
LM
July 20, 2010 at 10:45 am |
Pastor Stegall:
To Ps. Doran you just wrote, “My concern with your view of saving faith expressed in your book is that it confuses the condition for eternal life (faith alone) with the commands placed upon the believer for discipleship in the Christian life.”
Failing to distinguish the biblical difference between salvation and discipleship is one of the classic signs and egregious errors of Lordship Salvation.
Lou
July 20, 2010 at 1:49 pm |
To Dave Doran,
You are right we don’t know each other, though we were freshmen in college together way back when.
You say, “you (that is me) seem to think you (that’s me again) know exactly what I (Dave Doran) think about all this.” Really, please cite for me where I say such. I posted questions to you and you have refused to answer them. As noted to another person’s comment I referred to your 1995 article in Frontline, titled, In Defense of Militancy, and cited a paragraph you wrote defending those who called out men such as Jerry Falwell, Jack Van Impe and John MacArthur, for “rejecting militant separtism” (quoted words are yours not mine). You acknowledge these men’s errors in 1995 yet in 2010 you bring in Michael Vlach from JMac’s staff to speak. It is abundantly evident that JMac’s position has not changed from 1995 to 2010 as to his lack of “militant separatism.”
You guess I have never recommended DBTS, sorry, you guessed wrong so no, my inquiries aren’t hollow. It has only been recently (within the last year) that I have had any reservations about DBTS.
I do not feign to not know your views. I have not heard you in any conference setting, as to your blog, I only recently (within the last two months or so) have come across it and have by no means exhausted its store of information. Again. quite the contrary as to not agreeing to what you have said or written. As I noted, I quite agree with your Frontline article (the only thing of yours in print that I have read, outside of your blogs).
I have asked for a certain sound from you, Dr. Doran, and to this point receive none. You say your position is clear, really? Then why not answer my inquiries?
Sadly, sir, you are the one passing judgment. You have judged me to be quite insincere (or ringing hollow to use your term) in my posting when you acknowledge that you don’t know me and since you don’t know me you cannot know my intent outside from my own words posted here. Instead of taking them (my words) at face value and responding to them you have sought sidestep and caricature me as something I am not.
How have I passed judgment on you? Where is any statement in my posting that can be construed as passing judgement? Instead I have asked questions for clarification. You have spoken of militant separatism and have in practice done something different. If I am wrong in that observation then correct it. Please show me how your militant separatism is being practiced by bringing in Michael Vlach and Conrad Mbewe?
July 20, 2010 at 2:05 pm |
Brian:
To Dave Doran you wrote, “Instead of taking them (my words) at face value and responding to them you have sought sidestep and caricature me as something I am not.”
What you are describing is becoming increasingly commonplace with Doran and others among the angry YF’s. This is what was once referred to as the “politics of personal destruction.” This was honed to a fine art by Bill and Hillary Clinton in the 90’s. If you will not or cannot answer an argument, you dodge the issue. Instead of answering legitimate questions you instead try to demonize and destroy the messenger. Brother Mincy attempted this dodge the issue and destroy the messenger tactic with Gordon, which he (Gordon) thoroughly exposed and refuted.
You closed by asking Doran, “Please show me how your militant separatism is being practiced by bringing in Michael Vlach and Conrad Mbewe?”
Don’t hold your breath.
Lou
July 20, 2010 at 1:55 pm |
When Dr. Charles Woodbridge so eloquently articulated the danger of New Evangelicalism 40 years ago in his classic treatise on the subject, he spoke of “A movement with a new mood (toleration of false teachers, ridicule of fundamentalists)…following the downward path of toleration of error, accommodation to error, cooperation with error, contamination by error, and capitulation to error.”
I knew Dr. Woodbridge personally, and we talked about the seriousness of these matters on occasion. What he wrote then is coming to fruition in some of our so-called Fundamental institutions. Isn’t it interesting that the men whom we are concerned about: Drs. Bauder, Doran, and even Tim Jordan, are all presidents of seminaries? It has often been observed that what starts in the schools eventaully filters down to the pulpits and the pews of our churches. This is what makes the Bauders and Dorans so dangerous. They are attempting to morph biblical Fundamentalism into something new before our very eyes. Sadly, far too many so-called Young Fundamentalists are falling for the bait-hook, line and sinker. But just like many who voted for Obama are now having buyer’s remorse, even so, these YF will one day realize just how much they have been conned by these intellectual elitists who teach and administrate in the seminaries.
Vance Havner, 40 years ago, lamented the fact that we have more light than we have ever had, and less sight than ever before. The need of the hour is discernment to see the error and folly of those who are undermining militant Fundamentalism.
Dr. Bauder is a master of the straw man…errecting fictitious issues and controversies and then shooting them down with his supposedly erudite pen. Buyer, beware!
July 20, 2010 at 2:10 pm |
Gary, Brian, and the rest:
When there is no one else to fight, there is always yourself to fight. That seems to be the rallying cry for you movement guys who are trying to relive the New Fundamentalist / New Evangelical divide. There is no virtue in preserving a movement just for the sake of a movement.
The gospel is the identifying factor of what is first of all Christian in theology. Yes, I will unite with those who get the first priority right over those who do not. Your claims about biblical separatism ring hollow when you fail to properly understand the issue that warranted the original Fundamentalism movement.
[Edited by Site Administrator]
July 20, 2010 at 3:14 pm |
James,
Dr. Pickering supplies us these words of D. M. Panton, “To identify oneself with the truth is to place one’s self in the heart of a storm from which there is no escape in life.”
Concerning fellowshipping around the Gospel, I wrote an article entitled A Pure Church or a Pure Gospel: Does it Really Matter? for Lou at IDOTG I said,
Fidelity to Biblical truth is never easy to maintain. A dangerous compromising drift comes when the oars are laid up because the current of life never brings us closer to God.
July 20, 2010 at 3:51 pm |
“To identify oneself with the truth is to place one’s self in the heart of a storm from which there is no escape in life.”
This quote can be turned and used by the very people you and your kind are accusing of failure. They just apply it to different doctrines.
By the way, I never said I actually do “unite” with others. I just said that the priority is the gospel. The misleading “gospel” advocated by Lou and sadly those who agree with him is different enough that I would be constrained based on Rom 16 and 2 Thes 3 to avoid and separate from Lou. I cannot “unite” around false doctrine and teachers.
Take a minute and think about how unproductive all this has been when the same arguments can be flipped.
July 20, 2010 at 4:25 pm |
James,
And just what “storm” do men endure who refuse to be militant and separatistic on any thing other than the Gospel message? What loss of friendship do they know?
Are any of Dr. Mohler’s friends in the midst of a “storm” with him about his BGEA Louisville chairmanship or his signing TMD? Are any of Dr. Piper’s associates in the midst of a “storm” for rebuking him about Rick Warren being invitited to DG or his own scheduled appearance at a conference that also features at least two women expositors? Uh, no.
July 20, 2010 at 4:48 pm |
James,
You state, “By the way, I never said I actually do ‘unite’ with others. I just said the priority is the gospel.” Earlier you wrote, “Yes, I will unite with those who get the first priority right over those who do not.” So, I guess it comes down to verb tenses. You “will” unite at some point in the future but you aren’t necessarily united with anyone now. Is that it?
James, a question for you, where in the Bible does it say that the gospel trumps doctrine when it comes to unity? You speak of unity on the first priority,the gospel, where is that in the Bible?
July 20, 2010 at 5:01 pm |
Brian: (1) I apologize for questioning the sincerity of your inquiries; (2) if you will visit the DBTS website and look under the MACP 2009 audio you will find explanations of what I believe regarding separation; and (3) the fact that we disagree on some points of application seems clear enough for you to decide what you think about DBTS and me. I am not sure I could say anything more than I have already written and said. I regret that I broke from my normal policy of not entering into blog comments, and the main reason I have for that policy is the kind of thing that has happened here. I am completely fine with people disagreeing with the positions I have espoused and the applications of them that we make. I disagree with other people all the time.
Tom: I am open to whatever you’d like to send me in form of a critique of what I’ve written in FSN. You can send it to any of the email addresses found at our church or seminary websites. I’ll gladly and carefully read it.
Gordon: my mention of PCC was not intended to say anything about you. It was to highlight the mixed reviews that one can get–something I wrote in the mid 90s was being praised and at that same time I was being labeled as a danger for fundamentalism.
With that, I will depart. Need to get ready for a church service tonight with another compromiser–Tim Jordan.
July 20, 2010 at 5:59 pm |
Dave,
Apology accepted. As far as your explanation of what you believe regarding separation and reading further of those beliefs is at this juncture pointless. I have quoted your own words about separation and that men such as Jerry Falwell, Jack Van Impe and John MacArthur did not practice such militant separatism and would instead caricature those who did, and then asked how you could have invited such men as Conrad Mbewe and Michael Vlach given your own beliefs as stated in the Frontline article. You are right, I do disagree with you on your inviting these two men to speak.
Which leads me to yet another question which has not been addressed. In Romans 16:17 Paul writes, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” Since you have had these two men in and have not “marked” and “avoided” them, are we to take it that the three of you are in agreement concerning “the doctrine which ye have learned”?
July 21, 2010 at 1:11 pm |
Brian,
Two questions:
First, you begin by talking about Falwell, Van Impe, and MacArthur but ask about two totally different people. That seems a bit of a leap. Why the jump?
Second, where do Mbewe and Vlach cause divisions and teach contrary to the doctrine that we have learned? Why should someone mark and avoid them?
In closing, your stated refusal to listen to and interact with what Dave Doran has said at the MACP 2009 seems to give credence to his initial remark that your inquiry was not genuine. After all, someone who wants to know would surely listen to what he has said about the issue, wouldn’t they?
July 21, 2010 at 4:29 pm |
Bill,
First, read the entire posting. My “jump” as you call it is showing that in the 1995 article Doran identified three men who were not militant separatists and who caricatured those who were. The “jump” is coming to the present and noting that in 2009 Doran had Mbewe speak at ICBC and in 2010 he had Vlach speak at the seminary. Both men are by no means militant separatists which Doran at one time identified himself as such.
As far as these two men and whether or not they should be marked and avoided, both men are squarely within new evangelicalism and do not operate within the Biblical doctrine of separation. Their teaching on the doctrine of separation, as evidenced by their practice, is contrary to the doctrine which I have been taught and understand as I study the Word of God.
In your closing you accuse me not interacting with Dave Doran, again, read the whole posting. We have interacted, though he has not answered my questions. As I have already noted, I have “listened” to Doran on this issue by reading an article he wrote for Frontline, titled, In Defense of Militancy. A well written article defending the historic Fundamentalists’ position of militancy which has fallen on hard times in the new millennium. Since Doran’s “practice” has been different from what he has already stated, it really doesn’t matter if I listen to all that Doran has said on the subject. What he as said and what he has practiced are at odds with one another, therefore my questions.
I appreciate your questions Bill. I am indeed genuine with my inquiries with Dave Doran. I am a pastor and I have young people who may very well go on beyond college for advanced degrees. I have held DBTS as a possible place for acquiring that degree but when I see these kinds of things being done I must inquire and seek for answers.
July 21, 2010 at 3:37 pm |
Brian/Gordon:
In the thread it has been documented that Dave Doran has opened his church and seminary to expose his membership/student body to evangelicals. Doran hosted Conrad Mbewe in his pulpit and Michael Vlach in the seminary.
We can add another evangelical whom Dave Doran has welcomed to his pulpit to preach to the membership of ICBC. On July 13 Dr. Bryan Ferrell was the special guest speaker for ICBC’s Summer Bible Conference.
Dr. W. Bryan Ferrell serves as the pastor/teacher of Timberlake Baptist Church in Lynchburg, VA. Dr. Ferrell is in faculty at The Expositors Seminary (TES), which in his bio states,
“He earned a Master of Divinity in pastoral ministry in 2003 from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary in Lynchburg, VA and later, a Doctorate in Expository Preaching in 2008 from The Master’s Seminary in Sun Valley, CA.”
Of the 17 faculty members at TES 10 were trained at John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary, including Bryan Ferrell.
FWIW, the following is from the seminary’s statement of faith, Salvation section.
“As a matter of fact, the Bible always makes clear its prerequisite for true faith and repentance as substantiated by a genuine commitment and as confirmed by evidences of obedience. Biblical Christianity is discipleship (cf. Matthew 28:19-20; Luke 9:23-26, 62; 14:25-35; Acts 11:26; etc.)”
Obviously a Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel.
Earlier the thread Doran stated, “…the heart of the accusation is that I am trying to promote unity between Fundamentalists and evangelicals. That is a lie and false accusation. I am not doing anything of the sort.”
We’ve shown that Dave Doran has been, in fact, promoting unity between Fundamentalist and evangelicals. There is a clear, definable pattern developing. He is promoting this unity within his own local church and seminary. Through his public ministry and blog he is influencing impressionable persons outside his own local sphere of influence. Unless, of course, Doran is going to go on record that he and his church/seminary should no longer in his opinion be considered or referred to as Fundamentalist(s).
At the minimum, if not unity, he is working toward closer fellowship with evangelicals at the expense of tolerating, allowing for, ignoring or dismissing the doctrinal aberrations, cultural relativism, worldly methods of ministry and ecumenical compromises that clearly necessitate separatism from brethren that do these things.
LM
July 21, 2010 at 5:22 pm |
Brian, by your framing of the issues, the priority in your theology is ones view of separation. This is why fundamentalism, a movement with many johnnie-come-lately groups, as a name does not support one particular aspect against all the others. The early fundamentalists were more interested in preserving presbyterianism than fundamentalism.
So you can revile associations that don’t meet your take on separatism as much as you want. I am sure it brings you much comfort in redrawing the lines.
By the way, you seem to think that one is either in fundamentalism or new evangelicalism, but that view cannot be supported from reality, just the subculture you find yourself in.
The gospel must be the first issue in association. I didn’t say only issue, but it must be first.
July 21, 2010 at 5:26 pm |
Brian, I missed these questions you asked me:
“James, a question for you, where in the Bible does it say that the gospel trumps doctrine when it comes to unity?”
I never said the gospel trumps doctrine. If you would take the time to actually read what a person says before you type out your post, [original content edited out].
“You speak of unity on the first priority,the gospel, where is that in the Bible?”
There can be no unity without the gospel. Eph 4 tells the believers several things they all have in common BECAUSE OF THE GOSPEL. You said you are a pastor right?
[Edited by Site Administrator]
July 22, 2010 at 7:47 pm |
James,
I received your latest follow-up thread comment to Brian and decided against allowing it to be posted.
For future reference, please try to avoid peppering derogatory personal comments about those you disagree with into your thread comments and you might see less moderation and editing by me.
July 22, 2010 at 12:54 am |
James, I have read Eph. 4 many times over, have preached through the book on two occasions and for your benefit just read through it again. It is a shame that you cannot understand the difference between the unity that all believers have because of Christ, yes, because of the gospel and the fact that that unity cannot at times exist in the flesh on this earth. No one here is questioning the unity believers have in Christ because of the gospel, that is not what is at issue here, for the most part (granted there has been some mention of Lordship Salvation and its departure from being pure gospel, but that is for another discussion). My unity with fellow believers, yes starts because of the common bond we have in Christ and you may call it the first priority, if you will, but it is the start. The separation that is being spoken of here which you don’t seem to have grasped is between fellow believers over divergent doctrine that goes beyond the bond we have in Christ. As it has been noted in several comments through this thread, try reading Romans 16:17, II Thess. 3:6, 14, 15. All of these verses are addressed to believers bound together in Christ because of the gospel and they are commanded to separate, physically, from other believers because of different doctrine, different traditions, and not obeying Paul’s words in this (II Thess.) epistle. This for you James. ” I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love” and ” Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.” Eph. 4:1, 2, 29.
I have in my postings sought for answers to problems I see when “doctrine, teaching” conflicts with “practice.” To date there have been no answers. Just sidesteppings or “off the wall” postings that do not deal with the issues at hand. I have come to this site in openness holding no grudges against any of the participants, no hidden agendas, no chip on my shoulder, just seeking answers. Whether you or anyone else believes me or not is your problem not mine. The fact that your postings have had to be edited speaks something of your character, or rather the lack thereof. I speak this to your shame.
July 22, 2010 at 5:53 am |
Gordon:
You asked Dave Doran, “When you wrote at your blog about changing the application of your fellowship and separation from following a map to now following a compass heading, are you essentially arguing for what Dr. Bauder is articulating about ecclesiastical separation?”
I think it’s fairly simple. IMO, based on the empirical evidence we’ve seen, Dave Doran has a compass heading and like Bauder it is in the direction of fellowship and closing ranks with the so-called “conservative” evangelicals (ce). Both Bauder and Doran are influencing their own sphere of influence to follow them in that compass direction. Through their own blogs and sites like the pseudo- fundamentalist Sharper Iron they are reaching and influencing persons beyond their own immediate sphere of influence. The result being the younger and/or next generation will become what the ce men are in doctrine and practice.
The pathway of departure from ecclesiastical separation in favor of limited (for now) fellowship is to negate, redefine and/or chip away at the biblical, mandates for separatism. I documented an example of this by Dave Doran in the article, Is There a Second Definition for “Separation” in Academic Contexts?
It is no secret that Bauder and Doran have largely been tolerant of, allowed for, excused or ignored the doctrinal aberrations, cultural relativism, worldliness and repeated ecumenical compromises of the evangelicals. We’ve already seen that both men excused Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan signing the Manhattan Declaration. In regard to John Piper’s invite of Rick Warren to Desiring God both have been totally mute. Not one public word about it that I am aware of. Why?
Dismissing Mohler’s signing the MD, which compromised the Gospel, nothing on Piper’s invite of Rick Warren. Why?
Why are men like these, who claim a heritage of biblical separatism willing to tolerate and/or ignore all of this from the evangelicals? Why instead of admonishing and calling on those men to move toward fidelity in regard to the God given mandates for separatism we are being encouraged to accept the star personalities of evangelicalism and participate in their conferences? Is it possible they’ve learned that the ce men will never become faithful to genuine biblical separatism and therefore to have their fellowship with them they (Bauder/Doran) must relax their commitment to biblical separatism? Will the result of this compromise for the sake of fellowship result in becoming increasingly more like an evangelical in doctrine and practice?
Certainly the next generation who follow the Bauder/Doran lead to toward unity with the evangelicals will go further. The next generation will go beyond what may look like moderation coming from Bauder and Doran today and advance right into the very extremes we see in evangelicalism. Incremental compromise toward a full blown New Evangelicalism will be the result and it will have been men like Bauder and Doran who put the next generation on the pathway and pointed them in the direction that lead them there.
History affirms that compromise always leaves casualties in its wake!
LM
August 2, 2010 at 9:52 am |
It has been years since I was associated with “separatists.” Now I remember why I don’t “fellowship” with them any more. I know Dave Doran from way back. I knew his heart. I remember seeing his care and compassion for the men on his hall. I have no doubt that he took that into his evangelical efforts.
I am amazed at the amount of time, effort, and energy that is put into critiquing another’s position. If any of us think that we have a monopoly on the fine line between faith and the affects of the Holy Spirit in a convert’s life, then this is simply arrogance. I believe we will all be amazed at how much editing the Holy Spirit does to our evangelistic messages.
I am a simple pastor that tells people that God loves them so much that He sent His one and only unique Son to die on the cross for them. I tell them that they must believe, have faith, trust, rely on Jesus Christ and Him alone for their eternal life. I don’t really care what others think about that message. I am simply trying to be obedient to my God. In the last year I have personally seen 5 people come to faith, Hallelujah!
I will not waste my time critiquing others or reading someone else critiquing others. I will not ever return to this thread/blog or whatever it is.
August 2, 2010 at 11:24 am |
Tom,
I am struck by why you came to this site in the first place. I rejoice in the Lord ministering through you to the flock God has placed in your care. I am also struck by your own stated lack of care for you own flock. You say you will not critique others. As a fellow pastor the care of the flock goes beyond just feeding the flock the Word of God. Paul warned the Ephesian pastors, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”
The prophets of old were never popular as they issued their warnings to the Israelites. Sadly, we have not learned in our day. While I have no doubt you knew Dave Doran’s heart years ago when you were on campus. I read from his pen, and I trust from his heart, an article which he wrote 15 years ago, which he has by his actions reputiated. None of us are static, we change/are changed as the years go by. Just because we knew someone 30 yrs, 20 yrs, 10 yrs, ago doesn’t mean they are still positionally were they were when we knew them.
August 2, 2010 at 11:32 am |
Pastor Barron,
Sorry to read that you are no longer a Biblical separatist.
As to your statement, “I will not waste my time critiquing others or reading someone else critiquing others,” isn’t critiquing me and other separatists exactly what your comment amounted to?
The NT epistles are replete with critiques, as you call them. Reproof, rebuke, correction, and instruction are necessary to be a faithful minister of Christ and necessary to give if believers are not to be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.” If God identifies men as the means of leading the saints away from the truth then men and their teachings and practices I must examine.
August 2, 2010 at 1:53 pm |
Stop assuming. I didn’t say I wasn’t a separatist. I also didn’t say that message was the only one I give. Also, why would that be the only one that I give to the “called out ones?” The vast majority of the church attenders are already believers. That message is to unbelievers.
Both responses built on what I didn’t say. When did we become adversarial? You don’t know me. You probably don’t even know where I live. You certainly don’t know what I teach or believe, but yet you evaluate as though you have the entire story. This is really unbelievable to me.
I stated that I wouldn’t come back. I made the mistake of coming back.
By the way, the reason I showed up on this site was a link from another.
August 2, 2010 at 3:43 pm |
Pastor Tom,
My “assumption” of you not being a Biblical separatistic was based on this statement of yours, “It has been years since I was associated with ‘separatists.’ Now I remember why I don’t ‘fellowship’ with them any more.” If somehow you understand my statement to be in conflict with yours, I offer you my sincere apology.
August 3, 2010 at 7:55 pm |
Ps. Barron:
I believe you pastor the Central Bible Church in Aurora, IL. I live very near Aurora.
FWIW, Ps. Ernsberger right about Dave Doran. DD has changed for the worse, which is clearly evident in what has written in recent years and esp. from his embrace of and actions on behalf of evangelcials in spite of their doctrinal aberrations and ecumenism. He does not take the kind of stand he once did as he articulated in his 1995 article In Defense of Militancy.
LM