Fundamentalist Conservatives: Stop Apologizing For Being One

It’s amazing how few churches and “Bible Belt” fundamentalists truly are conservative. Of course the term “conservative” is a comparative term, so please allow me to define it.

When I say fundamentalist conservative, I mean what some might consider “old fashioned” but not quite. There are several key aspects to conservative fundamentalism.

I mean someone who holds to a high view of scripture–meaning they believe in not only inspiration but preservation. Many would say they take this view, but limit it to the original manuscripts. This is double talk. We know none of the originals still exist; therefore the preserved copies allegedly no longer exist and all existing copies and bible translations are by de facto unpreserved. This view is descended from apostate liberals such as the English clergymen Wescott and Hort and has been propagated sadly by many fundamentalists  and religious institutions.

The propaganda is so vast yet so wrong and frankly ludicrous. It is a direct attack on the authority of scripture, the person of Christ and I believe Satan’s  greatest assault on the church from within. This war of truth is rampant, overwhelming and waged by religious elites who use  dishonest and deceitful tactics. It highly resembles political mudslinging. (for more on this topic, see David Sorenson’s “Touch Not The Unclean Thing.”)

Another characteristic of a fundamentalist conservative is they take the proverbial high ground towards religious worship. The Scriptures are clear and emphatic that God is to be worshipped in a reverent way that places the focus on Him and not us; it does not resemble the style and methods of the world, but is sacred and reserved for God.

Of all the issues in this discussion, this is the most heated and most sensitive among younger believers. Music is important in worship, but is nowhere near the importance of preaching; but those on the fundamentalist left love to bring music up to the level of preaching or even above it.

As if that flawed idea wasn’t enough, the music of choice is decreasingly that of hymns, but CCM and the emerging power house of Sovereign Grace Music (SGM). Besides their obvious imitation of worldly styles and blasphemous “worship,” I have real difficulty understanding how a fundamentalist could advocate using music of a new evangelical – charismatic organization which attempts to use worldly styles to market their product. It’s absolutely impossible for me to reconcile such a dichotomy. Simply ignoring the issue of SGM is not enough; there is an increasing number of churches and organizations that refuse to name SGM and stand against it. This is weakness and perceived as consent.

The younger generation cries out for that style. And sadly, some of the older generation are all too ready and willing to give it to them. No wonder students come out running to SGM and CCM. The Old Testament shows time and time again where the younger, foolish generation demands the old generation to give in to their whims and fancies toward worldliness. The older generation needs to step up and do the hard, but right thing and hold firm to the ancient landmarks. As a young man, I plead that they would choose the latter over giving in to foolish young people, who historically have been attracted to the world. Wisdom must prevail over whims; principle must trump preference.

Music is a sensitive issue that permeates deep into our person–and is therefore a natural weak spot. Music is often. Trojan horse by which liberalism can sneak in so deeply it is almost impossible to root out.

I have said this in the past and will again reaffirm that once people give in to the modern bible version lie, music is next.

The final issue could also be considered the underlying issue of conservative fundamentalism: separation. If fundamentalists get this one right, it is very likely they will get the rest right. If we understand that biblical separation is mandated and is clearly explained, we would not have to with Wescott, Hort or SGM.

The number one complaint, or as I call it–cop out–is this: “we need to have more love and less focus on externals.” This is such a lame attempt towards liberalism. We know God looks on the heart, but He also commands external obedience and separation.

The funny thing, at least to me, is the people crying loudest are ones who should just admit they are liberals and new evangelicals. Why pretend to be a fundamentalist? Just save yourself the grief and leave the camp. Quit playing games and pick your side. People like that will jump all over me for saying this, but at least I am openly a fundamentalist conservative. Don’t play the liberal game of pretending and being a chameleon.

In closing, we need to do three things:

1. Acknowledge the battle exists and is here to stay.

2. Understand the liberals vastly outnumber the conservatives and will use every lame excuse and tactic imaginable and that we are fighting those who truly don’t believe our current bible is inerrant and preserved. (Why should we be surprised at anything they believe and push?)

3. Boldly draw the line between liberal and conservative and stand. Call liberals out for who they are and quit the chameleon games. The first thing they will say is “we are being divisive and causing division in the church.”

I end with this: such a charge is a lie and ludicrous. Such was the charge Ahab made to Elijah. Ahab accused Elijah of troubling Israel. Elijah pointed out correctly and without playing the word game that Ahab was the one trolling Israel because he had departed from the Word of God, His commandments and led the people in a way of worship that replaced God and offended Him.

So there it is. We as fundamental conservatives must stop apologizing for being conservative and stop tiptoeing around liberal fundamentalists and call them out on what they are and what they are pushing.

Fundamentalism Could Die With My Generation

Fundamentalism is an intriguing term. It once referred solely to the universal group of believers who held to and defended certain fundamental beliefs and doctrines that could not be removed or compromised without repudiating true Christianity. Now the term “fundamentalist” could refer to Muslims, Hindus, etc. For the purposes of this post, I am speaking of the historic, Christian fundamentalists or Fundamentalism.

Now that we know what we are focusing on, another issue is this: “Is Fundamentalism a group or a set of beliefs?” To save us some time, I borrow from former BJU Science faculty Dr. Henson when he said, “Fundamentalism is Biblical truth.” Understand that he made the statement after four weeks of explaining exactly which doctrines were Fundamental and after giving a detailed history of Liberalism and its ties with Modernism and Humanism.

To be a Fundamentalist is primarily to identify oneself as a believer that holds to the historic and traditional cardinal doctrines of Scripture and make it known that he will not compromise on or depart from those doctrines. The prime example is the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. As Dr. Henson confirmed, the chief goal of theological liberals is to make Christ less God-like and more human. After all the lame excuses and double-talk is over, that is what they are doing, and have been doing since their movement began.

Fundamentalism is certainly not perfect. Being an Fundamentalist preacher, writer, church or school does not mean infallibility. We certainly are all aware of mistakes made on all those named levels. However, it is Fundamentalism overall in the grand scheme of history that has been the primary beacon of Biblical truth and fundamental doctrine in the United States and Europe.

Many young people today are leaving Fundamentalism. It is a sobering reality, but we had better face facts. Many college grads who were in Fundamentalist churches and homes before enrollment leave either as a liberal or uninterested in religious matters altogether. Why? I humbly submit the following possibilities:

1. They were never Fundamentalists to begin with. It is quite possible they received little to no direct training in the home or their church on the issues of Fundamentalism and Liberalism. The Bible stresses in numerous places the need of educating children and young people in the way of godliness and the fundamentals of the faith; this makes the teen and young adult years much easier. However, many parents find themselves to busy or I fear negligent to really drive in to their children’s minds the fundamental doctrines of Scripture. Perhaps this is credited to the parents’ belief that weekly church services and Christian education are somehow sufficient. The failure of the church and the school is irrelevant; the parent is primarily responsible. Maybe the parents did a decent job but the church or school did not back them up. This happens often, sadly too often. One way or another, the vast majority of Christian youth grow up spiritually deficient of Scriptural soundness and firm foundations in Biblical truth.

2. They were changed at college or during their college years. Because of the attractiveness of secular institutions, many young people flock to them–only to become brainwashed with humanism and atheism. We know from the case of Daniel that we do not have to be products of our environment. Daniel was captured by the most wicked kingdom of his day and was still the most bold and loyal man to God in his day.

On the other hand, perhaps they attended a sound, Fundamentalist university. It is entirely possible, though scary, for a student to go through four years of rigorous spiritual instruction, chapel services, evangelistic meetings, peer relations and church attendance and come out as apostate as the pope. Although this is not the norm, it does happen–much to the distress of Christian educators and pastors. Pastors and teachers can only do so much. They cannot force someone to believe something and live accordingly. Each person must and will choose to either accept or reject.

Perhaps they were introduced to new philosophical or religious influences outside of the class room; the dangers are vast and rampant.

 

So having these possible explanations before us, what can we do to prevent our youth from flocking out of the Biblical and just camp of Fundamentalism?

I assert foremost that we teach them to respect and  trust the authority and accuracy of the Word of God. This in my mind is the primary avenue of danger for Fundamentalist young people today. The danger lies in the Satanic strategy of planting seeds of doubt in one’s mind of the Bible’s accuracy or authority that leads to a devaluing of the Word of God and will be followed by a devaluing of Jesus Christ and the Christian faith altogether. The Psalmist tells us that “if the foundations be removed” the righteous can do nothing. Satan is a crafty and brilliant tactician. He does not need to attack every area of the Christian faith to prove effective, he only needs to assault the Word of God. That was the first tactic he used in the Garden of Eden; and as you can probably tell, it worked! “Hath not God said?” was the first assault on the Christian faith; and make no mistake, it was on Scripture itself.

Every time I hear a preacher or teacher say something like “the Bible translators goofed here” or “a better translation would be….” it only hurts me in the knowledge that whether they realize it or not, they are aiding God’s archenemy in his evil plot to undermine Scripture. On a side note, I realize the Authorized Version is not the Greek and Hebrew text, but it is the best and most faithful to the original Received and Masoretic texts. (My position on the TR and MT are made perfectly clear on this blog.) So, know that I am not at all teaching a KJV only position, but a TR position. My motive is not to cause strife or attack those who uphold the Critical (Alexandrian) Text, but is rooted in fierce loyalty to the accuracy and authority of Scripture–by the way that God promised it would have until the end of time. God inspired every single word and not merely the concepts. I am passionate about the Scripture and the manuscript issue because IT IS THE FOUNDATION OF OUR FAITH and if we can’t get that right, then we are men most miserable and most doomed. I am not making accusations or causeless charges, I only remember too well the terror I once felt when I heard someone teach me that the Bible had some “minor mistakes” in it. I am a highly analytic person and could not put such a statement behind me. There can be no such thing as a minor mistake in God’s Word.

So I reiterate the great trust we as spiritual leaders have to the Word of God. We must not, willingly or through ignorance, cast doubt upon the authority and perfect preservation of each “jot and tiddle” in the Scriptures.

When the Bible is attacked, the standards and music will shortly follow. And before we know it, our entire generation could be lost to theological liberalism. This is why the Bible issue is foremost.

 

There are many other things we can do to prevent mass departure from Fundamentalism, but this is my heart’s primary burden and the reasoning and motive behind my defense of the preserved, inerrant Word of God.

 

Sincerely,

KW

 

 

A Grim Hour For Young Fundamentalists

1 Timothy 4

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

I have written many times on subjects where I give a verse and then exegete or explain it and add comments in regard to it. Today, I come to the blog to simply lament what I believe is the darkest day yet for Fundamentalism and young Fundamentalists. I am a student at Bob Jones University–the great bastion of Fundamentalism–yet I see the vast majority of students as those who care very little about the great doctrinal battles for which the school was founded to combat.

Most students, as in any Christian school, are  unconcerned with the core Fundamentals of the faith; they either don’t care or don’t wish to engage in debate over them.

My heart’s burden is for the young men and women of Fundamentalism, yet is even more attuned to the young preacher boys of Fundamentalism, for they have more to fight today than ever, and they have to fight it in college–before they even get out into a ministry situation.

The “Christian Church” is overrun with worldliness, worldly music, worldly worship and worst of all, leaders who are pulling their followers away from Fundamentalism and into New Evangelicalism and Neo-Calvinism.

My heart breaks and aches at the reality of these threats; they are no fantasy, no exaggeration, no overstatement; they are here knocking at our doorstep. What is most saddening to me is that so few are resisting and fighting, and so few are caring.

Even today, I was rebuked by a peer for standing so adamantly against these above listed new trends. What I told him is what I say again now; “I hate writing on such topics, but so few are and so few care.” I pray that God will awaken His children and help them see the great dangers and false doctrines being hurled at our youth and our next generation of preachers and church congregations.

To the young preacher boys, I humbly beg you to search out the Scriptures and remain true to the faith preserved by God and paid for in the blood of our forefathers. You have a goodly heritage, don’t betray it for new doctrines and for worldly worship.

To those who are our elders and veterans in the faith: Please don’t ignore these battles; help ground us in the Scriptures and in the pure doctrines of Scripture. Pray for us, that God would keep us unspotted from the world and the new doctrines of the modern church.

To those in Christian education and especially those who serve at BJU, I pray that you will have courage and never give into modern trends and new doctrines and worldly methods and worship. It is my prayer and desire to see BJU and other Fundamentalists remain firmly in the faith and in pure obedience to the Scriptures.

I hope and cry in prayer that God will spare my generation from ruin and compromise; I know not how people may feel about this post; some will be annoyed or even angry, but if that is the price I must pay, so be it. May God preserve a remnant for His name’s sake. I know I am young, inexperienced and even perhaps too bold at times, but I am bound by conviction to contend earnestly for the faith. Though no one join me, I will go on if God preserves my life.

May we as a generation of young Fundamentalists turn and repent from the influences of New Evangelicalism and Neo Calvinism and remain true to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

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.

Death of The Sermon

What a title! Could it be? Could the sermon as we know it be a dying thing? I believe it is dying. In our churches, yes churches right here in the heart of Fundamentalism, are losing sight of why we come together as believers. Whether it be fellowship, fun, entertainment, or recreation– the focus of our churches is shifting away from the centrality of preaching. The cop-out is usually one of the need for teaching; thus the excuse is made for pastors’ cold pulpits that they are “pastor-teachers.” While churches need pastor teachers, the Bible is very plain in saying that we need preachers. Men who will stand up in pulpits and boldly and unapologetically proclaim “thus saith the Lord.” Our pulpits are filled with men who teach, travel, story-tell, entertain, but DO NOT preach! Wow. That may sound harsh, but it is ever too true. Too few men really preach with a fiery passion because Christians are content to simply show up to church, sing a few songs, down a cuppa chino, hear an encouraging pep talk and go to lunch before 12:00pm. As long as this empty routine is not violated, the preacher is loved by all. How sad. How putrid of a faith. Is this the measure of our walk with God? Can this be true Christianity? No. Not according to the Bible. Church is not about having refreshments and activities; from the careless attitude of the congregation to the showiness of vocal soloists, we have fallen from the purpose of meeting together to worship the LORD.

Why is there no uproar of devout believers? Because most so called believers don’t want church to be about God, but their comfort, relaxation, and enjoyment. Though they offer empty excuses, the facts stand for themselves. People don’t want to hear fiery sermons; they offend; they disturb; they convict. We are told that the Word of God is quick, powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword. It cuts into our sinful hearts and exposes our sins naked before our eyes and God’s. This is why we don’t want it. We instead want an empty message that does nothing, says nothing; is nothing. II Tim. 4:2-4 tells us that our pastors must “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season. [when it's popular or unpopular] reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers; having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth.” We are in that prophesied day folks. People, believers– don’t want to hear the truth; and SHAME on our pastors who are TOO WEAK and FEARFUL to preach it anyway. SHAME on them. It is a reproach to God.

The price of proclaiming the truth, through history, has proven to be a bloody one. Will you pay that price? Will you pledge to pay it?

We must; I must; I can do no other thing but pay it. To give in to men– death I would prefer. Amen.

KW

My Experience With Calvinism

I would like to preface this article with two main statements: First, I desire to speak humbly and as a young man who is seeking the truth; secondly, I would like to say that I am in no way attempting to cause unnecessary strife or attack people who hold to Reformed theology, I am simply stating historical facts and my own personal experience.

John Calvin

My Initial Discontentment

I have wrote many times on this subject, over the last year or two; I truly was seriously distressed as a young college freshman. I saw a Fundamentalist church–in the broad sense–that was often shallow in the pulpit and in practical living. Discouraged by the lack of depth, I began to wonder if there was something deeper. It was during the climax of my discontentment with shallow doctrine and preaching that I found the Free Presbyterian Church. I had never had any experience with or true knowledge of the Presbyterian denomination, but was overwhelmingly taken by the Free Church’s deep preaching, deep doctrine and reverent worship. I began attending a local Free Presbyterian Church and fell in love with everything about it. Soon after beginning to attend there, I was introduced and immersed in the system of theology known as Calvinism.

The Appeal Of Reformed Theology

Even after coming out of Calvinism, I still vividly remember the intellectual and irresistible appeal of Calvinism. After all, Calvinism clearly and logically could explain the often ignored issues of election, and absolute sovereignty of God. I had not heard these things preached or discussed in such clarity and detail; I felt as if I had truly come to understand many hard things of Scripture I had never understood before.

On top of the intellectual appeal, I am also a great fan of history; it is only natural that I would love the association of Reformed theology with the Protestant Reformation. I became infatuated with Luther, Calvin, Geneva, Worms, reformation! I began to idolize these historic reformers.

Calvinism’s Effect On My Life

After genuinely believing I had been divinely introduced to a higher level of Biblical understanding, I began to struggle with feeling spiritually and intellectually superior to those who did not hold to Reformed theology. I began to interpret all of Scripture and life in general through the grid defined by the TULIP–the acronym for the five key points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints.

I found extreme difficulty in witnessing to the lost, primarily because I was taught that man’s salvation is predetermined before he is even born, and if someone is reprobated by God, there is no hope for salvation even amid the most fervent prayer and witness. On the other hand, if a man has been chosen as one of the elect, my failure to witness will not keep him from being called unto repentance. While Calvinists will argue that their system does not promote a lax  in their witness and prayer lives, the inevitable result is a failure to witness and pray to and for the lost. I remember going on a tract distribution in downtown Greenville; the people just stood around and waited for “one of the elect” to simply walk up and take a tract–which was one that simply presented the Gospel with the hope that an “elect” reader would be drawn by God’s irresistible Grace unto salvation. What’s my point? It is my firm opinion that the Calvinist system discourages one from witnessing with the same fervor one might if they believe that people are not eternally damned to Hell before birth. This entire concept of predestination has been proven to be heretical–both by Scripture and by close examination of Church History. (More on this later.)

Doubts and Struggles

Even while embracing Calvinism, promoting it and preaching it, there were many things that truly bothered  and vexed me on the deepest levels. Mainly, the issue of irreconcilable words of Scripture that conflicted with the doctrines of Calvinism. While Calvinism told me to believe that men are predestined to Heaven or Hell in eternity past and that Christ’s death was only for the elect, and not the whole world–verses kept coming up that bothered me. For example, I would read things in Scripture like “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Or ones like “Who is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” How could God desire to save all but not send Christ to die for all?

I continued to doubt and struggle within my soul…until I turned to History.

Turning To History

I had taken a class on John Calvin at a Reformed Seminary here in town about one year ago; it was there that I had my first in depth education on John Calvin and his theology and life. I mention this fact because while in that class, the issue was addressed that some had accused John Calvin of brutality and murder of many people in Geneva, Switzerland. The professor brushed off those accusations and even said that Calvin had tried to save those lives and was simply unable to keep the mobs from killing those people.

When I read the history of Calvin and those killed in Geneva, I found that the truth was a far cry from what I had heard in that seminary classroom. It is documented (as I have shown in previous posts) that Calvin made sure that those who opposed him were either abused, exiled or killed. He burned people, beheaded children and had many people killed by encouraging the populace to do so. The seminary lecture had been a failed attempt to cover up for the murder of many at the hands of one whom historians call the “Pope of Geneva.”

I read more and more and became increasingly disturbed and mortified to know that I had  promoted the writings of one who was a fatalistic murder of those who disagreed with him.

What truly disturbed me was the fact that John Calvin’s hero was Augustine–the founding father of the Roman Catholic Church; Augustine believed one’s salvation lied not in Christ, but in his or her infant baptism. Augustine held on dearly to his infant baptism–as would John Calvin–and Augustine also made sure he received the “Last Rights” at his death. Augustine was clearly not a saved man; he was Calvin’s hero and model–and Calvin followed in Augustine’s footprints with great mimicry. Like Calvin, Augustine believed in using force to deal with those who disagreed with his teachings.

Even more disturbing was that I discovered that neither Augustine or Calvin ever truly converted from the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine. While Calvin may have desired to purify the RCC, he formed his theology out of the cardinal doctrines he learned while in the Roman Catholic Church.

The doctrines of predestination, infant baptism and allegorical interpretation of Scripture are neither protestant nor Biblical; they are doctrines from the Roman Catholic Church which Augustine taught and Calvin elaborated upon. Calvinists use the verse that speaks of God loving Jacob and hating Esau while they were still in the womb as evidence for divine election and reprobation. However, Genesis 25:23 says

And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

We see from this verse that such a reference speaks not of Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, but of two nations and the dominance of Israel over the other–because of God’s covenant with Abraham.

I am humbly telling what history records and Scripture confirms.

Determined to Preach Truth

Based upon the truth of Scripture and the record of history–religious and secular–Calvinism is not the gospel; it never was and never will be. It is a perversion of the gospel and according to Jude, should be opposed and exposed as such.

I regret with all my heart that I was so ignorant of the truth about this blasphemous, bloody cult.

I am sorry  if I have offended you, but Scripture and History hold Calvinism as such as I have described it; to excuse Calvinism or to embrace it is to go against Scripture and the record of History–both things I am not prepared to do.

It is my desperate hope and plea that people would go search the Scriptures and even history and see the truth about this horrible misrepresentation of Almighty God.

I am not interested in causing division or strife, but I cannot in good conscience, remain silent to proclaim what I have been most solemnly convinced of by God’s Word and history.