My Concern for BJU

“I was mortified this afternoon when I learned that the BJU campus store carried several books put out by the organization ‘Together for The Gospel.‘” – (that was my reaction several weeks ago after visiting the campus bookstore on an errand.)

The books were written and contributed to by men such as Mark Dever, Al Mohler, C.J. Mahaney, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Ligon Duncan,  and John Piper. This may come as a surprise to many others as well, but my main cause for shock is that I sat for 2.5 years a Bible student and preacher boy at BJU. During that time, I was taught vehemently from teachers, chapel speakers, and Dr. Bob Jones III that fundamentalists had no business dabbling with new evangelicals, Southern Baptists, charismatics and liberals, yet each of the authors / contributors I named are one or more of those labels.

My point is simple: what happened? What changed from the time I was student only about a year ago? I can still remember friday preacher boys meetings where we were warned against the very things I now have seen in the campus store, only 100 feet from Stratton Hall–where the preacher boys meetings took place.

There will be some who instantly write me off as a graduate “BJU-hater.” That could not be farther from the truth. I do hate the recent lean towards the left at BJU, but I love many of the faculty and staff who were excellent influences on my life. I do not hate the university. I could have went anywhere else if I hated it so badly. I have been at Bob Jones since the 3rd grade off and on through the academy and graduated  in 2011. To make such an accusation against me is false and desperate.

It is because of the love I still have for the university that I am crying out. I will not sit by quietly and watch what the founder and previous generations fought so nobly against destroy it now.

I have cried out in the past, though not this blatantly, against the shift towards the liberal left and always with stiff resistance from professing believers. No one wants to hear this but I fear Bob Jones University will become another Princeton, Harvard or on a more local level–another Furman.

Where are the conservative faculty, alumni, board members, etc.? Are they even aware of the changes and the shift leftward going on? I pray they are unaware and not party to it.

It is so easy to rationalize compromise, especially As enrollment drops and conservative fundamentalist churches become fewer and fewer.  The choice is simple: but money has a way of clouding the water and complicating things. I pray something will be done soon to reverse the last few years’ leaning towards the left.

Can people not see how far the school has gone in just a few years? The standards and principles have been lowered to address the economic problem of declining enrollment.  I am pleading with anyone reading this who loves BJU and wants to see it endure as a strong fundamentalist refuge for young generations: please contact then and share your concern and beseech them to return to the ancient landmarks and stand strong; not give into the whims of a young generation bent on compromise and being accepted  in the world.

It would be much easier to go along with the crowd and be silent, but I am choosing to break silence and hopefully awaken or inform those who just don’t realize what is going on.

Sincerely,

Ken Willis

Can we all get together only for the Gospel?

Philippians 1:27 - “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;”

In chapel today, we heard a message from Dr. Bob Jones III from this passage. The theme of the message was the fallacy prevalent in Fundamentalism today. Many Fundamentalist believers and church leaders are sadly mistaken and believe as long as they preach the gospel of salvation in Christ alone, the peripheral areas such as music, worship and separation are much less important. While the fact of the gospel is salvation in Christ alone, we can’t ignore the faith of the gospel—our response to the fact of the gospel. To argue the fact of the gospel is all that matters in separation is to deny a majority of the Bible’s importance and to fail to preach the whole council. (I have explained this in past posts.)

I have no idea whether or not Dr. Jones III was thinking of the group/conference “Together For the Gospel,” (T4G)[1] but it was certainly the first thing I thought of during the message. He may not have named T4G, but he did a much better thing: he proved from Scripture that the philosophy of T4G and those who believe like them is unbiblical.

This is not a “rail on T4G” session, but it is my comments on the sermon and the issue addressed in it. I am not going to name all those involved in it because I have most likely already done that in other posts and you hopefully know how I feel about them. I will only say that they are misguided and sincere though they may be, they are still preaching an unbiblical philosophy.

I would like to just share some things the Lord has shown me this week that I believe were capped off with this sermon. I am amazed at the series of passages and thoughts the Lord has used this week in my life to encourage and challenge me.

Earlier in the week, I was studying for my society Sunday school lesson on separation and holiness, which was followed Wednesday by Dr. Bob Wood’s sermon on Elijah—which dealt with Elijah’s depression. Elijah thought he was the only one true to God left and was greatly discouraged. He told God he wanted to die! God told him there were 5,000 men sealed in Israel that had not given up and were still faithful to Him. That was so encouraging to me. So often I am greatly discouraged at the way so many young people, my generation wants to accept this new philosophy of worship that is ever full of contemporary worship methods, wretched music and the absence of holiness. There are others though! Not everyone is falling for this trap of Satan in these last hours of time. There is a remnant!

Yesterday in chapel, my mind went to the passage in I Kings where the prophet Micaiah faced the 400 false prophets of Ahab. That’s how it is when we stand for the truth; we face overwhelming odds, yet we know that we have God’s message and the odds—great as they are—are preaching the message the masses want to hear and not the one God has given.

Last night the Lord impressed upon my heart the passage of Judges 17 where a man named Micah chose to make a replica of the temple so he could worship God. However, God said not to make such a model and only to worship in the temple. The theme verse of that chapter is number 6.

Judges 17:6 “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

Is that not a description of how the church is today? So many do what seems right in their eyes but ignore the mandates of worship God has left for us. Micah thought God would be pleased because of his sincerity and passion for worship. He said, “surely the LORD will do me good.” Well, that is not what happened. The LORD was sorely displeased and caused the tribe of Dan to steal the temple replica and left Micah with nothing. Perhaps those who seek to do as Micah did would do well to heed the warning.

The points of all these passages are that God’s way is the only right way, His way is usually only followed by a remnant, and that remnant is usually greatly despised and even hated by the masses.

I was really proud of Dr. Bob today. He made a lot of people mad, but the people angered over his message were not truly at variance with him, but God—because the message was God’s.

I am not asking for arguments; I don’t see a possible argument here. The Bible has spoken, and we either choose to obey or not—it’s that simple.

---

[1] http://t4g.org/

 

Thoughts on “Keeping the Gospel the Main Thing” Chapels

I really enjoyed last week’s emphasis on missions at BJU. It was a great reminder to be soul-conscious wherever we go. I especially enjoyed the class lecture Dr. Bob Rutledge gave my Middle Eastern History class on reaching the Muslim world. It was a real challenge and conviction to my heart that will not soon be forgotten.

****

The Chapel messages by Rev. J.D. Crowley were ones that caught my attention. I never seek to enter a service preparing to censor or critique the speaker, and I would never try to undermine a guest speaker; I could not help but see an underlying message being presented. There was a phrase or two, that are related in thought, that kept surfacing throughout the week: “Become all things to all men” and “focus on the Gospel and don’t make minor issues major issues.” I realize that some of what he was speaking about referred to following the letter of the law as a legalist and lacking the heart relationship. I do agree with that and understand why people are frustrated with it. But that is not all he meant. Though I initially believed him to mean simply to not judge cross-cultural differences that are not essential to the Gospel, the broader context presented a need to preach salvation and Christ alone and that all other aspects of the Christian life were cultural or personal preferences. I am not attacking Rev. Crowley, for I do not know his heart and cannot judge his motives, but I am pointing out the inevitable message and where it comes from.

Don’t crucify me yet, please hear me out.

This message of “keep the gospel the main thing” is not at all original with Rev. Crowley, for I have heard and read this from men and organizations such as C. J. Mahaney, John Piper, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Sovereign Grace Ministries, Together for the Gospel etc. What is going on?

The idea of “becoming all things to all men” is perfectly valid in situations like not serving an orthodox Jew a ham sandwich during a witnessing opportunity or not wearing a suit coat in an African village, but the way we heard it presented it was an underlying way of saying worship methods, music choices, and even social drinking choices are cultural and minor preference issues.

“We must preach the Gospel, which is ‘salvation by Christ alone’ but we must not discard the Biblical mandate of  the changed and separated life that is lived in response to the Gospel.” [edited 10/25/10]

When discussing this with a friend, he said that he had worked in many cross-cultural missions situations and pointed out that Jesus and the disciples were not blending into the culture, but were sticking out—not in an offensive way—that got people’s attention and made Christ and His followers distinct. When Christians turn the “become all things to all men” into a license to place virtually no value on so-called “minor issues of preference,” they are hijacking that verse, using it out of context and promoting a worldly Christian lifestyle that might draw large numbers but will never cause the world to see a real difference in believers and will not further the cause of Christ.

I am not seeking to slander or cast negative vibes, but somebody needs to say something. I may not be eloquent or intellectual, but we are dealing with an attack on truth here. How can Christians ever hope to impact the world by blending in with them? How can we support those who teach this?

I love BJU, I know it’s not perfect, but it is one of the final remaining pillars of Fundamentalism; it hurts to see it sliding away from what so many in the past have stood and fought for.

I pray that God will preserve my school and keep it pure from the “cultural blendism” ever so popular among modern day evangelicals.

Though I am NOT representing BJU in this note and do NOT speak for BJU, I consider BJU my home away from home and want to see it remain undefiled from this modern-day philosophy.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Willis

Not So Clear After All

Read this entire article before continuing on to my remarks.

March 5, 2010

Let’s Get Clear On This
Kevin T. Bauder

A variety of electronic periodicals reach my inbox regularly. One that arrives nearly every day is published by a retired seminary professor. Most days I derive a great deal of pleasure and often profit from glancing through his cogitations.

Today’s number, however, evoked a bit of concern. The dear fellow was reprinting some criticisms that he had received. Here is what they said.

The oft-repeated mantra coming out of Dr. Piper and Dr. Storms is that it is impossible for human beings to enjoy too much pleasure. We are made for pleasure, but it’s the pleasure of enjoying God. These guys are full-bore new evangelicals and Piper is a hard line Calvinist. . . Why are you promoting this sort of thing?

While I can appreciate many things coming out of Dr. Piper’s ministry, are you endorsing such a leading New Evangelical with no disclaimer? . . . I am sure you do not endorse the New Evangelicalism that is Dr. Piper’s ministry, but when we simply laud a New Evangelical by attending his conference and praising it, that is the result at the practical level.

These responses are typical of the way that some Fundamentalists view conservative evangelicals in general. These men apparently divide all American Christians into only two categories: Fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals. If a Christian leader is not recognized as a Fundamentalist, then he is considered to be a new evangelical, with all the opprobrium that follows.

This binary system of classification is far too simplistic. American Christianity never has been neatly divided between new evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Other groups have always existed, and one of them is the group that we now designate as conservative evangelicals.

Conservative evangelicalism encompasses a diverse spectrum of Christian leaders. Representatives include John Piper, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, Bruce Ware, Bryan Chapell, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, John D. Hannah, Ed Welch, Ligon Duncan, Tom Nettles, C. J. Mahaney, Norman Geisler, and R. C. Sproul. Conservative evangelical organizations include Together for the Gospel (T4G), the Gospel Coalition, the Master’s Seminary, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (at least in its better moments), and Ligonier Ministries. These individuals and organizations exhibit a remarkable range of differences, but they can be classed together because of their vigorous commitment to and defense of the gospel.

Both mainstream ecumenicals and Left-leaning evangelicals would like to classify these individuals as Fundamentalists. Conservative evangelicals, however, do not perceive themselves as Fundamentalists. Most Fundamentalists also recognize some differences. While there are similarities between them, enough differences remain that Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals ought to be distinguished from each other.

What are those differences? Anti-dispensationalism seems to be more widely characteristic of conservative evangelicalism than it is of Fundamentalism, though it is less vitriolic than the anti-Calvinism of some Fundamentalists. Toleration of Third-Wave charismatic theology is widely accepted among conservative evangelicals but universally rejected among Fundamentalists. Conservative evangelicals are willing to accommodate the more contemporary versions of popular culture, while Fundamentalists restrict themselves to older manifestations. Most importantly, Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals still do not agree about what to do with Christian leaders who make common cause with apostates.

Conservative evangelicals are different from Fundamentalists, but they are not new evangelicals. New evangelicals were committed to a policy of re-infiltrating ecclesiastical organizations that had been captured by apostates. They wanted to live in peaceful coexistence with apostasy. They were willing to recognize certain apostates as fellow-Christians and to cooperate with them in the Lord’s work. These are attitudes that conservative evangelicals explicitly reject. To apply this label to a conservative evangelical is completely unwarranted.

Frankly, conservative evangelicals do seem to take doctrine more seriously today than many Fundamentalists do. Not that the Fundamentalists are unwilling to discuss doctrine! Many of them are at this moment arguing for a “biblical” doctrine of the perfect preservation of the King James Version or of the Textus Receptus. Others have speculated that the work of redemption was not completed until Christ carried His material blood into the heavenly tabernacle, there to abide as a perpetual memorial before the presence of the Father. Still others have engaged in shrill campaigns of anti-Calvinism while defending theories of human nature that almost beg to be described as Pelagian. Such Fundamentalists are too numerous to be dismissed as aberrations—indeed, their tribe seems to be increasing.

Conservative evangelicals have oriented themselves by fixed points of doctrine. They have scoured apostasy from the world’s largest seminary. They have debunked Open Theism. They have articulated and defended a Complementarian position against evangelical feminism. They have rebutted the opponents of inerrancy. They have exposed and refuted the New Perspective on Paul. They have challenged the Emergent Church and laid bare its bankruptcy.

In other words, because many Fundamentalists appear to have lost their doctrinal sobriety, the initiative for defending the gospel has shifted from Fundamentalism to conservative evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. Rather than centering themselves upon theological novelties and idiosyncrasies, they have given themselves to a defense of the Faith.

Nevertheless, some Fundamentalists have managed to convince themselves that conservative evangelicals are the enemy. They insist that John Piper is a neo-evangelical. They actually hope to limit his influence—and the influence of other conservative evangelicals—in their churches and among their younger generation.

The apostle Paul insisted that he was “set for the defense of the gospel.” Fifty years ago, that phrase appeared on nearly every Fundamentalist ordination certificate. Today, however, Fundamentalists simply allow others to defend the gospel for them. The sad truth is that the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp.

To be sure, significant differences continue to exist between Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Those differences, however, are less serious than the ones that exist between the various camps within Fundamentalism. For example, many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?

Of course, many Fundamentalists reject these errors as well. Nevertheless, the errors that are tolerated within Fundamentalism are every bit as great as the errors that were committed by the new evangelicalism. They are certainly greater than the differences that exist between mainstream, historic Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.

Upcoming young leaders are uncertain about the future of Fundamentalism and about their future with it. And no wonder. One Fundamentalist college recently advertized that it does not teach Greek to theology majors. Why? Because the school has an “absolute conviction that the King James Bible is God’s perfect, preserved Word for the English Speaking World.” Contrast that school’s approach with D. A. Carson’s essays in his upcoming book, Collected Writings on Scripture. If young leaders are forced to choose between these two approaches, I have no doubt which choice they will make.

More and more Fundamentalists are coming to the same conclusion. They are not entering into full cooperation with conservative evangelicals, but they are working together in certain targeted areas. Quiet conversations have been occurring between some Fundamentalist leaders and some conservative evangelical leaders for several years. One seminary recently hosted John D. Hannah for a lecture series, and another hosted Ed Welch. A Fundamentalist mission agency brought in John Piper to challenge its missionaries. A leader who is a Fundamentalist pastor and seminary president has written for a conservative evangelical periodical. A very straight-laced Bible college sent its students to T4G. One elder statesman of Fundamentalism chose to preach in the chapel of a conservative evangelical seminary. Other Fundamentalist schools are slated to host Michael Vlach from Master’s Seminary and Mark Dever from Capital Hill Baptist Church. These steps are being taken, not by disaffected young Fundamentalists, but by the older generation of leadership within the mainstream of the Fundamentalist movement.

These leaders are neither abandoning Fundamentalism nor embracing conservative evangelicalism. They are simply recognizing that the Fundamentalist label is no guarantee of doctrinal fidelity. They are aware that historic, mainstream Fundamentalism has more in common with conservative evangelicals than it does with many who wear the Fundamentalist label.

Even such mild and narrow recognition, however, provokes panic from the Fundamentalist opponents of conservative evangelicals. Like the two critics at the beginning of this essay, these opponents express concern that any level of involvement with conservative evangelicals will constitute a blanket endorsement of their errors. These Fundamentalist critics, however, are seldom willing to express these same concerns over the excesses of the hyper-fundamentalist Right.

We Fundamentalists may not wish to identify with everything that conservative evangelicals say and do. To name these men as neo-evangelicals, nonetheless, is entirely unwarranted. To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today. We do not have to agree in every detail to recognize the value of what they do.

If we did not have conservative evangelicals to guard the borders, the real enemy would have invaded our camp long ago. Fundamentalism has exhibited a remarkable freedom from Open Theism, evangelical feminism, New Perspective theology, and other present-day threats to the gospel. The reason is not that Fundamentalists have kept the enemy at bay. The reason is that other thinkers—mainly conservative evangelicals—have carried the battle to the enemy. Conservative evangelicals are the heavy artillery, under the shelter of whose barrage Fundamentalists have been able to find some measure of theological safety.

So let’s get clear on this.

Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.

If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.

If we believe that we must respond to conservative evangelicalism, then let us begin by addressing the areas in which they have exposed our weakness. Let us refocus our attention upon the exaltation of God. Let us exalt, apply, and defend the gospel in all its fullness. If we were more like what we ought to be, perhaps we would feel less threatened by those whose exploits attract the attention of our followers.

Whatever our differences, I thank God for John Piper. I thank God for Mark Dever. I thank God for John MacArthur. I thank God for D. A. Carson. I thank God for a coalition of Christian leaders who have directed our focus to the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. May their defense of the biblical faith prosper.

________________________________

Comments From Ken Willis

This article was brought to my attention by a classmate who like it and endorsed on facebook; about one week later, a dear ministry friend sent me a link to the same article expressing his heart-brokenness over it. The stark contrast in opinions left me no choice but to closely examine it for myself.

First of all, I would like to preface this response / review with the fact that I have serious concerns with Bauder’s article and seriously question those feel the same way. I will admit that he does make some valid points–which I will address.

“These responses are typical of the way that some Fundamentalists view conservative evangelicals in general. These men apparently divide all American Christians into only two categories: Fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals. If a Christian leader is not recognized as a Fundamentalist, then he is considered to be a new evangelical, with all the opprobrium that follows.”
I believe Bauder has made a fatal flaw in saying that generally Fundamentalists view Christians in only two divisions. There are many labels that we as Fundamentalists have to wade through in the true Christian church. I’m afraid this statement was serving his purposes, but not actuality’s.

_____________________________
Conservative evangelicalism encompasses a diverse spectrum of Christian leaders. Representatives include John Piper, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, Bruce Ware, Bryan Chapell, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, John D. Hannah, Ed Welch, Ligon Duncan, Tom Nettles, C. J. Mahaney, Norman Geisler, and R. C. Sproul. Conservative evangelical organizations include Together for the Gospel (T4G), the Gospel Coalition, the Master’s Seminary, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (at least in its better moments), and Ligonier Ministries. These individuals and organizations exhibit a remarkable range of differences, but they can be classed together because of their vigorous commitment to and defense of the gospel.

Many of these names listed should cause immediate red flags and concerns; Piper, Dever, Mohler, Mahaney, Sproul, and even MacArthur–these men are known for having mostly doctrinally sound content, yet they associate and walk with apostates and liberals. Some of these very men are Charismatic or liberal in theology.

The “Together For The Gospel Coalition”, or TG4 is a perfect example of compromise under the banner of rallying around the Gospel. The Gospel is used as an excuse to join hands with those who are Charismatic, liberal and those who willingly associate and work with apostates.

I seriously am concerned over the assertion–a very bold and presumptuous claim–that Conservative Evangelicals actually defend the Gospel. The Gospel is more than Christ dying on the Cross; it is the life of holiness and separation one lives as a result of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary. The Gospel is not simply Christ’s sacrifice, but is the lifestyle that follows a true convert.

_____________________________
Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals still do not agree about what to do with Christian leaders who make common cause with apostates.

They should agree to denounce them, mark them and separate from them as Scripture teaches. This indecisiveness is part of the problem.

_______________________________
Frankly, conservative evangelicals do seem to take doctrine more seriously today than many Fundamentalists do. Not that the Fundamentalists are unwilling to discuss doctrine! Many of them are at this moment arguing for a “biblical” doctrine of the perfect preservation of the King James Version or of the Textus Receptus. Others have speculated that the work of redemption was not completed until Christ carried His material blood into the heavenly tabernacle, there to abide as a perpetual memorial before the presence of the Father. Still others have engaged in shrill campaigns of anti-Calvinism while defending theories of human nature that almost beg to be described as Pelagian. Such Fundamentalists are too numerous to be dismissed as aberrations—indeed, their tribe seems to be increasing.

I must admit that this point is one that Bauder is correct on. Fundamentalists need to get off the KJV debate and focus on the depth of Scripture and doctrinal issues. I am a profound lover of the KJV, but to preach that it is the only acceptable version is neither correct or wise. It is a safe, trusted, proven version, yet we must remember that it is God’s Word preserved. To assert that the KJV is the only version God can use is lie–not to mention an abominable logical fallacy. However, I will agree that we as Fundamentalists need preachers who dig deeper and expound the great doctrines of Scripture. If we knew our doctrines better, we would solve many of our problems with shallowness.

_________________________________
In other words, because many Fundamentalists appear to have lost their doctrinal sobriety, the initiative for defending the gospel has shifted from Fundamentalism to conservative evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. Rather than centering themselves upon theological novelties and idiosyncrasies, they have given themselves to a defense of the Faith.

The Conservative Evangelicals may have promoted the core of the Gospel–Christ’s death on the Cross for salvation. They leave off the application(s) of the Gospel. Calvinists in particular, preach the Gospel in part, but fail to make Scriptural application to the listener. If Conservative Evangelicals went all the way with the Gospel, I would have no quarrel, yet the fact remains that they do not and have not.

_______________

They insist that John Piper is a neo-evangelical. They actually hope to limit his influence—and the influence of other conservative evangelicals—in their churches and among their younger generation.

Hopefully so. Piper is a neo-evangelical, charismatic, neo-Calvinistic leader with drastic effectiveness on his listeners. He is one who preaches the half-Gospel as I have described above. His Calvinistic doctrines are extra-Biblical and are descendant from Calvin–who got them from Augustine, who in turn got them from the Roman Catholic Church–and therefore should be preached against and silenced as much as possible.

_______________________
Today, however, Fundamentalists simply allow others to defend the gospel for them. The sad truth is that the most forceful defenders of the gospel are no longer to be found within the Fundamentalist camp.

This is unfortunately true, but perhaps not in the way Bauder meant it. Fundamentalists do lack men and is increasing in the lack of men who will defend the whole Gospel. We need more men who will preach the message of salvation and in correlation, preach the holiness and separation that follows the conversion of a sinner’s heart.

_____________________
Many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?

This is another point that I agree with. KJV onlyism is a fallacy and a lie; arrogance and egotism is wrong; doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship is a problem; manipulative Revivalism is a false hope. We need to turn to God in humble prayer and seek for Him to pour out His power and Spirit upon our congregations and not try to create this false power and emotion ourselves. We cannot manipulate revival; true revival is of God and can only be prepared for and prayed for.

________________________
They are aware that historic, mainstream Fundamentalism has more in common with conservative evangelicals than it does with many who wear the Fundamentalist label.

I am astonished that Bauder could actually come to such a conclusion.

___________________
To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today. We do not have to agree in every detail to recognize the value of what they do.

The value of what they do? These men are promoting a half-Gospel that teaches people to not be concerned with separation and true holiness and basically live as their conscience directs. “They are elect of God and free from the law.” They equate holiness with legalism and the result is all around us. Just take a look at reformed congregations. The dress is often lax, the standards are often loose and the lifestyle is not that distinct from the world. Sovereign Grace has worked on the music–encouraging believers to worship as the world does. Their music is so close to the world’s party music, it is quite difficult to even distinguish between the two.

We do not agree in the areas of holiness and separation, therefore we cannot cooperate with these men; we can only rebuke them in love and fight their flawed methodology with Scripture.

______________________________
If we did not have conservative evangelicals to guard the borders, the real enemy would have invaded our camp long ago. Fundamentalism has exhibited a remarkable freedom from Open Theism, evangelical feminism, New Perspective theology, and other present-day threats to the gospel. The reason is not that Fundamentalists have kept the enemy at bay. The reason is that other thinkers—mainly conservative evangelicals—have carried the battle to the enemy. Conservative evangelicals are the heavy artillery, under the shelter of whose barrage Fundamentalists have been able to find some measure of theological safety.

If the Conservative Evangelicals have furthered the cause of Christ, it has been in spite of their separation standards and their half-gospel message; NOT because of it.

The Fundamentalists have stood hard and long; and receive bombastic criticism from the Conservative Evangelicals for doing so.

_____________________________________
Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.

They have not even preached the whole Gospel, therefore they are not allies and therefore are not friends of those who do. They preach a partial gospel, which is in effect, another gospel.

_____________________________
If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.

This statement blows my mind. (I prefer not to rant, but I am not perfect.) If we preach against those who are not preaching the true Gospel, we are certainly not preaching against friends of the Gospel.

_________________
Whatever our differences, I thank God for John Piper. I thank God for Mark Dever. I thank God for John MacArthur. I thank God for D. A. Carson. I thank God for a coalition of Christian leaders who have directed our focus to the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. May their defense of the biblical faith prosper.

I have no personal hard feelings of malice or ill-will for these men, but as one who tries to preach the WHOLE Gospel, I am not grateful for these men, for they are doing far more harm than good.

Closing Remarks:

I conclude the essay by summarizing the fact that Bauder does make some legitimate points, but his overall assertions are flawed, wrong, and skewed. I think he is in the wrong camp personally. If he has such a twisted view of Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals, he ought to simply join them openly.

We need to purge out these Evangelical – presences in our camp. We must preach the whole Gospel and defend it from the partial gospel.

May God grant us strong, bold men who will resist the seduction of the partial gospel and preach the whole-counsel of God. Amen.

The New Calvinism: Deformed Theology (Revised Edition)

This is the revised edition of this article. Someone brought to my attention several unnecessary and unclear choices of words and definitions. I trust that you will accept my apologies for not making myself clearer and for coming across perhaps in an inflammatory manner.

This is a hot, current topic that should be more publicly dealt with here in the “buckle” of the Bible Belt. Before we move into my point, I want to simply give you a basic definition of what the “New Calvinism” is.

NEW CALVINISM – Defined

The New Calvinism is a growing perspective within conservative Evangelicalism that embraces the fundamentals of 16th century Calvinism while also trying to be relevant in the present day world. In March 2009, TIME magazine ranked it as one of the “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now.” Some of the major movers in this area are John Piper, Mark Driscoll, C.J. Mahaney, Joshua Harris, and Al Mohler.

Following the heritage of Reformed, or Calvinist, theology, New Calvinism strives to be deeply interested in the correct doctrine. In a Christianity Today article, Collin Hansen describes the speakers of a Christian conference:

Each of the seven speakers holds to the five points of [Calvinism]. Yet none of them spoke of Calvinism unless I asked about it. They did express worry about perceived evangelical accommodation to postmodernism and criticized churches for applying business models to ministry. They mostly joked about their many differences on such historically difficult issues as baptism, church government, eschatology, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. They drew unity as Calvinist evangelicals from their concerns: with seeker churches, church-growth marketing, and manipulative revival techniques.

While Calvinism holds firmly to a belief in the monergistic sovereignty of God, the New Calvinists look to Puritans like Jonathan Edwards who taught that sanctification requires a vigorous and vigilant pursuit of holy living, not a passive attitude of mechanical progress.

Mark Driscoll lists four main differences between Old and New Calvinism:

1. Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
2. Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
3. Old Calvinism was fearful of the Holy Spirit and generally cessationist (i.e., believing the gifts of the Holy Spirit such as tongues and prophecy had ceased). New Calvinism delights in the Holy Spirit and is generally continuationist with regard to spiritual gifts.
4. Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.

This fourth distinctive is what Driscoll considers a vital component in being able to engage with the present day society.  [Wikipedia.]

NOTE: I used wiki’s definition just to demonstrate that this is  common knowledge and not my original definition.

My Point / Concern

You see, the New Calvinism is a modern shift in Christian thought–mainly accepted and promoted by young Evangelicals and disgruntled Fundamentalist. Even more historic Calvinists are leery of this New Calvinism.

But is it really a big deal? Is it even wrong? I believe so. The leaders of this movement are bringing back an old system and combining it with Charismatic belief and worldly Christianity; a Christianity that embraces culture. Note the names of  New Calvinism’s leading men: Piper, Driscoll, Mahaney, Harris and Mohler. These names are considered by many key Fundamental leaders–to be ones that should cause concern.

John Piper - a non-cessationist [believes the gifts of healing, tongues, etc. to still be in effect.] Many Fundamentalists consider his theology questionable and even dangerous.

Mark Driscoll -Known as “The Cussing Pastor” for his actual use of blush-able profanity from the pulpit; also a non-cessationist.

C.J. Mahaney -The mind behind Sovereign Grace Ministries and Pastor Emeritus of Covenant Life Church. SGM being a worldly, contemporary music publication organization that takes ambiguous words and claims them as deep theological words and puts them to contemporary-styled music, which is, in my deepest opinion, often blasphemous and on the border of “christian rock.”

Joshua Harris -Senior Pastor of Covenant Life Church; author of “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” and other titles on courtship and  purity; His brothers Brett and Alex authored “Do Hard Things.”

Al Mohler - is the ninth president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Mohler hosts The Albert Mohler Program, a nationwide radio show devoted to engaging contemporary culture with his Bible-based beliefs. He is a member of the board of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family and a member of the governing body of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Mohler formed Together for the Gospel with Ligon Duncan, Mark Dever and C.J. Mahaney.

These men are men who preach the “gospel” from a Calvinistic or hypercalvinistic perspective and combine that with ambiguous language that preaches doctrine but lacks or  often errs in application. These men promote and exemplify a Christianity that embraces popular culture and tries to embrace it and overtake it by what I and many conservatives would call compromise. I would personally exercise caution when reading their works.

These men are promoters of a  human system and not of the true Gospel as delivered by inspiration. Unconcervative believers and sadly, many young Fundamentalists are being deceived and indoctrinated with Neo-Calvinistic writings and sermons. I am personally saddened to even see Mahaney’s and Harris’s books in Christian bookstores. While they have written some good material, I am humbly asking people to consider people to make sure–as did the Berean brethren–that man’s teachings line up with Scripture, and not the other way around. Getting caught up in human writings and opinion have caused false religions to begin. So I say, even if someone does have good things to say, don’t idealize their work or idolize them to the point Scripture is bypassed.  I would humbly contend that we make sure we stay in the Old Book that never lies or errs.

Remember, I am just a 20-year-old college student; I am still learning and trying to search out the Scriptures for myself. I have recently seen the danger of blindly following human systems and writings and am simply being extra cautious towards such systems.

I trust you will check my words against Scripture and that you would always follow Scripture above words of men or mine.

May God keep His precious Word from being defiled by human error and opinion and twisted interpretation, Amen.