tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-952804954282970552024-02-07T20:45:23.099-08:00The Parsings of a PreacherBrianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-17858907513685266222014-08-25T17:45:00.000-07:002014-08-25T17:45:18.591-07:00So, who exactly is critical of allegory? Really!<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">On July 18, 2014, Dr. Kevin Bauder posted an article
critiquing the national FBFI conference held a little more than a month before
in June. Now, right up front I want to note that I too was at the conference.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">On a personal note, I must say, Dr. Bauder, the
handlebar mustache is one hundred plus years too late. Please, if you desire to
be taken seriously then trim the ends of your mustache, the handlebar mustache
gives you a comical look, but I digress.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Back to the article, towards the closing of his
article, Dr. Bauder gets to the real reason for his writing, the criticism of
Calvinism. Now, I give him credit for coming to this in a much better tone than
he did back in the early summer of 2009 when he ranted and ran off on his
tirade against about five minutes of Pastor
Danny Sweatt’s message at the southeast regional FBFI conference in the spring
of that year. Back then, Dr. Bauder didn’t just tirade and rant in one article
but did so in two articles and finished with snippets from his inbox about his
self-made brouhaha. Here in 2014, during the panel discussion Thursday morning
it was mentioned that five point Calvinism had no room in the FBFI. Personally,
I heartily rejoiced with that proclamation.
Anyone who has had any contact with a five point Calvinist knows that
their mindset is, “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts,” and “I’m
right, you’re wrong.” No, there is no room in any organization, or fellowship,
or church for that matter, for five point Calvinism and the Biblical
alternative (which isn’t Arminianism, by the way, though Calvinist only see
things as either/or, Calvinism/Arminianism).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Dr. Bauder continues and voices his displeasure with a
message delivered which he calls a “moralistic allegory of Scripture” and
wonders how the fellowship could have tolerated such preaching.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">This writer is struck by Dr. Bauder’s dislike for
the allegory from the pulpit. Dr. Bauder dislikes this? How can this be? I am
dumbstruck! I am really quite astonished and sit in utter disbelief that he
would say such things about allegory. The reason that I am in this state of shock
is because I clearly remember this same Dr. Kevin Bauder writing an allegory.
He titled it, <i>The Fortress</i>. He posted
this article on February 11, 2011 at his, <i>In
the Nick of Time</i> blogsite. Now, there is a hugh difference though between
Dr. Bauder’s allegorical article and that preacher’s “moralistic allegory of
Scripture.” When that preacher was finished with his message, all who heard him
knew exactly what he said and what he meant. No one with any gray matter
between his ears who heard the message could walk away wondering, just what did
he mean by all that “moralistic allegory of Scripture”? However, we are still
wondering just what exactly is Dr. Bauder talking about in his article? The
reason for this difference? The preacher explained his way through his “moralistic
allegory of Scripture” like any good allegoristic author would do, so that his
listeners/readers can fully understand him. Dr. Bauder has not followed suit.
He has left the full meaning of his allegory to the whims of the readers’
imagination, so we are left with multiple “truths” being touted by the various
readers, with no possible way of determining which “truth” is “the truth” that
the author wished to convey. I would have to conclude then, that the preacher
at the conference knows how to use allegory for the benefit of his audience,
and Dr. Bauder has yet to master allegory. Hey, maybe that’s why Dr. Bauder
voiced his displeasure.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">In closing, let me say quite clearly, I am not
opposed to expositional preaching. As Dr. Bauder pointed out, “Dr. Steve
Hankins also delivered a good expository sermon” and I heartily concur and
state that it wasn’t just “good” it was excellent. Dr. John MacArthur should
listen to the sermon, he could actually learn what expository preaching really
is. I preach expository messages. I also preach topical, textual, and textual-topical
sermons (to use John A. Broadus’ homiletical classifications of sermons).
Variety from the pulpit is a necessary piece to the evangelizing and edifying
efforts of the preacher as he stands behind that sacred desk and proclaims God’s
Word.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-71907041143028948202014-07-28T10:32:00.000-07:002014-07-28T10:32:04.612-07:00Elvis has left the building<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">…So goes a popular line when referencing someone who
has left. With Matt Olson’s recent posting at his website and Sharper Iron’s
subsequent linking to it in their SIfilings, we certainly see that he has left
his position he once held as a Baptist pastor. Our Biblical distinctives as
Baptists start with, “the Bible is our only (or sole) authority for faith and
practice.” In Matt’s opening sentence he repudiates the very foundation of his
previously held position as a Baptist. Here is Matt’s opening sentences,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.3in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">There are many ways we grow in our Christian faith and one of
the most significant ways we do this is through the thoughtful reading of good
books—often beginning with the Scriptures. Not only are the Scriptures the very
words of God, true and authoritative in every way, they go beyond giving us
just an intellectual knowledge of God to bringing us into a relationship with
Him through His Son. This work is supernatural and transformational. Because of
this fact, many believers make an effort to read their Bibles daily. Few,
however, expand beyond this to other Christian literature. Over the past two
decades of ministry I have become more and more convinced that the study of
other literature is an invaluable resource.<span class="apple-converted-space"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Wow! “There are many ways to grow in our Christian faith”?! The greatest
harm here is that he intersperses some truth with this off the wall, unorthodox
babble. Matt, where is the Scriptural support for such a statement, that we can
grow our Christian faith with some other source other than the Word of God?
Paul in Romans 10:17 is rather explicit, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God.” Our faith comes by the hearing of the Word of God,
not man’s writing no matter how “Christian” his literature might be. Instead,
we see the influence of these “two decades of ministry” in which he has been
pouring over men’s writings to the point of leaving his Biblical mooring of the
Bible being his only source for faith. He has imbibed and accepted the notion
of the reformed thinkers that say we need a theologian to give us the
understanding of the Scriptures. I have posted in another article this
statement,<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.3in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">In a book
titled, <i>An Introduction to Classical
Evangelical Hermeneutics</i>, Dr. Mal Couch does an excellent job researching
and expounding a literal, historical, grammatical approach to interpreting the
Scriptures (i.e. Dispensationalism). I would encourage you to find a copy and
add it to your library. In chapter 8, titled, The Allegorists Who Undermined
the Normal Interpretation of Scripture (pp. 96, 97), he writes,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.6in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">“With allegory
the antics of the gods were purified, but who determined the allegorical
interpretations? <b><i>By whose authority were words and concepts changed? If there were no
‘guidelines’ as to the meaning of the ‘new’ message, how did readers know the
authors’ intentions? These problems consistently overshadow allegorical
interpretation</i></b>…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.6in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">The personality
most cited for the change to allegorical interpretation is Philo (ca. 20
B.C.-A.D. 54), ‘A philosophical Jew who possessed both reverence for the Mosaic
revelation and fondness for Grecian metaphysics, [who] aimed to explore the
mystical depths of significances allegedly concealed beneath the Old Testament Scripture.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.6in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">Philo taught
that the milk of Scripture was the literal but the meat was allegory. Thus,
there was hidden meaning. The Word of God had two levels: the literal was on
the surface, but the allegorical represented the deeper, more spiritual meaning.
Therefore, anyone who simply interpreted the Bible on its most natural, normal
way was simple and missing the great meanings of the Scriptures. Ramm writes,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.6in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">Philo did not
think that the literal meaning was useless, but it represented the immature
level of understanding. The literal sense was the body of Scripture, and the
allegorical sense its soul. Accordingly the literal was for the immature, and
the allegorical for the mature.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.6in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">To reiterate,
allegorical interpretation creates meaning through the interpreter. <b><i>Accordingly,
allegorist believes the average person may be reading and interpreting wrongly
without the help of a scholar or, in the case of Scripture, a wise,
well-trained theologian. </i></b>Often, even today, allegorists look down their
noses at those who take the Bible at face value with a normal, literal
hermeneutic.” (emphasis mine)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.3in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">Since this
system of interpretation (which is the basis for Reformed theology) requires “a
wise, well-trained theologian” to give the fuller, deeper understanding of the
Scriptures, then those who are confessedly not a theologian must locate someone
who they believe is and place themselves at his or her feet for further
instruction. This leaves them at the mercy of the “theologian” for spiritual
growth/maturity rather than where the Scriptures places that responsibility
which is on the individual (II Peter 3:18 for starters).</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">That folks, is dangerous territory. History has shown us repeatedly,
that relying on other men for our spiritual understanding because we are unable
to comprehend apart from their expertise, has enslaved Christianity and
deadened the church to the point of the lost running things rather than the
regenerated believer. Reformed theology has no place and cannot reside within a
true Baptist church, for our very foundational distinctive is at odds with the
foundation of Reformed theology’s allegorizing of Scriptures and subsequent
reliance upon theologians for its understanding. One or the other foundation
will win out, they cannot co-habitate in a church.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Matt must be rather naïve of the plethora of Christian literature that
is out there for the reading when he states, “</span></span><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Few, however, expand beyond this to other Christian
literature.” Christian literature is all the rage and has been for quite some
time, to the extent that secular publishing houses have bought some Christian
publishing houses (Multnomah Press comes to mind) because it makes good
business sense. Even when we narrow down “Christian” to the purer sense of the
word, this too has experienced growth and popularity. Now I am not against
reading good Christian literature. I have a library and desire to see it grow.
The volumes I possess are helpful to me, but they do not to grow my Christian
faith because I have read them. My faith doesn’t grow because I read author X’s
book on Y. My faith grows because I read the Word of God and the author, God
the Holy Spirit, takes that Word and transforms me, changes me, conforms me into
the image of Christ. Author X can NEVER accomplish that.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Elvis has left the building and
Matt Olson has left the anchored, Biblical position of Baptists down through
the centuries who rightfully, Biblically stated, “the Bible is our only (sole)
rule for faith (and practice).”</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-9451544668998343182014-02-26T12:00:00.001-08:002014-02-26T12:00:59.862-08:00Dr. Albert Mohler’s second visit to BYU: or Balaam’s second chance
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Well, here we are again, addressing the issue of Dr.
Albert Mohler’s foray into Mormonism. Oh, to be sure and to make it clear, the
message given was not in any way caving into any form of recognition of
Mormonism (but then neither were Balaam’s messages, they too were spot on). The
message itself is not the issue, just as Balaam’s messages were not the issue.
To use another blogger’s grandiose title, we have Dr. Albert Mohler, a great “defender
of the faith” standing with a crowd of the enemy of that faith (again, much
like Balaam standing with the Moabites, enemies of God’s people the
Israelites).</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">What is to be gained by this interchange? Mohler
would have us to believe it is to garner support, common cause of moral values,
to have future cell mates. Is Mohler so ignorant of Mormonism to think that
they would not, for the sake of expediency change their position on certain
moral issues when they clash with society? Look at Mormon history. From its
founding polygamy was the norm, was their teaching, was necessary for the
propagation of future worlds, but then came Utah’s statehood desires.
Obviously, polygamy had to go in order to gain acceptance, so the powers that
be rescinded polygamous beliefs and monogamy was the order of the day. That was
in the decades leading up to the Utah’s 1896 statehood. Fast forward to the 1960’s,
now we have the civil rights issue of the segregation of blacks. In Mormon
teaching, blacks were not capable of becoming Mormons. They were a despised
race, but then came those societal pressures again, and voila, the powers that
be came through in a pinch and blacks were accepted. Is there any reason why we
should believe the outcome would be different for the societal issues of our
day such as homosexual marriage? Utah is already being confronted with the
acceptance of homosexuality, do we really think that the Mormon elders will
resist to the point of being jailed? But I digress a bit.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">I wish to draw our attention to these couple of
statements; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“You are a university that
stands, as all great universities stand, for the importance of ideas and the
honor of seeking after the truth. I come to honor the importance of ideas and
the centrality of the search for truth with you.”</i> And then in closing, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“I pray that God will use this lecture to
his</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">glory</i>—<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">and I pray God’s blessings upon
you until we meet again</i></b>.” (emphasis mine)</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Really, Dr. Mohler, BYU is a university “seeking
after the truth”? Is there any professor at BYU that is teaching Christian
doctrine concerning Jesus Christ, the Son of God? Is there any professor laying
bare the fallacies of Mormon doctrine? If not, then there is no way that it
could be said that they are “seeking after the truth.” This is a Mormon
institution of higher learning preparing the next generation of Mormons to
propagate Mormon doctrine, not to propagate or seek after the truth.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The closing phrase of Mohler’s speech rings rather
worthy of John’s condemnation, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this
doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he
that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (II John 10, 11)</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">I call our attention to this quote,</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
proper response to such false teachers is a major concern of John’s second
epistle. John is directly concerned with one particular way of denying the
gospel, refusing to confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. John says
that many people (presumably, people who view themselves as Christians) do not
make this confession. Such persons, says John, are deceivers and antichrists (2
John 7). They do not have God (2 John 9).</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">John’s
teaching cannot be limited to only Christological errors, however. The problem with
denying that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is that it eviscerates the
gospel. This is a different way of denying the gospel that the one that Paul
encountered among the Galatians, but the response of the two apostles is
decidedly akin. The similarity of their reactions suggests that their attitude
ought to be directed toward all those who profess Christ while denying the
gospel.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">John
cautions his readers to beware lest they lose their full reward (2 John 8). At
first glance, this caution is puzzling. How would such a loss be incurred? John
hints at the answer to this question in his instruction about proper responses
to those who teach apostasy. John tells his reader not to receive these
teachers into their houses <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nor even to give them a civil greeting</i></b>
(2 John 10). (emphasis mine)</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Most
likely these prohibitions are intended to apply to ministry relationships
rather than social interaction. Nevertheless, they probably seemed as severe to
John’s original readers as they do today. Then or now, what John required is a
violation of basic civility. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">He demanded that no recognition or
encouragement at all be given to someone who was teaching a false gospel, not
even the encouragement of a civil greeting.</i></b> (emphasis mine)</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">John
had his reasons. Even the most insignificant encouragement to someone who is
proclaiming a false gospel brings one into fellowship with the evil that
follows (2 John 11). Apparently Christians can gain a share in the evil that
apostates do. The apostate and the one who encourages the apostate have a
common stake in the results of the false gospel. That is probably why John
warned his readers about losing their reward. God would hardly reward someone
for helping to spread apostasy.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">We
might debate some of the implications of this passage, and in a full discussion
some qualifications would be appropriate. Still, I think that one thing is
reasonably clear: Christians who make a habit of encouraging apostate teachers
are hardly models of Christian discernment. We should treat them as people who
have a share in the evil of apostasy. (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Four
Views on The Spectrum of Evangelicalism</i>, pp. 39, 40)</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The author of this passage has continued to give
Mohler a pass on his indiscretions and I don’t expect him to change even with
Mohler’s second foray with Mormonism. He will in all likelihood find some “loophole”
to try to wiggle through (like, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Well,
Mormons aren’t truly apostates therefore the passage in II John doesn’t apply
with Mohler and Mormonism.</i> Never mind Mormonism’s attempts at
Christianizing their doctrine and their damning of millions of adherents to an
eternity in hell by their Godless beliefs).</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">I have made allusions to Balaam along the way and I
find Mohler’s foray into Mormonism in a bit of a parallel. Oh, the invitations
are different, to be sure, but will the outcome be any different? Balaam’s
messages were spot on, “thus saith the LORD.” Mohler’s messages have been spot
on in his proclaiming exclusivity to the faith found in the Scriptures. But
does anyone hold up Balaam as a paragon, an example to follow, one to imitate?
No, the Scriptures are clear in their renouncing Balaam. Should we not be doing
the same with Mohler? Or will there continue to be those within Fundamentalism
who will make excuses for Dr. Albert Mohler because he’s been such a “defender
of the faith”?</span></div>
Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-20374492874230515222014-01-23T15:46:00.000-08:002014-01-23T15:46:26.396-08:00Mohler’s Homo Ratio
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">It seems as though Dr. Albert Mohler has taken some
heat for his recent foray into Mormonism by speaking at BYU. I say this because
here recently he wrote an article which amounts to an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">apologia</i> for his speaking at BYU (you can find the article </span><a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/01/08/is-the-enemy-of-my-enemy-my-friend-an-old-question-in-a-new-age/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">).
I’ve already weighed in on the foolishness of Mohler of going to BYU in the
first place (article </span><a href="http://parsingsofapreacher.blogspot.com/2013/11/mohler-joins-hands-with-mormons_5.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">).</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Let’s look at Mohler’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">apologia</i>.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">One would think that since Dr. Albert Mohler is
president of religious institution of higher learning, that he is a
self-professed believer, that he is a minister, that he is a Baptist, that he would go the Scriptures
for any justification for his actions/words. Yet, this is not the case. Instead,
he uses an ancient maxim, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” as the reason,
the justification for joining hands with Mormons concerning the societal attack
on marriage.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Mohler cites the foreign policy of the Allied powers
in World War II adopting this maxim with their joining with the Soviet Union in
order to defeat Nazi Germany. Any cursory study of that relationship clearly
shows the Allies and the Soviet Union were not “friends” by any stretch of the
imagination and in the end that alliance did irreparable damage to the
countries which would eventually become the eastern bloc of nations as the
“Iron Curtain” fell across Eastern Europe after the war. Read the sailor’s
report of this “friendship” as they arrive in Murmansk or Archangel with matériel
for the Soviet Union or the pilot’s accounts of treatment as they landed in the
Soviet Union either by deliberate plans or by an emergency and one quickly
comes away with the understanding we were not “friends.” For instance, the account
of plane eight of the Doolittle Raiders who bombed Japan in April of 1942 as
they land near Vladivostok. The Soviet Union was no “friend” to this American
crew. The five crewmen would eventually plan their own escape and reach Persia
in May of 1943. This maxim is hardly an “indispensable” or “inevitable” mandate
to be used in foreign policy or anywhere else for that matter.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Mohler concludes his article by stating, “In a time
of cultural conflict, the enemy of my enemy may well be our friend.” No, Dr.
Mohler, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, especially when we
are at odds with the Truth found in the Scriptures. Sorry, Dr. Mohler, your “reasoned”
approach using an ancient, flawed maxim to justify your stance with Mormonism
on marriage does not pass the test, the Biblical test (for starters, Rom 16:17;
II Thess. 3:6, 14; II John 7-11). The Mormon church stands diametrically opposed
to everything a Christian holds as Truth. They are indeed an enemy of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ. Any kind of accommodation of Mormonism will only enrich
Mormonism’s positions to the detriment of the Truth, just as the Allies accommodation
of Stalin lead to the detriment of Eastern Europe’s freedom and plunged the world
into a decades long Cold War.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">There is a serious problem when men who supposedly
stand firmly on the self-sufficiency of the Scriptures go off into human
reasoning to justify their positions/actions. So much for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sola Scriptura</i> being the call words of evangelicals, Mohler has
shown us that it is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">homo ratio</i>
instead. Mohler has betrayed the very basic, the primary distinctive that
Baptists have clung to for centuries, that the Bible is the sole authority for
faith and practice.</span></div>
Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-4925329400574722013-11-05T16:49:00.000-08:002013-11-05T16:49:31.536-08:00Mohler joins hands with Mormons
<br />
<div class="WordSection1">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">We have Albert Mohler, president of Southern
Seminary, the guiding citadel in the SBC for graduate work, being asked to come
and speak at Brigham Young University, the guiding citadel for educating Mormon
young people. And what brought about this meeting? Why, the heated debate
concerning marriage, of course. Because of the ungodly push to pervert the
institution of marriage, Mohler was invited to BYU to speak on behalf of
traditional marriage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now some who call
themselves fundamentalists have chimed in to say that there’s nothing really
wrong with this picture, that Mohler at BYU to speak on marriage is just
perfectly fine (see </span><a href="http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/in-the-nick-of-time-archive/485-mohler-mormo"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">
and <a href="http://sharperiron.org/filings/10-25-13/28768#comments"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>)
or not wise (see <a href="http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/in-the-nick-of-time-archive/488-mohler-mormons-and-marriage?tmpl=component&print=1&page="><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>
and <a href="http://sharperiron.org/filings/11-2-13/28832#comments"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>).
Now this same professor also stated once that he too could speak at a Mormon
gathering without any qualms, given certain caveats which it seems Mohler was
given or at least took since he distanced his theology from Mormon theology.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Ernsberger%20Laptop/Documents/Blogging%20articles/Mohler%20Mormons%20and%20Moabites.docx" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="color: blue;">[1]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Mohler
sound so similar to another evangelical, actually the father evangelist of
evangelicalism, Billy Graham. Graham had this to say in his autobiography concerning
the controversy over the 1957 New York crusade, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“My own position was that we should be willing to work with all who
were willing to work with us. Our message was clear, and if someone with a
radically different theological view somehow decided to join with us in a
Crusade that proclaimed Christ as the way of salvation, he or she was the one
who was compromising personal convictions, not we.”</i> (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Just As I Am</i>, pp. 303, 304)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">
</span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Mohler is to be applauded for his unwillingness to
share any theological commonality with his audience. And far too many are quick
to laud him and let this incident stand as something quite acceptable. We must
however, look at what brought Al Mohler to BYU. The issue at stake that brought
Mohler to BYU is the onslaught of damage being done to the institution of
marriage by our modern culture. True enough, a worthy topic to be spoken on by
Christians. But do we have common ground with Mormons concerning Biblical
marriage? The answer is a clear, unequivocal, NO!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">What is Biblical marriage? Well, let’s let the Bible
do its own speaking. Genesis. 2:18-24 records the first marriage, instituted
and instigated by God Himself with Adam and Eve. We see that it was one man,
one woman, for life. They were to leave their parents and embark on a new life
together as one. In the Gospels we find Christ reiterating this understanding
of marriage (Matt. 19:3-6) and we find that marriage is for this present life
only, there are no continuing effects of marriage in heaven (Matt. 22:23-30).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Now, is this also the Mormon view of marriage? And
the answer is…NO. What was the audience thinking when Mohler spoke of marriage?
Well, Mormon doctrine taught them that we were initially spirit babies begotten
by our Heavenly Father and Mother. Eventually, these spirit babies make it into
the temporal world as humans living on this earth. The Mormon understanding of
marriage is that they are to make their marriage a celestial marriage by having
a wedding ceremony in a Mormon Temple which will seal their marriage for time
and eternity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Celestial Marriage essential to exaltation </b>Another
thing that we must not forget in this great plan of redemption and exaltation,
is that a man must have a wife, and a woman a husband, to receive the fullness
of exaltation. They must be sealed for time and all eternity in a temple; then
their union will last forever…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">“Parents will have eternal claim upon their posterity
and will have the gift of eternal increase, if they obtain the exaltation. This
is the crowning glory in the kingdom of God, and they will have no end…No man
shall receive the fullness of eternity, of exaltation, alone; no woman shall
receive that blessing alone;…No man can obtain that exaltation without
receiving the covenants that belong to the priesthood.” (Doctrines of
Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 40, 43 &44 {as quoted in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Bible and Mormon Doctrine</i>, Sandra Tanner, p. 8})<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">So, were Al Mohler and the Mormons actually talking
about the same thing when talking about “marriage”? Like so many other common
words used by Christians and Mormons, they don’t mean the same thing to both
groups. Believers, or more specifically the Bible has one meaning for words and
Mormons, using those same words, have a completely different meaning. Mohler
and the Mormons were not even on the same page in the conversation that they
had. Which ultimately begs the question, Why DID Al Mohler accept the invitation
to speak at BYU?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Now, for some marriage is a social, cultural issue, or
at least they are trying to paint it as such so as to avoid any theological
entanglements with some. But is it just a social, cultural phenomena? Well,
here are the passages of Scriptures cited earlier which speak on the subject of
marriage.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Genesis 2:18-24<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">18 And the
LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an
help meet for him.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">19 And out of
the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the
air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever
Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">20 And Adam
gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the
field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">21 And the
LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one
of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">22 And the
rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her
unto the man.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">23 And Adam
said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called
Woman, because she was taken out of Man.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">24 Therefore
shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife:
and they shall be one flesh.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Matthew 19:3-6<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">3 The
Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful
for a man to put away his wife for every cause?<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">4 And he
answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the
beginning made them male and female,<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">5 And said,
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his
wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">6 Wherefore
they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together,
let not man put asunder.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Matthew 22: 23-30<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">23 The same
day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and
asked him,<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">24 Saying,
Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry
his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">25 Now there
were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife,
deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">26 Likewise
the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">27 And last of
all the woman died also.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">28 Therefore
in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">29 Jesus
answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the
power of God.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">30 For in the
resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the
angels of God in heaven.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Hebrews 13:4<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Marriage is
honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God
will judge.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Is it not possible to view from the Scriptures a “doctrine”
of marriage? Do we not gather other portion of Scriptures and label them, “the
doctrine of _________”? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is not the very
concept of one man+one woman=one flesh (marriage) a Biblical truth and not just
a social construct? We get our understanding, our beliefs concerning marriage,
what it is, what constitutes it, etc., from the Bible and as such, it is then a
teaching, a doctrine, if you will. Al Mohler went to BYU to arguably unite
together with Mormons to push back at the societal devolution of the definition
of marriage. He yoked himself together with Mormons on the topic of marriage.
This is not just an “unwise” decision. With the differences of beliefs as to
what “marriage” is that exists between the Bible and Mormon doctrine, one then
really wonders just what was Mohler doing there in the first place. He spoke of
the differences that exist in other beliefs yet he ostensibly seeks to equate
the Biblical definition of marriage with the Mormon definition since he does
not address the vast differences between said beliefs as he speaks of marriage.
Should we really be esteeming this man Mohler?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<!--[if !supportEndnotes]-->
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Ernsberger%20Laptop/Documents/Blogging%20articles/Mohler%20Mormons%20and%20Moabites.docx" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="color: blue;">[1]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> “</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Yes, <i>anywhere
</i>means <i>anywhere</i>. If the Mormons seriously invited me to their
Tabernacle to defend biblical Christianity (including Fundamentalism), I would
go—subject to certain considerations. First, I would have to be free to say
whatever I thought was the truth, including that Mormonism is a cult. Second,
they should never expect me to recognize them in any way as Christians, or to
imply that we were seeking some common ground. Third, they should never expect
any return invitation from me, especially not if it would give them an opportunity
to present their views” (taken from comments at SI, can be found <a href="http://sharperiron.org/comment/51599#comment-51599"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>).</span><span style="font-size: 8pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-76793122661577665032013-08-20T09:58:00.000-07:002013-08-20T09:58:19.700-07:00What about the blood of Christ?
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">I’ve let the dust settle some on the conversation
that I note further down before bringing up this question, what about the blood
of Christ? This is a question in regards to John MacArthur that will not go
away regardless of how many times some at SharperIron will trot out links to
MacArthur’s statement. Sure, John MacArthur believes in the blood of Christ and
only the most inane would say anything to the contrary, but what does he
believe about the blood of Christ?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Over at Sharper Iron, some have brought it back to
people’s attention. Some men are expecting some level of apology for past
statements by fundamentalists, and fundamental fellowships (in this case the
FBFI). While everyone trots out the words of condemnation by various men
against MacArthur, no one is actually bringing up what John MacArthur has said.
I find this quite odd. Some are quick to jump on the FBFI for their past
denunciation of MacArthur yet no one is looking at what John MacArthur has said
to see if it is worth denouncing. Any denunciation is simply and quickly
dismissed seemingly just because it is against MacArthur. Here are links to the
comments referred to above (see </span><a href="http://sharperiron.org/comment/52591#comment-52591"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">
and </span><a href="http://sharperiron.org/comment/52622#comment-52622"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><u><span style="color: blue;"> </span></u></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">and </span><a href="http://sharperiron.org/comment/52064#comment-52064"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">
and </span><a href="http://sharperiron.org/comment/52067#comment-52067"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">)<span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="color: blue;">. <span style="color: black;">By using excerpts from Rolland McCune’s Systematic
Theology as a support of John MacArthur, a commentor gives the reader the idea
that what MacArthur believes is the same as what McCune articulates</span> </span></span>(see
</span><a href="http://sharperiron.org/comment/52623#comment-52623"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">)<span style="color: blue;"><span class="MsoHyperlink">. <span style="color: black;">Again, this is done without one quote from MacArthur.</span></span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">This does beg us to respond to the proverbial
elephant in the room, that being, what does MacArthur say about the blood of Christ?
It is not enough to say, yes, John MacArthur believes in the blood of Christ.
This statement means nothing. It says nothing as to what MacArthur actually
believes about that blood.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">So, let’s let John MacArthur speak for himself. Here
are some quotes from MacArthur himself about the blood of Christ. The first two
are transcribed from this audio of Phil Johnson and John MacArthur talking
about this very thing (found </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9470k9b2iVg"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">“</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">I have tried to make that distinction—that when the New
Testament refers to salvation by His blood that it is not talking about
salvation by His fluid. It uses blood as a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">metaphor</i></b> or a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">synonym</i></b> for death because
it conveys the violence of it.” (emphasis mine)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">“When the New Testament is talking about the blood of Christ it is talking
about the death of Christ, but it uses blood because that is a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">metaphor</i></b>
that speaks of the violence of his death.” (emphasis mine)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">In the audio you’ll notice that several times MacArthur
will build strawmen arguments about his beliefs. These strawmen have nothing to
do with the controversy surrounding him about his belief about the blood.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Let’s also look into MacArthur’s commentary writing to
find what else he says about the blood. In his commentary on Hebrews, The New
Covenant—part 3 (9:15-28) he writes,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">“The second reason for the death of Christ was that forgiveness demands <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">blood</b>. This truth is directly in line
with the previous point, but with a different shade of meaning. Blood is a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">symbol</i></b>
(emphasis mine) of death, and therefore follows closely the idea of a
testator’s having to die in order for a will to become effective.” (p. 236)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">“It was not Jesus’ physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our
behalf, which is <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">symbolized</i></b> (emphasis mine) by the shedding of His physical
blood.” (p. 237)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">“The purpose of the blood was to <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">symbolize</i></b>
(emphasis mine) sacrifice for sin, which brought cleansing from sin.” (p.237)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">“Since the penalty for sin is
death, nothing but death, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">symbolized </i></b>(emphasis mine) by the
shedding of blood, can atone for sin.” (p. 237. 238)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Now,
when the Scriptures speak of the blood of Christ is this what we are supposed
to think? That it is simply a symbol for His death? Now granted MacArthur says
many good things in this commentary about the blood of Christ but as we see
with the above excerpts those good statements are interspersed with these.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Those
at SI noted about how this issue of MacArthur and the blood hasn’t gone away.
Well, of course it hasn’t and it’s not going to go away. Every new copy of
MacArthur’s Hebrews commentary placed into the hands of each new preacher or
lay person will raise this question again and again.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Now
before, some go to the extremes, no, I am not of a Romanish bent that the blood
of Christ is eternally being offered, okay. I am asking this question though.
Is Christ’s blood merely, simply a symbol for His death? I don’t think so.
MacArthur leads us to think that Christ’s blood and His death are one in the
same thing with his use of the words synonym, metaphor, and symbol/symbolize.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">More
important than what a man thinks about a subject, what does the Scriptures say?
Let’s look at several passages beginning in Genesis.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Genesis
9:3, 4<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Every
moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I
given you all things.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But flesh with the
life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">God
gave commandment to Noah and his sons that they could eat animals now but not
the blood because the life of the flesh is the blood. God sets apart blood here
giving it a special emphasis.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Ex
12:7, 13, 22, 23<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on
the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall
eat it.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the
houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the
plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in
the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts
with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of
his house until the morning.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">For
the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood
upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door,
and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Notice
that in the initiation of the Passover, God says nothing about the animal
sacrifice that was consumed that night as being efficacious, but He does
mention that the blood must be applied to the doorposts and lintels of their
homes. The death of the animal was not sufficient, the blood must be applied.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Exodus
24:4-8<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">And
Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and
builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve
tribes of Israel.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">And
he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and
sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">And
Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he
sprinkled on the altar.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">And
he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and
they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">And
Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the
blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these
words.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Again,
we notice that animals are sacrificed but then specifically the blood is
reserved for a special purpose, being sprinkled on the altar and upon the
people. Keil & Delitzsch, in their commentary make this statement;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
division of the blood had reference to the two parties to the covenant, who
were to be brought by the covenant into a living unity…For this was not a
mixture of different kinds of blood, but it was a division of one blood, and
that sacrificial blood, in which animal life was offered instead of human life,
making expiation as a pure life for sinful man, and by virtue of this expiation
restoring the fellowship between God and man which had been destroyed by sin.
But the sacrificial blood itself only acquired this signification through the
sprinkling or swinging upon the altar, by virtue of which the human soul was
received, in the soul of the animal sacrificed for man, into the fellowship of
the divine grace manifested upon the altar, in order that, through the power of
this sin-forgiving and sin-destroying grace, it might be sanctified to a new
and holy life. In this way the sacrificial blood acquired the signification of
a vital principle endued with the power of divine grace; and this was
communicated to the people by means of the sprinkling of the blood. As the only
reason for dividing the sacrificial blood into two parts was, that the blood
sprinkled upon the altar could not be taken off again and sprinkled upon the
people; the two halves of the blood are to be regarded as one blood, which was
first of all sprinkled upon the altar, and then upon the people. In the blood
sprinkled upon the altar, the natural life of the people was given up to God,
as a life that had passed through death, to be pervaded by His grace; and then
through the sprinkling upon the people it was restored to them again, as a life
renewed by the grace of God. In this way the blood not only became a bond of
union between Jehovah and His people, but as the blood of the covenant, it
became a vital power, holy and divine, uniting Israel and its God; and the sprinkling
of the people with this blood was an actual renewal of life, a transposition of
Israel into the kingdom of God, in which it was filled with the powers of God’s
spirit of grace, and sanctified into a kingdom of priests, a holy nation of
Jehovah (Ex. 19:6). And this covenant was made ‘upon all the words’ which
Jehovah had spoken, and the people had promised to observe. Consequently it had
for its foundation the divine law and right, as the rule of life for Israel.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">In
the opening chapters of Leviticus, God lays out His instructions for how
service was to be rendered in the Tabernacle. In the first 8 chapters of
Leviticus, “blood” is used some 39 times (88 times in the whole book). Since
the use of this word is in conjunction with the actual sacrificing (i.e. the
death of an animal) and it’s use is differentiated from the animal itself, then
it seems most reasonable to understand that “blood” is not synonymous with, a
metaphor for, or symbolizes the “death” of the animal as John MacArthur leads
us to believe by his statements. The reason is obvious, animals were sacrificed
on the altar AND their blood was sprinkled on or applied to certain objects or
persons. BOTH the sacrifice of the animal was necessary AND the applying of the
blood was necessary. Two acts were accomplished to satisfy God’s commands to
His people, not one or the other, BOTH must be done. God also makes it very
clear in Lev. 17:11, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“For the life of the
flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an
atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the
soul”</i> that it is the blood that is in view here, not just the animal
sacrifice on the altar. This is BOTH/AND not either/or, a synonym, a metaphor,
or symbolizes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">I
move on to the New Testament. We know that all those sacrifices, which could
never take away sin, were a foreshadow of the One Perfect sacrifice for sin,
the Lord Jesus Christ. The very fact in our partaking of communion, the Lord’s
Table, shows the significance of the BOTH/AND. In the bread we remember, “This
is my body, which was broken for you,” we also partake of the fruit of the vine
(grape juice), “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for
many for the remission of sins.” We do not partake of one element recognizing
that they are symbolical, a metaphor, or a synonym of the other.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
Scriptures paint an entirely different picture. For in the Scriptures, both in
the many OT sacrifices and in the NT’s presentation Christ’s sacrifice, we see
a BOTH/AND when it comes to the blood and death. Whether it is the Passover,
where the lamb is given and whose body is to be consumed by the family AND its
blood applied to the doorposts and lintel or the sanctifying of the Tabernacle
with the sacrifice of the animal on the altar AND the sprinkling of all things
associated with the Tabernacle with the blood, to the Day of Atonement where
once again an animal is sacrificed on the altar AND its blood sprinkled on the mercy
seat in the Holy of Holies, we see that BOTH a sacrifice (the death of an
animal) AND its blood sprinkled were to be done. Not one or the other but BOTH
were necessary, thus eliminating the idea of just taking some blood from an
animal and letting it live and also not just killing an animal and sacrificing
its body on the altar. The complete fulfillment of the sacrifices in the Old
Testament is seen in the sacrifice and shed blood of our precious Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">So,
does John MacArthur believe in the blood of Jesus Christ? The answer is yes,
but more importantly is what MacArthur believes about His blood. John
MacArthur, in the very least, has portrayed a very poor picture of the blood of
Christ. John MacArthur has done what John MacArthur seems to do best, over
react in the opposite direction to some error of extreme. His Lordship
Salvation as articulated in his book, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Gospel According to Jesus</i>, is an overreaction to easy believism. His
statements on the blood of Christ are an overreaction to those extremists who
have taken the blood of Christ into the realm of possessing various mystical
powers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Let’s
let the Scriptures say what It has to say and not twist and pervert them to
mean something It doesn’t.</span></div>
Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-31952295516956009652013-05-14T09:41:00.000-07:002013-08-14T09:25:52.327-07:00Removing the question mark ? on NIU: We’re Evangelical<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">In a previous article I posed the question, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Is NIU Fundamental?</i> While the article
went on to lay out some activities at NIU that I believe exposed the drift away
from fundamentalism and into evangelicalism, now we have NIU making its own
statement as to where they are in this spectrum. Howard Patz (son of Paul Patz
founder of Northland camp and the college/university) is stepping down from the
chairmanship of the board of directors and the mantle has been offered to
Daniel Patz a grandson of the founder, alumnus of NIU, and pastor of an
Evangelical Free Church in America (EFCA) which is part of the NAE (National
Association of Evangelicals). Daniel Patz is clearly a self-identified
Evangelical and he’s been offered the chairmanship of the board of NIU. Would a
fundamentalist institution of higher learning extend the offer of chairmanship
of the board of directors to an evangelical? Answer: No!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">NIU also has dropped their current statement of
faith and adopted the New Hampshire Confession of Faith of 1853. While they
state that this adoption is provisionally pending a review, they have noted, “Our
president, the Board of Directors, and our Bible faculty have all signed the
New Hampshire Confession in support of what it affirms.” One must ask the
question, why did they drop their existing statement of faith? One conjecture
would be that they needed to bring their statement of faith into line with
their new practice and rather than doing the obvious and remove portions of
their current statement they instead adopt a new one, provisionally, of course,
and thus, rather quickly and quietly have eliminated those portions which
needed to be “adjusted.” Now as they adopt, change, revise this new confession
of faith, they will have their “doctrine” in line with their new found
“practice.” Their now “old” statement of faith put them squarely violating
their own statements. Something had to be done, they couldn’t just continue to
ignore their own statement, too many of us have called them out on this. But I
digress somewhat.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Should we be surprised by the events of the past two
weeks? In one sense, yes. On April 29<sup>th</sup> the board had a meeting in
which Matt Olson was called in and for all intents and purposes was fired. He
was given notice that his termination as president was effective graduation
day, May 11<sup>th</sup>. Matt Olson was given the nod to make his termination
known to the school on the following Monday in chapel. He did so in a gracious
manner. Now move forward one week from that chapel announcement and according
to Daniel Patz on his facebook page, the Patz family was meeting on Monday, May
6<sup>th</sup> at 7pm and he was requesting prayer for that meeting. Two days
later on May 8<sup>th</sup> another board meeting takes place. While the events
of this board meeting aren’t very public at this point, it is quite clear that
there was a power struggle within the board and the Patz family board members
made their desires known. It is known that four non-Patz family board members
resigned at the May 8<sup>th</sup> meeting. It looks like this restructured
board then voted to reinstate Matt Olson as president to which he accepted and
this was announced the following day in chapel along with the announcement that
Howard Patz was stepping down as chairman and the offer of the chairmanship was
being extended to Daniel Patz who has yet to give his official acceptance. Here
is a link to NIU’s May 11<sup>th</sup> announcement about the May 8<sup>th</sup>
board meeting (found </span><a href="http://www.ni.edu/news-events/an-update-from-northlands-board"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">).
Notice nothing was said of the resignation of 4 board members even though they
apologize for their lack of communication in the past they continue with a lack
of communication about what took place. Another point of a lack of
communication is the financial concerns which were mentioned which caused Matt
Olson to be released at the April 25<sup>th</sup> board meeting. What about
those financial concerns? Did they disappear over the course of a week and a
half, so that Matt Olson could be re-hired? It is rumored about that the
endowment that the Patz family set up for NIU is depleted. NIU has been running in
the red and seemingly relying on the principal of that endowment rather than
just the interest. I understand, this is a bit of speculation on my part,
because there has been a lack of communication on the part of NIU concerning
their financial viability, so much for transparency.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Matt Olson a while ago in one of his articles
mentioned “transparency.” The goings on at NIU have been anything but
“transparent.” Instead, some secrecy, some cover up has been the modus operandi
of NIU. A rock band is initiated in January of this year but is not made public
until April 2<sup>nd</sup> only to be removed from the home page of NIU’s
website two days later and left buried within their website pages. This begs
the question, why wait some three months before announcing this recruiting
tool? This same band was on stage with Big Daddy Weave in concerts in Oshkosh,
and Wausau, WI in February. At the Oshkosh event some 40 students from NIU and
Matt Olson were present “recruiting” for NIU. As the presence of the students
and Matt Olson<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>became public knowledge,
no mention of the band was given and NIU quickly downplayed their presence by
insisting they just had a booth there for recruiting and Matt Olson just
happened to be given the opportunity to speak to the crowd. Instead, this event
was put on by Lamplight Productions which has strong ties to NIU and NIU’s own
band was part of the event. The band was never mentioned in all this kerfuffle
back in February, so much for “transparency.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Then there’s the NIU chapel speaker, Guy Conn,
pastor of Fox River Christian Church, and the video link of his church service which
initially was open for public viewing and then suddenly that one video (link <a href="http://vimeo.com/63299526"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>) became members only accessible and
cannot be found on the church’s webpage for sermons (link <a href="http://www.foxriverchristian.org/YourNextStep/Worship/MessagesOnline.aspx"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>)
hmmm…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">“Transparency” and “stonewalling” are not synonyms.
Instead, they are more like antonyms, yet Matt Olson and crew would try to have
us believe that they are synonyms by the actions that they have taken this past
semester with the direction change that has been going on for quite some time
at NIU. Even with the change Matt Olson and even Les Ollila initially told us
that there were no changes going on at NIU. I am thankful that that “no change
change” has been dropped. That makes for a little glimmer of transparency along
the lines of being, say, translucent instead of stonewalling. But in the end,
the change that has been ongoing has brought NIU clearly, squarely into
full-orbed evangelicalism and away from any version or strain of
fundamentalism.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Where does this leave us? As fundamentalists, with
one less college to send our young people to for higher education; for
evangelicals, it gives them a college in the north woods of WI, where they use
a dog sled team to take you from Green Bay to Dunbar. Surely there will be
standing room only for young people flocking to NIU to enjoy their winters
instead of the balmier places available say, in Illinois, Ohio, or California.
The future looks bleak for a once fine institution. This is tragic.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><strong><u>Addendum:</u></strong></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Just today, May 13th, Matt Olson at his blog writes
and notes that four board members stepped resigned at the May 8<sup>th</sup>
board meeting (link <a href="http://matthewrolson.com/a-personal-note/"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>).
In this article, Matt Olson says nothing of the Patz family of the evening of
May 6<sup>th</sup> two days prior to the board meeting in question. Matt Olson
states,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">On the evening of May 8, the chairman of the board,
Howard Patz, clarified for the rest of the board the history of Northland, as
well as the direction he believed it should now take. After some discussion,
four members of the board graciously and respectfully resigned. Nothing was
forced, and it was a grace-filled meeting.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Right, the Patz family meets one week after Matt
Olson publicly announces his termination and two days after the family meeting
the board meets, Howard Patz reviews the history of NIU and four board members
(all non-Patz family members) resigned. All this after constantly being
reminded this past year or so by Matt Olson at his blog and NIU’s vidcasts that
he and the Patz family are together with what Matt Olson is doing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The sane ones have left the Titanic.</span><br />
Read also: <a href="http://parsingsofapreacher.blogspot.com/2013/03/is-niu-fundamental.html">Is NIU Fundamental</a></div>
Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-59606138864879474732013-04-29T12:21:00.000-07:002013-04-29T12:21:29.114-07:00What does the future hold for NIU?
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Jay- If this story
is true, I hope that all the people who were antagonistic to Olson and the
direction of NIU are now satisfied. Not that I expect that they will be,
but they got their wish. Congrats, guys...you forced a man out of his
job. Nice going! </span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">David O- Yes, a few
internet miscreants steer the ship of a whole university. If that's
the case, they have bigger problems than the ones their critics have been
alleging. </span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">GregH- If it was
not the rabid bloggers that made the difference, what did make the difference?
So let them pat themselves on the back for a while. They won a battle though I
don't think there is much evidence they are winning the war.</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><o:p> </o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Such is
the nonsense being spewed at SI of late. Do these guys really think that a
couple of bloggers really brought down Matt Olson? Really? You guys don’t think
very highly of the current board members by such foolish statements. You make
the board out to be some kind of marionette puppets with the bloggers pulling
the strings behind the scenes. No NIU board of director ever contacted this
blogger and I haven’t contact any board member. As a matter of fact, I don’t
even know who is on the board of directors. The above listed commentators are
only fooling themselves with such nonsensical keyboard ranting. Instead they
are trying to shift the blame about the departure of Matt Olson from NIU.
Obviously, Matt Olson caused his own departure…that we do know. Why the board
dismissed Matt Olson…that remains the unknown and it is foolish to try to state
facts when none are known at this time.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">To be
quite honest in reply, right now no one knows exactly why the board
released Matt Olson at their April 25<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">th</span></sup> meeting and made his
departure effective May 11<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">th</span></sup>; a rather short time by most anyone’s
standards. What does this mean? We don’t know and at this point in time with
all the dust still up in the air we won’t know for a while. We do know that
much of what Matt Olson instituted is still at this time operative, but we don’t
know if those things will continue long term. We do know that when a new
president is announced a sense of the direction which the board is desirous of
taking will be made known.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">It will
be difficult for the institution to remain a viable place of education
regardless of the direction, whether continuing on its present course initiated
by Matt Olson, but under the helm of another or if they seek to return to their
former course. To remain on their current course but with a new president still
has the challenge of gathering a new clientele of churches for the student
population. If a return is sought to their former course, they are confronted
with credibility, integrity issues in trying to regain that former clientele of
churches, not to mention the faculty and staff necessary to put them back on
their former footing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">No, the
future of NIU is, I believe, tottering, like an inverted triangle trying to balance
itself on a corner. Either of the two scenarios I give knock the structure
over, possibly collapsing it irreparably. The equilateral triangle is one of
the most stable geometric designs…when placed on a side, but is also one of the
most unstable when trying to balance on a corner. NIU shifted off its base and
has been tottering on a corner. The outcome doesn’t look pretty and that is a
tragedy, for I do not take joy or find any sense of satisfaction should NIU
cease to exist. Like other institutions which have left their solid foundation,
it forms yet another sad chapter in history.</span></div>
Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-43879337430145771972013-03-29T16:10:00.000-07:002013-08-14T09:23:21.258-07:00Is NIU fundamental?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">“Blunt
discussions of faults are not the same as attacks. I know that you believe
this—you advertise your own blog as “fundamentalism by blunt instrument.”
You’re certainly not afraid of tackling issues and naming names, even to the
point of telling parents and pastors (bluntly!) ‘Don’t send your kids to
Northland.’ While I know that decisions of Northland International University
have provoked controversy, I don’t think that anyone has decided that that NIU
is no longer a fundamentalist institution—and I don’t believe that you perceive
yourself as attacking them.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
above is a paragraph by Dr. Kevin Bauder in a posting over at SI (it can be
found </span><a href="http://sharperiron.org/comment/53073#comment-53073"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: #9a6b3d;">here</span></span></a><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">). I do wish to look at what Dr. Bauder brings up, and
that is, Is NIU still a fundamentalist institution? Now, just because someone
claims to be a fundamentalist (or anything else for that matter) doesn’t make
them a fundamentalist (or whatever they are claiming). Putting on a façade
doesn’t make the case either, any more than someone living in a garage,
decorating themselves with auto parts makes them a Buick.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">So
let’s look at what has placed NIU into this controversy. You can find plenty of
material at Lou Martuneac’s blog, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In
Defense of the Gospel</i> (found </span><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: #9a6b3d;">here</span></span></a><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">). Don Johnson at his blog, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">An Oxgoad, eh</i> (</span><a href="http://oxgoad.ca/"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: #9a6b3d;">here</span></span></a><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">), and at the FBFI’s blog Proclaim & Defend (</span><a href="http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: #9a6b3d;">here</span></span></a><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">) has also addressed some the NIU controversy. I too have touched on this
controversy (</span><a href="http://parsingsofapreacher.blogspot.com/2010/12/when-you-are-traveling-you-always-have.html"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="color: #9a6b3d;">here</span></span></a><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">I wish
to list here some things that have occurred at NIU over the past 2 ½ years
(which are addressed in more detail in various blog articles at the sites mentioned
above) to consider for the above mentioned question.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">Ø<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">October
2010 Rick Holland speaks at chapel at NIU (Rick Holland at the time was on
staff at John MacArthur’s church and was the leader of the Resolved Conference
which was a rock concert with a spiritual emphasis put on by MacArthur’s
church. It seems to have died with last year’s conference).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">Ø<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">November
2010 Wayne Simien, former NBA star speaks in chapel as a result of a NIU
student interning at Simien’s sport camp in KS. This sports camp is
non-denominational and includes dance camp for girls.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">Ø<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Fall
of 2010 Dr. Wynne Kimbrough, dean of students, and a few students do a song
from the Broadway musical, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Wicked</i>, in
chapel.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">Ø<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Summer
2011 Dr. Bruce Ware from Southern Seminary is in for a block course to the
D.Min. students. Dr. Bruce Ware espouses progressive dispensationalism.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">Ø<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">July
2012 Dr. Matt Olson attends an SGM (sovereign grace ministries) church in
Philadelphia, and on his blog site publicly commends this church, the NIU
alumni who attend and specifically, Greg Dietrich, who is on staff with NIU and
attending this church<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">Ø<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">December
2012 Matt Olson attends Rick Holland’s new ministry, a church in the Kansas
City area. Commending Rick Holland on the services, especially a concert on
Saturday night (according to the church’s website’s calendar the only concert
was an Enfield concert; Enfield is the Christian rock band out of John
MacArthur’s church that was the music driving the Resolved Conferences that
Holland oversaw)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">Ø<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">February
2013 Matt Olson and about 40 students attend the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">I am redeemed </i>CCM concert in Oshkosh to recruit students for NIU<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">All this begs the question; is this demonstrative of
a fundamentalist institution? Do fundamentalists recruit students at rock
concerts? Do fundamentalists attend evangelical churches and charismatic
churches and promote both? Do fundamentalists have evangelicals preach in their
chapels? Do fundamentalists promote camps that teach our daughters to dance? Do
fundamentalists reproduce Broadway musicals in chapel, even if done in parody?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Personally, to answer the above questions, I give an
unequivocal, NO! Some may argue that NIU still has a fundamental orthodoxy and that
is true. However, from our orthodoxy flows our orthopraxis and orthopathy. Dr.
Matt Olson has started to introduce a different –praxis (heteropraxis?) and –pathy
(heteropathy?), ones that are at odds with the orthodoxy. This tension will
have to be relieved. Either the –praxis and –pathy will revert or the –doxy will
change as well.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Now certainly Dr. Matt Olson and the trustees of NIU
are entitled to move the institution in any direction which they desire but
with that change may they also be men of integrity enough to say they are
changing direction and abandoning their previous position. Dr. Olson has yet to
answer the questions surrounding the promotion of a charismatic church in
direct contradiction to their stated position against charismaticism. What Dr.
Matt Olson has initiated over the past 2 ½ years is clearly a direction change.
Just talk to any alumni or former student who was last a student prior to the
above mentioned events and you will find them saying things such as, “that was
never allowed when I went there.” We are hiding our heads in the sand if we try
to say that nothing is changing at NIU.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Change can be good. I’m not against change. I’m 51
years old, my first dress clothes date back to the mid 70’s…change is good.
Change can also be bad. I would argue that the direction change that Dr. Matt
Olson has taken NIU is not a good direction. He has put in motion a change that
will lead NIU squarely into evangelicalism.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">For those who always wish to bring up the perennial
question, have you contacted Dr. Matt Olson? Yes, I have, on numerous occasions
starting back in the fall of 2010 after he had Rick Holland and Wayne Simien. I
was summarily dismissed. Dr. Matt Olson was not in the least bit concerned over
my concerns and was not at all troubled if the school lost our constituency.
Now, I have mentioned this at times in comments elsewhere, that all of this at
NIU has a direct bearing on my ministry. There have been four students from our
church go to NBBC/NIU. Three have graduated; one is out working right now. One
of those graduates worked for over 10 years on campus. That person did not
renew their contract for the 2011/2012 school year for the very concerns
mentioned above that had occurred up to that point in time. So, yes, this is
indeed impacting me, though I have never been on the campus. As a church we
have severed having any ties with NIU. They are no longer on our list of
recommended colleges for our young person or anyone. This is not fun. This
grieves me very much. Thankfully our church family is united in this. We haven’t
left NIU. NIU has left us.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Addendum: NIU just introduced their latest recruiting tool: Redeemed, a rock band (the link is <a href="http://www.ni.edu/news-events/redeemed-to-worship">here</a>) Here is also a link to a video presentation of this group <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZF7ZCkQAUxQ#">here</a></span><br />
So, another question, does a fundamentalist institution use a rock band for recruiting students? Answer: NO! Northland has left the station that was once fundamentalism and has arrived at a new station, which is an old station, called evangelicalism. Clearly NIU is not where it once was, a tragedy, truly a tragedy.<br />
<br />
See also: <a href="http://parsingsofapreacher.blogspot.com/2013/05/removing-question-mark-were-evangelical.html">Removing the question mark, we're evangelical</a></div>
Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-26181268634925231132012-11-02T18:20:00.002-07:002012-12-07T15:35:45.023-08:00Why is baptism taking a knocking these days?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">At
the outset of this article I do state that, yes, I understand that “baptism” is
not one of the enumerated “fundamentals of the faith” in any of the lists made
some one hundred and more years ago. I get it, so please, there’s no need to
try to comment that this blogger is trying to add to the fundamentals of the
faith.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I
am asking this question in light of Dr. Olson’s relegation of baptism to the
backwaters of importance at NIU by his comments in his multi-part articles
about What Matters Most. There was a time when NIU (Northland International
University) was Northland <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Baptist</b>
Bible College (emphasis mine). One of those Biblical distinctives of being a
Baptist is believer’s baptism. Even a brief overview of Baptist history reveals
that both sides of this issue held their respective beliefs firmly in centuries
gone by. While no one is dying at the hands of pedobaptists for holding to
believer’s baptism, yet I find it most interesting that those who give the most
ground when seeking some sort of cooperation between the two views, it is the
believer’s baptism view which succumbs. Why? We hold the high and holy ground
on this one. Ours IS the Biblical view. Yes, I said, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>IS the</u></b> Biblical view.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Dr.
Olson has also been one to tout “Great Commission Living” (The catch phrase at
NIU is, Preparing the next generation of servant-leaders for Great Commission
Living”). Look at the Great Commission articulated in Matthew 28:19, 20; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost:</i></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> What <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">marching orders</i> does our Sovereign give
us? Believers are to, 1) go to all nations, 2) teach all nations (make
disciples, evangelize with/to Christ), 3) baptize those converts (identify with
Christ), and 4) teach the Scriptures (indoctrinate with Christ). So part of the
Great Commission is baptism. If the Great Commission is so important (and it is),
why such latitude on this sub-point of baptism? It is clearly spoken by our
Lord Jesus Christ that before one can be baptized one must first be converted,
born again, become a believer. We have example after example in the book of
Acts of that which the Lord Jesus Christ articulated in the Great Commission.
Here are the passages in Acts:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Acts 2:37-41</span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Now
when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and
to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter
said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are
afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other
words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward
generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same
day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Acts 8:12</span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">But
when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God,
and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Acts 8:35-38</span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Then
Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him
Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the
eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip
said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and
said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the
chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and
the eunuch; and he baptized him.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Acts 9:17, 18</span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">And
Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him
said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as
thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled
with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been
scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Acts 10:44-48</span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">While
Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the
word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as
came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of
the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then
answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized,
which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be
baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Acts 16:12-15</span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">And
from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and
a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days. And on the sabbath we
went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we
sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman
named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God,
heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which
were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought
us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my
house, and abide there. And she constrained us.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Acts 16:25-33</span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">And
at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners
heard them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And suddenly there was a
great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and
immediately all the doors were opened, and every one’s bands were loosed. And
the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors
open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the
prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself
no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and
came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and
said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him
the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the
same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all
his, straightway.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">In
every single instance, the pattern is salvation first then baptism. EVERY
SINGLE TIME! There is not one exception. Is this pattern not clearly seen?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Second,
and just as important, is the meaning of the underlying Greek words. Sadly,
this is where English translators through the centuries, dating all the way
back to William Tyndale’s English NT, have failed to translate the Greek word,
βαπτίζω, and instead have transliterated the word from Greek letters to English
letters. So what does βαπτίζω mean? It means, to immerse, to submerge, to place
under (the water), to plunge. Hmm,…so, where does sprinkling, or pouring enter
in? Answer, they don’t. These methods of baptism have no Scriptural precedent,
whatsoever. Where does infant baptism come in the Scriptures? Answer, it
doesn’t. Again, there is not one single passage that clearly states that a
child, before they could understand the Gospel message and be saved, was
baptized. Advocates of pedobaptism infer from passages such as Acts 16:12-15
and 25-33 that these two households surely had infant children present when the
Gospel was preached and therefore they too were baptized. Just as valid an
inference could be drawn that Lydia was a widow lady past child bearing years,
whose children were grown and out of the house, who traveled about unencumbered
with the domestic life of children so that she could promote the purple dye
guild of Thyatira. And because she traveled about her servants were also
childless so as to move about with her with relative ease. As to the Philippian
jailer, surely we know him to be a retired Roman legion soldier who settled at
Philippi because it was his last post as an active soldier of Rome. While he
was at the garrison of Philippi he had made friends with the city rulers and
upon his retirement they offered him the job of city jailer. He liked Philippi
so well and the offer was a lucrative one that he just couldn’t turn down,
besides it was a long and arduous journey to travel back to his native Gaul.
Because he had spent his lifetime as a soldier he never had time for family
life so his household was comprised of fellow retirees who had served with him
in service to Rome. Again, no children were present in this home.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">You
see, those are just as plausible (and I would tend to think more highly
probable) as those who infer that infants were present. The pedobaptist also
try to tie baptism to circumcision as a rite of initiation, which is again
nowhere taught in the Scriptures. Pedobaptism is a leftover tradition from
Roman Catholicism that the Reformers didn’t place through the Biblical sieve. I
am rather struck by the those of a Reformed bent or are sympathetic to said
thought, who run out their <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“sola”</i>
statements (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sola fide</i> [by faith
alone], <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sola gratia</i> [by grace alone],
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">soli Deo Gloria</i> [glory to God alone],
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">solus Christus</i> or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">solo Christo</i> [Christ alone], and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sola scriptura</i> [by Scriptures alone])
proudly and hoist them high for all to see. The last one is what really gets
me, for you see, I do agree with these statements. It is by Scriptures alone.
This is the first of the Biblical distinctives that Baptists hold dear. The
Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice. So why didn’t the Reformers
really practice that and why don’t its adherents practice it today? A case in
point is Ulrich Zwingli who indeed in 1523 stressed that it would be the Bible
only by which beliefs would be judged, not men, not traditions, not creeds, or
churches. To quote from Armitage’s Baptist history;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">When
Zwingli took lead in the Swiss Reformation, he demanded obedience to the Word
of God in all Christian matters, and resolved to reject what it did not enjoin.
When debating with Dr. Faber, before six hundred Catholic dignitaries at Zurich
in 1523, he laid down this foundation principle. Faber demanded who should
judge between them on the matters in dispute, and Zwingli pointed to the
Hebrew, Greek and Latin Scriptures, which lay before them. Instead, the doctor
proposed that the issue should be decided by the universities of Paris,
Cologne, and Freiburg. Zwingli replied that the men in that room could tell
better what the Scriptures taught than all the universities. ‘Show me’ he demanded,
‘the place in the Scripture where it is written that we are to invoke the
saints.’ When Faber defended that doctrine by the Councils, Zwingli showed that
as these erred, nothing was binding but the Bible, and said that he would go to
the universities if they accepted the Bible as the only judge. Dr. Blanche
said: ‘You understand the Scriptures in one way, and another in another. There
must be judges in order to decide who has given the right interpretation.’ But
Zwingli refused to give any man a place above the Scriptures. Many of his
hearers had strong Baptist tendencies and took in this radical doctrine.
Educated by so skillful a general, they turned his own weapons upon him when
they took issue with him on other subjects; and he was powerless, being obliged
to appeal to the sword drawn from the Catholic armory. He was the most advanced
of all the reformers biblically, but the moment that he fell into controversy
with his own Baptist disciples, he broke with his fundamental principle and
made the magistrates of Zurich the decisive judges in the disputes. (p. 330)<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">As
Armitage notes, followers of Zwingli followed that understanding that the Bible
is the only authority and in 1525 refused to baptize their infants. They were
removed from church and hunted down as heretics. Many eventually were martyred.
Why were they killed? Because they accepted that last <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sola</i> and stated that baptism was for believers only, that infants
were incapable of salvation and thus should not be baptized. If the teaching of
believer’s baptism is worthy of men like George Blaurock, Felix Manz, Conrad
Grebel, and Balthazar Hubmeyer to suffer and die for, then why is it relegated
to the backwaters of importance by a president of a supposedly Baptist
institution of higher learning? Dr. Olson in his series of articles stated that
the mode of baptism was a ‘functional distinctive’ of churches/para-church
organizations. Then why did our Lord Jesus Christ declare that baptism was part
of the Great Commission?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">As
I stated at the beginning, I fully understand that believer’s baptism is not a “fundamental
of the faith.” With that said, neither is it some obscure, vague teaching of
the Bible that is shrouded from clear view. There is no obscurity in the above
mentioned passages concerning who is the proper candidate and the timing of
their baptism.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I
bring this to our attention to voice my continued concern with Dr. Olson and
the direction he is taking NIU. He has tried to deftly relegate vital Biblical
truth to some low rung of unimportance. His trajectory is moving NIU from its
once historic fundamentalist position very rapidly. To his growing list of
compromised, evangelical men, Dr. Olson is adding Conrad Mbewe, having invited
him to speak at the upcoming Heart Conference. Maybe Dr. Doran gave the
suggestion since he had Mbewe in for services a couple years ago. It is tragic to see an institution go the wrong way.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-25376536703482661902012-10-03T15:35:00.000-07:002012-10-03T15:35:46.320-07:00Does Dr. Matt Olson really get “What matters most”?
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">For
the past couple of years now Dr. Matt Olson has presented a change in practice
for Northland International University (formerly Northland Baptist Bible
College). Rick Holland from MacArthur’s ministry and the man behind the
Resolved Conferences for young people spoke in chapel, Wayne Simien, former NBA
star, came and spoke in chapel shortly thereafter as well, highlighting his
sports camp in Kansas. Dr. Bruce Ware of Southern Seminary and progressive
dispensationalism fame was brought in for a graduate Ministry course. All this
is noted in a previous article, </span><a href="http://parsingsofapreacher.blogspot.com/2010/12/when-you-are-traveling-you-always-have.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Recently,
Dr. Matt Olson embarked upon a multi-part series entitled, What Matters Most,
at his blog site. What has created concern is his initial article where he
relates a then recent visit to Philadelphia. He attended the services of a
church that is tied to Sovereign Grace Ministries. Sovereign Grace Ministries
is a family of churches identifying themselves as; “We are evangelical,
Reformed, and charismatic” (taken from the SGM website). At this church are
several NIU alumni, one of which, Greg Dietrich, is retained as an NIU staff
member while residing in Philadelphia and attending this church. Dr. Olson
praised these alumni as, “they get what matters most.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">This
has raised questions (which can be found </span><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2012/08/dr-olson-would-you-kindly-tell-us.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> and </span><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2012/08/dr-olson-would-you-kindly-tell-us.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">). At the IDOGTG
(In Defense Of The Gospel) blog you will find a series of articles that Lou
Martuneac has written on this subject of Matt Olson’s multi-part series. I will
not reiterate what these men at their blog sites have said but I do wish to add
to the conversation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Matt Olson’s
opening words in part one are;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">We all believe in certain things,
but not all of those things carry equal weight. This is especially true when it
comes to our theology. There is a big difference between what you believe about
the resurrection, and what you believe about the timing of the rapture, or how
the polity is going to be structured in your church. Many things may be
important, but not equally so. When we value everything we believe equally, we
soon find ourselves dividing over secondary issues and neglecting matters of
much greater importance.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This is why Paul said in </span></i><a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/I%20Corinthians%2015.3"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I Corinthians 15:3</span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">, “For
what I received I passed on to you as of first importance….”<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">We have an example of a poor
translation driving one’s theology (or is it the theology of the translators
driving their translating?). Matt Olson quotes I Cor. 15:3 from the NIV which
translates the Greek word <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">protos</i> as
“first importance.” Giving then the idea that this gospel is of the highest
importance, all else is lesser. Pastor Steve Rogers had a good comment on this
at IDOTG’s response to Matt Olson’s first article,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Many fundamentalists are adapting the
evangelical argument that the Gospel holds primacy over other inspired,
doctrinal teaching. A current catchy trend is to take I Cor. 15:1-4 and say,
see Paul says first, which means primacy. Not first, chronologically in NT
Christianity, but primacy, the Gospel is the primary doctrine. In reality, Paul
is not saying the Gospel is the premier doctrine to the exclusion of other
doctrines, but that it is the first doctrine to be preached, and then other
doctrines come after, not in importance, but in chronology in Christianity.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">You see, the Greek word <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">protos</i> has a broader meaning than just primacy. This is where
context plays an important part in understanding the individual words. As
Pastor Rogers has noted, when coming to a city Paul preached the Gospel first,
just like that which was done to Paul. He too, first received the Gospel. Sure
it is important, no one is denying that, but it must come “first” because all
other doctrine stands upon the Gospel. What good does it do to preach on
justification, sanctification, glorification, our eternal state, etc., etc., if
first the foundation has not been laid which is the Gospel; the death, burial,
and resurrection of Jesus Christ? It is foolish and dangerous to proclaim the
other “fundamentals of the faith” before first laying the foundation. This idea
of the primacy of the Gospel over the other major tenets of the faith has
opened up the flood gate of ecumenical evangelism, particularly since the days
of Billy Graham’s compromise in the 50’s. One wonders if this push of primacy
is not tied to Covenant Theology’s faulty understanding of God’s primary
purpose on earth being redemptive rather than doxological. But then, Matt Olson
has relegated CT and Dispensationalism to the second tier of importance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">In his part three article, Matt asks and
then answers the question, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“What do we
separate over.”</i> He answers with these three responses, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“1) </i></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The Christian should expose and separate from a false Gospel
(</span></i><a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%201.8"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Galatians
1:8</span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">,<a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%201.9"><span style="color: windowtext;">9</span></a>).
2) The Christian should expose and separate from another Christian who
continues to walk in disobedience (after following a biblical process for
restoration, </span></i><a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/I%20Corinthians%205.9-13"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I
Corinthians 5:9-13</span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">). And 3) The Christian should separate from the world (This
is another discussion that I would like to take up in the future because I find
many people have a wrong view of ”the world” </span></i><a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/I%20John%202.15-17"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I John 2:15-17</span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">).”</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> Question, where does the false teacher figure into this?
Does he figure into point one? If so, then is a false teacher only one who
presents a false Gospel? Paul has made the case rather clear in Romans 16:17
and II Thess. 3:6, 14 that we are to “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">mark
them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have
learned; and avoid them”</i> and “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">withdraw
yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the
tradition which he received of us</i>” and “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">if
any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company
with him, that he may be ashamed.</i>” Now if Paul meant separation to be only
in regards to a false teacher giving a false Gospel wouldn’t he have said so in
these epistles as he did in the Galatian epistle? Instead, he clearly is
looking at a broader understanding when he uses these words “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the doctrine</i>,” “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the tradition</i>,” and “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">our word
by this epistle.</i>”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Continuing in part
three, he states, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Let’s separate to
Christ and enjoy the sweet fellowship with every believer walking with Him.”</i>
Clearly from the verses I have quoted, I can’t <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“fellowship with every believer walking with Him.”</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Now, why does this all matter? For
the main reason, that Northland is an institution of higher learning that
churches look to for assistance in preparing future believers for the work God
has called them to do. Sure we can disagree, as we do, but I have a high and
holy responsibility to see to it that my flock is properly instructed. What we
have seen and continue to see expressed at Northland is not assisting me in my
ministry. How can I send them to an institution where the president has no
problem disregarding the institution’s clearly stated beliefs in reference to
the charismatic movement?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In Matt’s series of article he has
sought to lay out a justification for his attending and endorsing the SGM
church in Philadelphia by deftly relegating cessationism/non-cessationism to a
lesser level of importance, practically speaking. He has expressed in this
series of articles that while Biblical teaching on baptism (he says “mode of
baptism” yet that is, practically speaking a non-issue; it’s not the “mode” [sprinkling,
pouring or immersing] that is at issue but the “candidate” i.e. pedobaptism or
believers baptism), church polity, eschatology, spiritual gifts, etc., are at
some level important, they are not separation issues just church/institution
“functional” distinctives. I humbly disagree. As to eschatology, please note
Paul’s words to Timothy in II Timothy 2:16-18. Evidently there is something
within the doctrine of eschatology which causes us to “shun” those with false
teachings on the subject. My lack of fellowship with those who are truly
brothers in Christ who hold to such differing doctrinal beliefs does not deny
their salvation. It does not deny the reality that one day when we are all in
God’s presence that there will be true “unity” in Christ at that point. It is
an unreality to think that somehow that “unity” is possible while still on this
earth, especially by lowering that unity to a “Gospel only” criterion.</span></div>
Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-25804775127387157662012-07-24T09:28:00.000-07:002015-01-17T18:54:18.533-08:00Is the use of “sanitized” SGM/Getty Music/Stuart Townend and et. al a “wisdom” decision?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">Before I delve into this matter myself, I have here an article written by a pastor friend of mine, Bob Fricks, who shares with us his thoughts on this issue.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Since its inception the church has faced a concentrated effort to dilute its message and effectiveness. Sadly, we must admit that there has been a gradual, but consistent, encroachment of worldliness into the church. This may be observed in many, if not most, of today’s evangelical churches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In recent history music has been at the forefront of this issue. Beginning in the late 1960s a new genre of music exploded on the scene known as Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). With the introduction of CCM came a damaging influx of worldliness as seen in the style of the music, the nature of the presentation, and the lifestyles of many of those who produce and perform CCM.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">While many have shifted their paradigm of worship to incorporate CCM into their services, others have, to the glory of God, stood firm. There is, however, a new and potentially more insidious threat.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There has been the fairly recent introduction of new compositions that include uplifting, biblically accurate words that are matched in an acceptable musical style. The concern of this writer is that some of those producing this music are not anywhere near being on the same page as the traditional, separated fundamentalist. There are applicable biblical standards to consider; let us consider two.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Consider one that has a very good friend who has built a successful business in a competitive market. Would he give him a birthday gift produced by his major competitor? One would expect that that gift would not be well received, even if given with the best of intentions; the giver of the gift did not consider the recipient in making the choice. God has set perimeters for that which is acceptable to Him in our offering of our gift of worship (music or any other aspect of worship). The standard is independent of our preferences, desires, likes/dislikes, and convenience. Anything knowingly offered that falls short is not pleasing to God and shows indifference toward Him. (Malachi 1:11-13)<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There is also the principle of Haggai 2:11-13. That which is ceremonially clean becomes unclean if it comes into contact with any unclean item. This is at the heart of the matter-Music produced by those that are not submitted to God’s standards for worship, although acceptable in form and content, should not be used in our churches.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">One must define his understanding of the purpose of worship to properly address this issue; purpose will determine the content of the worship. If the purpose is to entertain or to make one feel good, then chose that which is pleasing to you. If the purpose is to attract those outside the church, then choose that which appeals to the un-churched. If the purpose is to show love, dedication, honor, and glory to God then use only that which is pleasing to Him.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">It is with a sad heart that the following is presented. This writer has sung and been blessed by many songs produced by those who are considered below. Had the characteristics of the composers of these songs not become known to him he would have gladly continued using them.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Let us consider one source of new music for the church, Getty Music. Among Keith and Kristyn’s credits are “In Christ Alone”, “By Faith”, “Power of the Cross”, “Speak O Lord”, and “O Church Arise”. Many of these were co-written with Stuart Townend. There are three areas that should be considered in evaluating Getty music:<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">1. Their philosophy of music-<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The following statement is taken directly from the Getty Music web page. “Keith and Kristyn Getty have been writing hymns for more than a decade, demonstrating an ability to successfully bridge the gap between traditional and contemporary.” One might say this statement is justified by defining “contemporary” as new, but, as will be demonstrated, the definition of contemporary is that of CCM, music that is worldly. This is a gap that should not be bridged. God tells us “touch not the unclean thing”. It is a grave error to attempt to take that which is ungodly and attempt to “scrub it up” and “make it clean”. Stuart Townend has said “God loves electric guitars and drums.”(Stuart Townend: The Journey Gets Stronger, ChristianityToday.com, April 7, 2011). The bridge that would be established by Getty Music leads to a place that the Christian should not be.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">2. The church’s need to maintain a clear message-<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The right to speak against carelessness, casualness, and worldliness in worship is forfeited when that which is used comes from the very mindset we are speaking against.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">3. The church’s obligation to separate itself from worldliness-<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Keith and Kristyn Getty promote that which the church should have no part of. Let their performances speak for themselves. The link </span></i><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZuIyrwSqHY"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZuIyrwSqHY</span></span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> will take you to a video of the Gettys performing “In Christ Alone”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Another video to review may be found at </span></i><a href="http://vimeo.com/29837709"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: blue;">http://vimeo.com/29837709</span></span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> . These two videos give a good representation of that which the Gettys promote.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Some will say that there are others opposed to anything new. That is not the motive behind this article. There is a great need for new material suitable for worship to use in our churches. Let’s not abandon our biblical time-honored standards for the sake of being “up-to date” or “with-it” in the eyes of the world.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">I give a hearty amen to what our brother has said and here add my own thoughts on the use of “sanitized” CCM.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">When it comes to the discussion of music within the church setting emotions tend to rule the day and an objective interaction of ideas, opinions, and facts usually gets pushed aside. I daresay the same will happen here but I will try. It is because of the emotional pull of music that I bring up this question in the first place. Like any other issue it must be addressed factually and our emotions must become subservient.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">I pose this question because it is an issue that will only continue to rise in importance within the IFB community. Admittedly I am a member of the FBFI and I bring to our attention a resolution passed by that fellowship in 1997 which reads as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="Default" style="margin: 0in 0.3in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The FBF rejects the notion that music is not a matter of separation. Clearly, we would separate from a pastor or church that used rock music either to attract a crowd or-God forbid-in worship. Therefore, we recognize that it is a separation issue. The encroachment of "CCM" or Contemporary Christian Music as a musical genre has been ignored too long. It is wrong to judge motives subjectively, but it is essential to discern the implications of methods, particularly in music. Fundamentalists should be able to agree that we must be committed to Godly, Christ-honoring music. With sufficient prayerful discussion with Fundamentalist musicians, and necessary study of the subject by our preachers we will be able to move toward a consensus of what is meant by 'Christ-honoring' music in practice. We call for Fundamentalists to cease defending tastes in music as a matter of "preference" and begin to expound the principles whereby those who need guidance on this issue can be truly helped. We assert that those who boast of their "balance' and 'objectivity" while rejecting the teaching of biblical principles concerning music are compromising the means whereby this issue can be resolved. Neither tradition nor taste is the issue. The Bible communicates principles of music that is acceptable to God that can and should be known and taught.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">Now, here at the outset I do wish to state that I am in total agreement with this resolution. The use of CCM is a separation issue. But we have a twist to this in the use of “sanitized” SGM/Getty/Townend CCM. For the most part the lyrics are sound and the music has been altered to be acceptable to those who hold to a conservative, traditional style of music. This, I believe, leads us to ask yet another question, does the “sanitizing” negate the CCM moniker that said song has in its original form? I would answer, no. Sanitizing does not negate the original intent of the songwriter/musician. I think a parallel could be drawn from the literary realm with the use of euphemisms for profane language. We would agree, I trust, that profane language is unacceptable speech for the believer (Ephesians 4:29; 5:4 comes to mind). Using the euphemisms in place of the profane is still unacceptable because of the link, tie, whatever you wish to call it, the undeniable association of the words. A person says the euphemism but is really expressing the profane. Some may do it in ignorance because they have never been taught the relationship of the words but that does not excuse the understanding that euphemisms are still unacceptable in our speech.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">With our seemingly inexhaustible ability to access most anything via the internet, we have the issue of a slippery slope effect with the music. We present the sanitized version in our church and our people surf the internet and discover the original artists doing their original intent which we find unacceptable. We have opened the door to have some move in the wrong direction. Now for you naysayers about the slippery slope, exceptions don’t make the rule and neither do they invalidate the rule. There is abundant evidence to validate the slippery slope effect and yes, I agree that there are a few, and I mean few, who in various situations have not succumbed to the slippery slope. They do not invalidate the reality of the scores of others who have succumbed. I for one do not wish to be the one who provided for the falling of another. I am here to build up, to edify others, not provide the possibility for their falling down. The Biblical mandates governing the weaker brother certainly are applicable here. Sure, our mature church members can recognize the difference and remove the chaff and enjoy the wheat but we have those who cannot and they are led away by our opening the door to unacceptable practices. Notice what God teaches us concerning the weaker brother scenario; the mature believer limits his own liberty in order to assist and edify the weaker brother unto maturity (Romans 14:13-21, I Corinthians 8:8-13). Under this principle how is this “sanitized” CCM to be handled? Some might say that I am the weaker brother because I am unwilling to accept the “good” in CCM. If that be the case, what should the response then be of the “mature” brother who accepts CCM? By Scriptural instruction he should abstain from use of the music to help me to maturity. Now for the flip side, what if I am the mature believer and those who accept “sanitized” CCM are the weaker brother. What is my response? Again, I still abstain from that which I find wrong and I do so for the sake of the weaker brother to help and assist them to maturity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">Now, some may be asking what about the proper principles to instruct our people concerning musical choices? Well, here are a couple of resources I am familiar with and would recommend to you: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Battle for Christian Music</i> by Tim Fisher, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Gospel Music: Blessing or Blight?</i> by Ken Lynch, and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Church Music: sense and nonse</i>nse by Danny Sweatt. I do not know how available they are but hopefully they can be found.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">Now, back to our original question; is the use of sanitized music just a wisdom decision? Well, first we must decide just what constitutes a wisdom decision. Typically people will go to Acts 15:36-41 to state the case for a wisdom decision and I agree, for indeed we have such an instance between Paul and Barnabas concerning John Mark. In that issue both men are right…and God used, what was to them the most equitable solution, division, to multiply the missionary teams sent out and eventually brought about a complete reconciliation/restoration of the men involved. What is a bit disconcerting for this writer is when men today use this passage to try to justify their current departures from Biblical norms. The sanitized CCM is a case in point. There are some who cry this is a wisdom decision. Which cannot be the case, for either CCM is right or it is wrong; it cannot be both. If CCM is wrong, and it is, then it cannot be found to be acceptable at any point.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">In the FBFI resolution they note that this is a separation issue which would bring the Scriptures into this discussion. A couple of verses come to mind that have bearing on this; Romans 16:17; II Thessalonians 3:6, 14, 15, to name a few. I have already commented on this in another article so I will not elaborate too much here. You can find the other article </span><a href="http://parsingsofapreacher.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-bearing-does-romans-1617-have.html"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt;">. This brings us back to the original arrangement of the songs in question. Would we link with these ministries? Would we have these ministries come in and present this music in its original form? If we would not have them come because of our doctrinal differences, then why accept the sanitized version of their music? We know where it came from, and that source is itself to be separated from, so why is the sanitized to be received without question?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">Is it easy to be 100% consistent in this issue (or any issue for that matter), answer; no, it’s not because we are all fallible human beings. With that said, that also doesn’t mean that we give up trying to be consistent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">There are others areas that could be addressed on this issue, such as the entertainment element that is prevalent within CCM, even within SGM/Getty Music and Stuart Townend form of CCM. I think there has been enough touched on to cause us to pause and consider the implications of our actions.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">10.7.12 addenda</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">Here are links that aret in the comment section which can be accessed easier.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: #202020; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">
</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #202020; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue;"></span></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: #202020; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://religiousaffections.org/editors-picks/the-sovereign-gracegetty-music-question/"><span style="color: blue;">http://religiousaffections.org/editors-picks/the-sovereign-gracegetty-music-question/</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<span style="color: #202020; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2012/08/14/as-goes-the-music-so-goes-the-ministry/#more-933"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2012/08/14/as-goes-the-music-so-goes-the-ministry/#more-933</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2012/08/29/a-biblical-foundation-for-music/#more-974"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2012/08/29/a-biblical-foundation-for-music/#more-974</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2012/09/11/why-cling-to-a-conservative-music-standard/#more-1017"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2012/09/11/why-cling-to-a-conservative-music-standard/#more-1017</span></a></span></div>
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-63523460839430162982012-06-21T12:19:00.000-07:002012-06-21T12:19:04.979-07:00Calling for coalitions, consensus or setting up the ensign or standard?<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Are we calling for coalitions, consensus to build fundamentalism or are we setting up the ensign, standard around which men of like minds will gather?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I have heard a statement which is attributed to Margret Thatcher, “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Consensus is the lack of leadership</i>.” Historically Fundamentalism has not been a movement/ideal which was established by coalition, consensus. Historically Fundamentalism sought to mark itself by what it believes/stands for and has used those beliefs as the ensign, standard to which men rallied.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">There are not too many who do not recognize that Fundamentalism has had its share of troubles. Since Fundamentalism is comprised of men, it is naturally understandable that there will be troubles for we all still possess our fallen, sinful nature though we are redeemed. This is not to make excuse for those troubles, just an acknowledgement that troubles will always be present in any human gathering this side of heaven.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">The rub comes with the corrective measures that some wish to take in order to “correct” Fundamentalism and “move” it in the right direction. To seek out what is “common ground” in order to re-establish fundamentalism is to forget, reject how fundamentalism arose initially. Fundamentalism arose in reaction to the creeping tide of modernism within various denominations and as different men recognized the creeping tide of unbelief they established a “standard”, an “ensign”, if you will, which we call the Fundamentals which was used as the rallying point for fellow, likeminded men. They did not seek cooperation on the basis of consensus, or coalition building, finding the lowest common denominators by which men would come together. They established their beliefs, held them high and people who recognized the truth gathered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Evangelicalism has been built using the consensus, coalition model and we see the problems that this has produced; a broad, wide tent of belief with only tenuous strings stretched out trying to hold the various differing factions together. They are still quibbling over what exactly binds them together (Just read the mistitled book, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism</i>, to get a glimpse of this. I say mistitled for many understand, Andy Naselli, the editor included, that there are really only two views presented in the book; the right side of Evangelicalism {confessional or conservative} and the rest of evangelicalism which is left leaning).<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">We must return to this idea of stating our beliefs/position and let the truth of those beliefs/position draw like-minded men. Fundamentalism, I trust, has gone beyond the numbers games of decades gone by. This is not about who has the largest gathering, or who can have the largest following. This is about raising the truth found in God’s Word and having men respond to the truth.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Dr. Ed Nelson at last year’s national FBFI conference reminded the audience that God has been in the remnant business for a long time. We should not expect that the faithful followers of God and His Word will ever outnumber the other rallying points that are out in the broad spectrum of “Christianity.” God does call us to faithfulness (I Cor. 4:2), holiness (I Peter 1:14-16), Christlikeness (Rom. 8:29; II Peter 3:18) and it is toward God we are to ever be walking, striving in His enabling power by His Spirit.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Let us rejoice when others join us but may we never equivocate our beliefs, position, ensign for the sake of swelling our ranks.</span></div>Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-62631341509886708792012-04-25T15:17:00.000-07:002012-04-25T15:17:31.925-07:00The Story of Mr. FrogIn remembrance of <em>The Fortress...</em><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">There once was a picturesque pond which was home to a colony of healthy, well-fed frogs. One day a young man came to that pond and captured an elder frog. Well, at first Mr. Frog was quite beside himself, having been taken against his will by this man. Mr. Frog’s friends followed at a safe distance to see what was to be the fate of their friend. Mr. Frog bellowed to his friends to beware these tall, two-legged creatures if any were to return to the pond. His friends thought long and hard on these warnings and indeed were cautious as they followed.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Chance would have it that Mr. Frog’s captor instead of bringing immediate harm to him gave him his own private pond. The water was fresh and inviting. This pond was elevated so as to provide Mr. Frog a grand view of his new surroundings. The pond was situated on a large, white plateau with a small ridge that rose slightly higher than the plateau. On the slope of the ridge there were what looked to be round, white bushes, four of them, neatly spaced apart from each other across the ridge. Unseen to Mr. Frog and barely visible to his friends on the window, there were four dark, circular trails on the plateau.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Well, Mr. Frog’s friends had found a window ledge that afforded them a perfect view of the pond and the plateau. On the way to the window ledge a few of the frogs noticed a book in which the author spoke out about the dangers of plateaus, dark, circular trails, and ridges with white, round bushes. By precept, principles and previous experiences of others years ago, the author laid bare the dire consequences of any and all who would venture into ponds on plateaus with dark, circular trails and ridges with round bushes. To be sure, these frogs thought it their responsibility to sound a warning to their fellow frogs to beware of these ponds on those plateaus.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">When Mr. Frog saw his friends watching at the window, he called out to them in excited tones to come and join him. He told them about the cool, refreshing water. He told them about the fantastic views he had and how that he had been mistaken about the large, two-legged creature that had brought him here. Against the warning of some, a few of Mr. Frog’s friends decided to risk the venture and left the relative safety of the window ledge outside and found a way inside and joined him in the pond.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">After a little while, Mr. Frog’s friends who had joined him lost their apprehensions and began to relax and enjoy this new pond as well. They too, joined in and sang out about the advantages that the pond afforded. Others ridiculed those who were shouting out warnings, suggesting that they were far too bellicose or self-promoting and even a bit loony with their words of warning. Still others, remembering that some older frogs had spoken out against these things, took them to task as well, denouncing their warnings as unwarranted, ill-conceived ideas. As all this commotion was going on, yet others started to leave the window ledge and make their way into the house to join these happy fellows, fearful of being around those who were at times blunt in their warnings. As they were making their way in, the large, two-legged creature came by and seeing the following of frogs that were coming into his home, decided to add three more ponds to the plateau so as to accommodate the new comers. Once the newcomers were happily in their ponds the large, two-legged creature reached back on the ridge and rotated the four, round white bushes.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Pretty soon the dark, circular trails that were underneath the ponds started to glow a beautiful reddish-orange. Upon seeing this discoloration the few frogs remaining on the window ledge started crying out with more incessant tones to their friends in the ponds that disaster was brewing. Those were not ponds but were pots and their friends were headed to an untimely demise. The frogs that were in the ponds on the plateau scoffed at the warnings. Others who were still making their way in to join them on the plateau scolded those who issued the warning noting that we live in days of change and therefore it was necessary to have the dark, circular trail change colors. The new color was more appealing and enhanced the overall décor of the plateau. Sadly, the warnings and appeals by those on the window ledge went unheeded by the hapless followers of Mr. Frog. And indeed the frogs in the four ponds soon expired never realizing that they were being boiled to death.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Sadly, this scenario has been played out over and over again within the realm of Biblical Christianity in regards to any number of Biblical issues that have been compromised by various people. Whether it is associations, music, or what have you, there have been countless believers that have left the safety of the clear teaching of the Word of God and sought after the comforts that compromise promises to achieve yet never delivers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-29809281650851855252011-12-13T15:22:00.000-08:002011-12-13T15:22:33.057-08:00A Period of InactivityFor all those who cruise by my blog, there will be relatively little activity until after about mid-February. I will be out of country for three weeks in January, teaching a modular course at a Bible college. So right now my days are generously occupied with normal ministry things that are on the plate this time of year and I have been actively trying to get in time to prepare this course. Upon my arrival home in late January, I will be finalizing our annual missions conference that we have in mid-February. Needless to say, life is busy for this blogger right now.<br />
Some are probably rejoicing, "hey, he's not saying anything about what's going on." The day is coming when I shall write again. So, don't grow weary wondering what's up. Blogging has just taken a spot in the baggage area of the bus rather than the back seat.Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-81194403502626819292011-10-24T11:34:00.000-07:002011-10-29T15:41:37.260-07:00Is this really authentic?<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Dr. Douglas McLachlan has written a two part article for Sharper Iron (can be found <a href="http://sharperiron.org/article/moving-toward-authenticity-musings-fundamentalism-part-1"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a> and <a href="http://sharperiron.org/article/moving-toward-authenticity-musings-fundamentalism-part-2"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>) further articulating his thoughts concerning the reclamation of an authentic fundamentalism. I have recently (within the last couple of years) read Dr. McLachlan’s book, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism</i>. I was greatly encouraged and sadden at the same time. Encouraged because what he wrote resonated with me as the right expression of fundamentalism of which I have been a part since my salvation in 1974. I was saddened because as I read I realized that this book had been published originally in 1993 and was therefore readily available during the vocalization of the “young fundamentalists.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Dr. McLachlan now adds to what he wrote in the book by stating;<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in 6pt;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">That was the intent of the book: to awaken the older generation to what was happening within fundamentalism, and to give the younger generation a reason to remain within it and to make a generational commitment to fixing it. It has taken a long time, but I believe we are in the beginning stages of actually giving birth to an authentic fundamentalism, which is actually nothing other than a 21st century rebirth of historic, mainstream fundamentalism. Leading the way in this birthing are men like Kevin Bauder, Sam Horn, Matt Olson, Dave Doran, Tim Jordan, Dan Davey, and others like them.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Dr. McLachlan is laying down the claim that these men “and others like them” are bringing about what he wrote in his book. I would disagree. What these and others are doing is what Dr. McLachlan is articulating in his article, not what he articulated in his book. Dr. McLachlan has shifted his criteria for reclamation.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">In point 2, “Pursuing the radical center,” Dr. McLachlan uses the imagery of a pathway with ditches on either side. In this imagery, he states, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“</i></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Far too large a percentage of the evangelical world has descended into the ‘left ditch.’ And doubtless, far too much of the fundamentalist world has descended into the ‘right ditch.’”</span></i><span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;"> I believe that his assessment of “who” is on the pathway is incorrect when he implies that there are some evangelicals that are on the pathway when he says, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“far too large a percentage of the evangelical world has descended…”</i> He substantiates this claim later in the article where he says, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Confessional or conservative evangelicals aspire to distance themselves from the majority of the evangelical movement that is bolting left.”</i> And, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“…it is fair to say that both of these groups (confessional evangelicals and mainstream fundamentalism) seem equally committed to finding the radical center.”</i></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">It is a pipedream to think that conservative (or confessional) evangelicals are; first, on the pathway; second, aspiring to distance themselves from the rest of evangelicalism; and third, committed to finding the radical center. Evangelicalism “bolted” from the pathway in their break with authentic, mainstream fundamentalism in the 40’s/50’s, to which all tend to agree did indeed take place. While there is within evangelicalism a more vocal, conservative element, we must admit that there has always been a segment of evangelicalism that has tended to be more conservative. It has been pointed out time and time again that the so-called conservative evangelicals of our day (Dever, Mohler, Piper, Mahaney, MacArthur, et. al) are still evangelicals.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Dr. McLachlan would have us to believe, like Dr. Bauder before him, that these men are moving in our direction. Really? What evidence is there to show us their movement away from the rest of evangelicalism? Dever and Mohler remain in the largest evangelical denomination in the US. Mohler has signed the Manhatten Declaration along with a whole host of evangelicals. Yes, he has made statements seeking to bring clarity to his reason for signing, but the fact still remains his name is on the document with other evangelicals that according to McLachlan he is supposed distancing himself from. Mohler has chaired a Billy Graham crusade in Louisville sitting with evangelicals that he supposedly is distancing himself from. Dever has taught at Gordon-Conwell Seminary a clearly evangelical institution of higher learning from which he is supposedly distancing himself from. Dever was invited and initially accepted to come to The Elephant Room 2 in January 2012 to sit with T. D. Jakes, an evangelical which he is supposedly distancing himself from. Yes, to his credit he has cancelled his involvement but this was after the venting of Thabiti Anyabwile in a couple of blogs against portions of Jakes’ theology. Again, the fact still remains that Dever initially accepted the invitation. Dever’s church remains part of the DC Baptist Association which is evangelical in nature, which he is supposedly distancing himself from. Moving on to Dr. John Piper, we have another conservative evangelical who has no problem keeping ties with those within evangelicalism that Dr. McLachlan has put in the “left ditch.” What ties are those? Oh, for one, Piper remains in Converge Worldwide (formerly Baptist General Conference). He has no problem associating with the evangelical Rick Warren and “shock-jockesque” preacher Mark Driscoll of emergent church notoriety. Are these men really, REALLY, distancing themselves from the majority of evangelicalism?!!!<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Need I continue with example after example of these men and their attachments to all things evangelical? Are there some within fundamentalism who are sticking their proverbial heads in the sand, denying the reality that the conservative element of evangelicalism is still evangelical?<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">To the other side of this issue, Dr. McLachlan noted that there were those within fundamentalism who are seeking a reclamation of authentic, mainstream fundamentalism and we are in the “birthing” process now.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Just what kind of “fundamentalism” are these men “birthing” and is it a rebirth of historic, mainstream fundamentalism? Several instances over the past year or so I believe, should give us cause to question the validity of Dr. McLachlan’s optimism.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">First, we have the example of Dr. Tim Jordan and Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, PA. He brought in Dr. Mark Dever to speak at the February 2011 Advancing the Church Conference. Also at this conference were Drs. Bauder and Doran. This caused quite the stir in the blogosphere as sides were drawn quickly. Now, not to be outdone by having Dr. Dever; Dr. Jordan scheduled Dr. Timothy Lane of CCEF come to speak at a forum this fall and Dr. Haddon Robinson from Gordon-Conwell Seminary to speak at a forum in the spring. While many sought to establish Dr. Dever clearly as a conservative evangelical and very nearly, almost, and maybe even more militant than most fundamentalists; these two men are clearly entrenched in full orbed evangelicalism. What about Dr. Robinson?* Here is a man who has journeyed out of fundamentalism and into full-blown evangelicalism. He resides at Gordon-Conwell teaching alongside ordained, American Baptist Church USA preacher, Dr. Patricia Batten. Dr. Batten has an M. Div. and a D. Min. from Gordon-Conwell. She spoke at the seminary’s 2008 conference on preaching. A woman preacher…and this is a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">good</i></b> thing? How does a man known for his book on preaching, known for his passion for preaching justify a woman preacher? And Calvary wants him to come and speak?<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Second, there is the Dr. Olson, Dr. Horn, Dr. McLachlan, Dr. Ollila venture to CA in April 2010 to sit down with Dr. MacArthur which resulted in an invitation for Rick Holland to come and speak in chapel at Northland in October of 2010. Rick Holland heads up the Resolved Conference that Grace oversees. This is a conference of conflicting messages espousing Jonathan Edward’s resolutions but using the medium of a worldly rock concert to deliver that message. And then there is Dr. Bruce Ware teaching in Northland’s D. Min. program this past summer. Dr. Ware is on faculty at Southern Seminary, a Southern Baptist Convention institution. <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Third, there was the scheduled meeting of Dr. Larry Pettegrew at Central. Because of health reasons Dr. Pettegrew had to cancel but there is an open invitation to return. Who is Dr. Pettegrew? Like Dr. Robinson, he too has been one on a journey out of fundamentalism and into evangelicalism. He has taught at Pillsbury and at Central before going to The Masters Seminary and is now currently teaching at Shepherds Theological Seminary in Cary, NC.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Sorry, Dr. McLachlan, I do not view the conservative evangelical through the same rose-colored glasses as you and others are doing. Fundamentalism is not in need of a course correction bringing us more in line with the conservative element of evangelicalism. Many lamented the departure of some of the younger generation of fundamentalism into evangelicalism, seeing some of the older men follow that same path is just as tragic. This is not the direction I wish to see fundamentalism take.</span><br />
<br />
* For other information concerning Dr. Robinson click <a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2011/10/calvary-baptist-seminary-lansdale-to.html">here</a><br />
For those wanting a quick link to Dr. Ketchum's article click <a href="http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/2011/10/has-god-changed-old-paths-for-new.html">here</a><br />
Here is a link to Dr. Ketchum's most recent article click <a href="http://lineuponlinedmm.blogspot.com/2011/10/crossing-guards-for-doctrine-of.html">here</a></div>Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com80tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-74099088471675324922011-10-04T11:44:00.000-07:002011-10-13T14:13:26.566-07:00This does not bode well<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">There has been some buzz about <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Four Views on The Spectrum of Evangelicalism</i> since it was first teased that it was about to be released. I debated whether or not I would even get the book. I opted to get the book so that I could see for myself what was being said. Well, it arrived in the mail yesterday. I immediately opened the book and headed for Dr. Kevin Bauder’s opening chapter, desirous to see what he was really going to say. His first two paragraphs and accompanying footnotes floored me. He opens with this;<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.4in 6pt;"><span style="color: #17365d; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-themecolor: text2; mso-themeshade: 191;">“Imagine the difficulty of explaining fundamentalism in a book about evangelicalism. Fundamentalism is generally treated like the cryptozoology of the theological world. It need not be argued against. It can simply be dismissed.<sup>1<o:p></o:p></sup></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.4in 6pt;"><span style="color: #17365d; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-themecolor: text2; mso-themeshade: 191;">Part of the fault lies with fundamentalists themselves. For a generation or more, they have produced few sustained expositions of their ideas. Perhaps a certain amount of stereotyping is excusable, and maybe even unavoidable. No fundamentalist has produced a critical history of fundamentalism.<sup>2</sup> Nor is any sustained, scholarly, theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas available.<sup>3</sup> By virtue of its length, this essay can provide neither. Instead, it offers a very brief introduction to fundamentalism. No one can speak for all fundamentalists. Consequently, this essay reflects my own vision of fundamentalism. I occasionally indicate areas in which I believe most fundamentalist would agree with me.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Here are the footnotes;<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.4in 6pt;"><sup><span style="color: #17365d; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-themecolor: text2; mso-themeshade: 191;">1</span></sup><span style="color: #17365d; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-themecolor: text2; mso-themeshade: 191;">While fundamentalists generally consider themselves to be evangelicals, some self-identified evangelicals question whether an evangelical can be a fundamentalist. See Steve Wilkens and Don Thorsen, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Everything you Know about Evangelicals is Wrong (Well, Almost Everything): An Insider’s Look at Myths and Realities</i> (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 139-140<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.4in 6pt;"><sup><span style="color: #17365d; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-themecolor: text2; mso-themeshade: 191;">2</span></sup><span style="color: #17365d; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-themecolor: text2; mso-themeshade: 191;">Fundamentalist have published two full-length histories. Each makes a modest contribution to fundamentalist historiography, but both are essentially popular works that were written to legitimate one particular version of fundamentalism. The two are George W. Dollar, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A History of Fundamentalism in America</i> (Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 1973); and David O. Beale, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 </i>(Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 1986).<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.4in 6pt;"><sup><span style="color: #17365d; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-themecolor: text2; mso-themeshade: 191;">3</span></sup><span style="color: #17365d; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-themecolor: text2; mso-themeshade: 191;">The best expositions of core fundamentalist ideas include Fred Moritz, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Be Ye Holy”: The Call to Christian Separation</i> (Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 1994); Mark Sidwell, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Dividing Line: Understanding and Applying Biblical Separation</i> (Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 1998); Ernest Pickering, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church</i>, 2<sup>nd</sup> ed. (Schaumburg, Ill.: Regular Baptist Press, 2008). Each of these discussions has value, but all are written for a popular readership, and none deals adequately with the larger orbit of ecclesiological issues that a thoughtful fundamentalism must face.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">To use a phrase from the political realm looks like Dr. Bauder has thrown Dr. Dollar, Dr. Beale, Dr. Moritz, Dr. Sidwell, and Dr. Pickering under the bus. Why didn’t Dr. Bauder also include Dr. Moritz’s book, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Contending for the Faith</i>, since it covers the same subject matter of the other three books while he was throwing things under the bus?<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I wish to pull a few of his sentences out for examination. Here they are; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“No fundamentalist has produced a critical history of fundamentalism. Nor is any sustained, scholarly, theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas available.”</i> And from the footnotes; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Fundamentalist have published two full-length histories. Each makes a modest contribution to fundamentalist historiography, but both are essentially popular works that were written to legitimate one particular version of fundamentalism.” </i>Also; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Each of these discussions has value, but all are written for a popular readership, and none deals adequately with the larger orbit of ecclesiological issues that a thoughtful fundamentalism must face.”</i> I guess we must ask what does Dr. Bauder mean when he says, “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a critical history of fundamentalism</i>” has not been written and “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nor is any sustained, scholarly, theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas available</i>”? And there is also, “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">but both are essentially popular works</i>” and “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">written for a popular readership.</i>”<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">To give full disclosure, I am a Bob Jones University alumnus, having received both a bachelors and masters degree from that university which provided the means for publishing most of the books Dr. Bauder refers to. Also, I sat under Dr. Beale in a class during the time he was writing his book on Fundamentalism and the course syllabus was the outline of the book. And again, my wife worked for BJUP for the first 12 years of our marriage while I finished those degrees and beyond. So yes, I am familiar with the works and have read all but Dr. Sidwell’s book.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Now back to my thoughts, Dr. Bauder used the term “critical” in reference to the lack of a “critical history of fundamentalism.” I suppose he is using this meaning of the word critical, “characterized by careful analysis and judgment.” And he defines the word “popular” as, “appealing to or intended for the general public.” (definitions taken from, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Webster’s New College Dictionary</i>, 2005) So, he is saying that the two histories of fundamentalism are not careful in their analysis and judgment!? Really?!! And what is so wrong with writing to the masses? They ARE the ones who make up fundamentalism, not academia.</span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">A common mantra coming from the evangelical and liberal communities for decades has been that fundamentalists are not “scholars” or that they do not produce “scholarly” works. Looks like Dr. Bauder has followed their lead in his assessment of these five works. I find it interesting that his assessment of these authors and their books is done in this venue rather than within the realm of fundamentalism. When Dr. Bauder wrote a couple of series on the history of fundamentalism, he did not bring up this lack of “careful analysis and judgment” when he referenced these previous works. Kind of looks like he wanted to get outside of the fort before taking pot shots at fellow fundamentalists.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">To help shed some light on this idea, let’s look at the two histories mentioned. In Dr. Dollar’s book, he covers his topic in 289 pages. From pages 299 to 395 he included a biographical index of 77 pages, a glossary of 9 pages, and a selective bibliography of 9 pages, all in relatively small font. In those 289 pages he has footnoted his work a total of 524 times.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Dr. Beale’s book covers some 356 pages, plus another 82 pages of reference only, appendixes, and bibliography. He has 536 footnotes in those 356 pages plus another 35 in the reference only section. Now I readily concede that these statistics do not qualitatively nor quantitatively tell us that these two works rise to the level of being called “critical” works on the history of fundamentalism but I do call into question Dr. Bauder’s use of this term against these two works. The history of fundamentalism is of necessity a history of personages and as such it is almost impossible to do an exhaustive book recounting the influences of every single person. With that said though, these two works have put before us a credible look into fundamentalism and in my own opinion rate far better than this poor assessment by Dr. Bauder.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Dr. Bauder goes on and states that, “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nor is any sustained, scholarly, theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas available</i>” when referencing the books primarily dealing with the doctrine of separation. So these books are neither scholarly nor theological in their dealing with this doctrine? Are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Fundamentals</i> also to be included in his list of non-scholarly, non-theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas as well? At what point does a work become a “critical” “scholarly” piece of literature? X number of footnotes? Or quoting past theologians in original language used like Latin, French, German, etc. as is often the case in works done by men of the 19<sup>th</sup> century (systematic theologies come immediately to mind by Hodge and Strong)? What is the distinction between a “critical” work and a “popular” work?<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Another concern I have is with, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Part of the fault lies with fundamentalists themselves. For a generation or more, they have produced few sustained expositions of their ideas. Perhaps a certain amount of stereotyping is excusable, and maybe even unavoidable.”</i> Fundamentalism is not an “option” on the smorgasbord of philosophies/belief systems that are available to the world at large. We are not to be out there “hawking our wares,” touting the magnificent benefits of our way against others. Ours is the presentation, in Word and deed, of the life changing grace of God in the Lord Jesus Christ. Period, end of story. He seems to give the impression that somehow there is this need to voice to the world and particularly to others along this spectrum of Christianity what our ideas are so as to avoid these caricatures of fundamentalism. Really, would that have helped people to understand fundamentalism? For the most part those who have misrepresented fundamentalism have been purposeful in their misrepresentation. They understood clearly and wanted nothing to do with fundamentalism or its increase.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Admittedly, I have not read Dr. Bauder’s contribution in its entirety but this initial reading does not give me hope that he is actually presenting fundamentalism properly and then defending its historic position. My initial reaction is that here is a man seeking to find common ground, acceptance with evangelicals by this disparaging of fundamentalism. Another reaction I have, should I be using his criteria for examining his own works which he has posted at his blog? <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I know there are those out there that may say, well who are you to speak? I am just a pastor of a small church who gets out into cyberspace and reads articles and comments on them. Sure, there are those professors who think my kind (pastors of small churches) should be seen (maybe) and (definitely) not heard out in cyberspace, while they pontificate and rant on. But then they are cloistered in the halls of academia away from the real world of ministry within the local church setting so I take their thoughts with a pinch. My concern is with these men articulating these words about fundamentalism in such ways that instead of moving the cause of Christ further they hinder, they disparage the work instead. I am part of the warp and woof that is fundamentalism and do not care to see it misrepresented by those without or those within.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I will be reading this book in the coming days and may well do more articles giving my assessment but right now I am not impressed with the initial effort of the so-called fundamentalist author articulating the fundamentalist view.</span></div>Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com46tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-11727639230680194802011-09-27T10:43:00.000-07:002011-09-27T10:43:04.472-07:00One Year Later…<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Well, it was just over a year ago that I took the plunge and started this blog. That year has gone by quickly and much has happened within fundamentalism, my own ministry, and in my personal life.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I’ve have touched on a few of the things that have happened within fundamentalism with my blog articles and linked to other blogs for yet more stuff.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">My own ministry as a pastor I have not spoken of here since that is not the purpose of this blog. I serve as pastor of an independent, fundamental Baptist church in the great Pacific Northwest. I have ministered here just over three years and have been in the Pac NW since 1998. Having moved here from the southeast part of our country some thought I was going to a different country. In many respects it’s almost as if I had considering the striking contrasts between the southeast and northwest.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">On the personal side, again it is not the nature of this blog to elaborate on that aspect of my life. Suffice it say, that some milestones have come this year. My oldest child graduated from college, oh so hard to believe! I crossed the great divide! I am now a quinquagenarian (a fifty year old) again, so hard to believe…until I see that gray/white headed man in the mirror! As a result of these milestones, I have been a little more reflective in my thinking as I realize that in all probability the majority of my life on this earth is behind instead of possibly in front of me. This has been at times a bit disturbing to ponder but it is the reality that is before me. What seemed important 10, 20, 30 years ago now looks so irrelevant and the ministry of impacting lives for Christ is so much more brought to the forefront.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I am looking forward to another year of blogging. I have several articles “on the back burner” simmering, waiting for the proper time to finish and then post them. I trust that some of you lurkers, and you regulars, out there will put your fingers to the keyboard and post your thoughts and interact.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Thanks to all who have interacted and stopped by this past year.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-20775063448922599342011-08-10T15:52:00.000-07:002011-08-10T15:52:46.363-07:00Arrogant?! <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Hmmmm…I have been called this term a couple of times now over the last few weeks from different people and in different internet settings. Going to Webster’s New College Dictionary (copyright 2005) I find that “arrogant” means: “full of or due to unwarranted pride and self-importance; overbearing; haughty” Quite the word, and quite the charge! As I mention in my profile, “I am simply a poor sinner saved by God’s wondrous grace.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">In both cases the parties who claim I am arrogant gave no specific evidence to back such a claim. Both individuals just tossed out this term instead of actually engaging the conversation of the various issues I was addressing. In the case of my blog article (Can independent, critical thinking exist within Reformed circles?), I have put together pieces of information and formed a conclusion. I am greatly puzzled as I have read and reread my article to find where I have “unwarranted pride” or “self-importance” been “overbearing” or “haughty.” Or is it just because I posted such an article? Maybe one of my lurkers out there who read my articles would like to weigh in and post.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">This kind of approach (name calling instead of addressing the issues) is typically called an ad hominem. Appealing to Webster’s New College Dictionary again, its second definition of “ad hominem” states: “attacking the character, motives, etc. of an opponent rather than debating the issue on logical grounds.” In the realm of Christian conduct, to resort to these kinds of tactics are most unchristian. They have no place in debating issues amongst believers. If you cannot stick to the issues at hand and clearly articulate your position then you should keep silent instead of lowering yourself to the dregs of human behavior by bringing in an ad hominem attack.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I guess I am once again being “arrogant” by making such a statement as I have. I do not hold in high regard any man or woman who would stoop to such lows when debating issues.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Am I angered or upset over being called arrogant? No, it comes with the territory. I am reminded of a pastor I heard in my college days. He told us preacher boys to have a hide tough like a rhino but a heart tender for God. This pastor has since entered Heaven’s glory but his ministry continues. I have sought to have such skin and heart. But in desiring a heart tender for God it bothers me still when those attacks are by fellow believers instead of the lost from whom you expect such behavior.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-85837919792392199152011-07-29T16:42:00.000-07:002011-07-29T16:42:56.264-07:00Is it live or is it Memorex? Or is it a Christian gathering or a worldly gathering?<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">In the 1970’s Memorex ran TV commercials promoting their high quality audio cassettes by having a singer break a crystal glass with her singing and then asking the question; “Is it live or is it Memorex?” Implying that their cassettes were so good that you could record such singing and then by playing just the tape a glass could be broken.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Much ink has been spilled recently concerning worldliness, some good some not so good. It is not my intention to spill more but to pose my own comparison and get us thinking. If you will go to Don Johnson’s blog, you will find a well written series of blogs critiquing C. J. Mahaney’s book on Worldliness (start the series </span><a href="http://oxgoad.ca/2011/05/26/mahaney-worldliness-ch-1/"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">). You can also go to Lou Martuneac’s blog and find more information in regards to Peter Master’s cry against worldliness in Evangelicalism several years ago (click </span><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2011/07/has-john-macarthur-promoted-creation-of.html"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">).<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"> <v:formulas> <v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"> <v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"> <v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"> <v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"> <v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"> <v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"> <v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"> <v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"> </v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas> <v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f"> <o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"> </o:lock></v:path></v:stroke></span></v:shapetype><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Below are two photos. Here is my question I pose to you, which is a Christian gathering and which is the lost world gathering? No cheating, by going to Lou Martuneac's site first.<o:p></o:p></span></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7DoAdwpp5hUtx6FuJQj0iVFTaFUWotObdJ1_3BliZnW1zQ4PhTUGy9IcW68R_Iz3WCgcnSraCtE3USF-OcU70m7595ucG9hseywtsnIGdwmo4Wwbfbs9N-cPHZy81dKixKbYaaQu21Mw/s1600/Passion+Conf.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="132" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7DoAdwpp5hUtx6FuJQj0iVFTaFUWotObdJ1_3BliZnW1zQ4PhTUGy9IcW68R_Iz3WCgcnSraCtE3USF-OcU70m7595ucG9hseywtsnIGdwmo4Wwbfbs9N-cPHZy81dKixKbYaaQu21Mw/s200/Passion+Conf.jpg" width="200" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu2tJ9fnfCtq6_B7DakREwgpO5zAJcQ268gGvCzNWjyfvQjnl7yc3KByXQOmgoqJQUuJPNaBLKtLT3bsoiPmjnyjtNZRuxEs_ruMN1Or2Gb_1kLZYNUNZbyJpTNh2VOw6YhCrvb9NuVxw/s1600/rock+concert.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="134" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu2tJ9fnfCtq6_B7DakREwgpO5zAJcQ268gGvCzNWjyfvQjnl7yc3KByXQOmgoqJQUuJPNaBLKtLT3bsoiPmjnyjtNZRuxEs_ruMN1Or2Gb_1kLZYNUNZbyJpTNh2VOw6YhCrvb9NuVxw/s200/rock+concert.jpg" width="200" /></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">So, which is which?<o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Christ in His prayer recorded for us in John 17 our relationship as believers to the world. Especially, verses 11 through 21 which read as follows;<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #632423; font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-themecolor: accent2; mso-themeshade: 128;">“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world</b>. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.</b> As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.</b>” (emphasis mine)<o:p></o:p></span></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Christ so clearly teaches us that as believers we are <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">in</i></b> the world, yes, but we are <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not of</i></b> the world, that we have been sanctified (set apart) by truth, THE WORD OF GOD.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">We also, have James’s teaching in James 4:4 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #632423; mso-themecolor: accent2; mso-themeshade: 128;">“Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God”</span></i>;<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and John’s in I John 2:15-17 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #632423; mso-themecolor: accent2; mso-themeshade: 128;">“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.”</span></i><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Bob Hayton, at his blog (click </span><a href="http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2011/07/21/q-a-music/"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">) has recently written a blog encouraging this continued romance of the church with the world’s music by following the common line that music is amoral (his statement, “In my opinion, and I’ve read a lot on this issue but don’t confess to being an expert, there is no objective standard by which you can judge music as to its morality.” The blindness, lack of discernment, disregard for those older, qualified men who have written on the subject of music is just amazing to me. For those of us who grew up immersed in rock n roll and later came out, it is nightmarish to think that there exist people who think that they can bring that music into the church without any problems. Hayton’s argument, “Just hearing Tchaikovsky or music like that, doesn’t bring sensuous thoughts into my mind or most other people’s. Neither does listening to most rock and roll that’s played in the dentist’s office, either.” Thankfully, he (Bob Hayton) had a family that kept him from being in immersed and thereby being adversely affected by rock music. I do agree, a casual encounter with some things that are wrong does not necessitate that we have been greatly tainted. However, that initial contact, if not isolated and placed in check, would lead to a harmful relationship between the believer and the world through the music. To bring this music into the church, even in moderation, starts the believer down the road toward acceptance of what the world offers. Indeed, that desire for loosening of constraints which is inherent in the rock n roll genre and its offshoots is already evident in the ministries that are seeking the world’s stuff to promote God and His church. This is just outrageous!</span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">For those who desire some information about music, I encourage you to find copies of, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Battle for Christian Music</i>, by Tim Fisher, published by Sacred Music Services and the booklet, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Gospel Music: Blessing or Blight?,</i> by Evangelist Ken Lynch. The principles that constitute good music do not change over time.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Sadly, today there is less and less difference between believers and the lost world around us. More and more believers are blending into the world. The light is being dimmed and the salt is losing its saltiness. In Luke 18:8, Christ poses a question, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #632423; mso-themecolor: accent2; mso-themeshade: 128;">“Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”</span></i> The implied answer is NO. The moods, efforts, pushing we are seeing today are hastening the fulfillment of this passage.<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Believer, read again these words from Paul to the believers at Colosse, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #632423; mso-themecolor: accent2; mso-themeshade: 128;">“That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness</b>, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins”</span><o:p></o:p></i></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">For those still curious about the pictures; the left one is a rock concert in Brazil, the right one is of a Passion conference in Atlanta. Just can’t tell the difference, sad, utterly sad.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-48548028483274877852011-07-20T14:52:00.000-07:002011-07-20T14:52:40.725-07:00Can independent, critical thinking exist within Reformed circles?<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Alex Guggenheim has been commenting at SI and his own blog concerning the debacle that is ongoing at SGM. He, that is Alex, has written recently about the need for critical, independent thinking that is for our own spiritual development and maturity. His articulation of the need is well put (you will find his article <a href="http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/2011/07/candidacy-for-spiritual-abuse-dont.html"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>).<o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">This begs the question that is the title to my article, can this kind of thinking exist in the Reformed arena? I answer with a no. I will explain why I answer negatively.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">In a book titled, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics</i>, Dr. Mal Couch does an excellent job researching and expounding a literal, historical, grammatical approach to interpreting the Scriptures (i.e. Dispensationalism). I would encourage you to find a copy and add it to your library. In chapter 8, titled, The Allegorists Who Undermined the Normal Interpretation of Scripture (pp. 96, 97), he writes,<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;"><span style="color: #632523; font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #632523; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: accent2; mso-themecolor: accent2; mso-themeshade: 128;">“With allegory the antics of the gods were purified, but who determined the allegorical interpretations? <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">By whose authority were words and concepts changed? If there were no ‘guidelines’ as to the meaning of the ‘new’ message, how did readers know the authors’ intentions? These problems consistently overshadow allegorical interpretation</i></b>…</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;"><span style="color: #632523; font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #632523; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: accent2; mso-themecolor: accent2; mso-themeshade: 128;">The personality most cited for the change to allegorical interpretation is Philo (ca. 20 B.C.-A.D. 54), ‘A philosophical Jew who possessed both reverence for the Mosaic revelation and fondness for Grecian metaphysics, [who] aimed to explore the mystical depths of significances allegedly concealed beneath the Old Testament Scripture.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;"><span style="color: #632523; font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #632523; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: accent2; mso-themecolor: accent2; mso-themeshade: 128;">Philo taught that the milk of Scripture was the literal but the meat was allegory. Thus, there was hidden meaning. The Word of God had two levels: the literal was on the surface, but the allegorical represented the deeper, more spiritual meaning. Therefore, anyone who simply interpreted the Bible on its most natural, normal way was simple and missing the great meanings of the Scriptures. Ramm writes,</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.6in 6pt;"><span style="color: #10253f; font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #10253F; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: text2; mso-themecolor: text2; mso-themeshade: 128;">Philo did not think that the literal meaning was useless, but it represented the immature level of understanding. The literal sense was the body of Scripture, and the allegorical sense its soul. Accordingly the literal was for the immature, and the allegorical for the mature.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;"><span style="color: #632523; font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #632523; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: accent2; mso-themecolor: accent2; mso-themeshade: 128;">To reiterate, allegorical interpretation creates meaning through the interpreter. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Accordingly, allegorist believes the average person may be reading and interpreting wrongly without the help of a scholar or, in the case of Scripture, a wise, well-trained theologian. </i></b>Often, even today, allegorists look down their noses at those who take the Bible at face value with a normal, literal hermeneutic.”</span><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> (emphasis mine)<o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Since this system of interpretation (which is the basis for Reformed theology) requires “a wise, well-trained theologian” to give the fuller, deeper understanding of the Scriptures, then those who are confessedly not a theologian must locate someone who they believe is and place themselves at his or her feet for further instruction. This leaves them at the mercy of the “theologian” for spiritual growth/maturity rather than where the Scriptures places that responsibility which is on the individual (II Peter 3:18 for starters). I think we can see part of the “why” for the problems within SGM.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">History is replete with these independent, critical thinkers who then found themselves on the adversarial side of various reformed men. Take Felix Manz, George Blaurock, Conrad Grebel, and Balthazar Hubmaer, who at one time were friends and co-workers with Ulrich Zwingli. However, as they continued their study of the Word of God found themselves removed from that fellowship and eventually hunted down and persecuted. Manz was drowned in Lake Zurich for his beliefs. Hubmaer and Blaurock were burned at the stake. Grebel may have died from the plague.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Our own American history is full of others who sought to be independent, critical thinkers and wound up persecuted by those of the Reformed persuasion. Roger Williams comes to mind, who was let go in the dead of winter banished from the Massachusetts Bay colony. The list goes on, just pick up the three volumes of, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">This Day in Baptist History</i> and you can read for yourself of those men and women of bygone days who sought for their own spiritual maturity in the Book of books only to be persecuted by others who held to different religious views.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">No, I don’t believe it is possible to be an independent, critical thinker and remain Reformed. These are two mutually exclusive concepts that cannot peacefully coexist, our Baptist history, I believe confirms this.<o:p></o:p></span>Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-60845189396141678222011-07-15T14:23:00.000-07:002011-07-16T13:56:32.923-07:00Is there a “good old boys club" outside of fundamentalism land after all?<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Many have blasted fundamentalists as being a “good old boys” club and allowing, excusing, covering up each other’s sins. Well, I would agree that in pockets of fundamentalism this is true but it is not indicative of all fundamentalists. There have been those who have said they left fundamentalism because of the abuses that this kind of club produced. Again, no disagreement here; abuses, when known should be exposed, confronted and corrected. If there are those who are unrepentant and unwilling to change then, sure, it’s time to move on. Now many have moved on to the more conservative segment of evangelicalism and have touted their “openness,” their “biblicalness” in addressing those wrongs that they saw in fundamentalism. Now we have the revelation that C. J. Mahaney and others within the hierarchy of SGM had created their own “good old boys” club and had operated this way for decades. In the midst of this demagoguery C. J. Mahaney writes a book about humility. Something which, we now know, he was not even being exhibiting in his own life during the writing of the book.<o:p></o:p></span> <br />
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Immediately below are comments made by fellow evangelicals, Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan about Mahaney and his book on humility (these comments are found in the book). Farther down are links to comments these same men have made in recent days about the revelations of C. J. Mahaney’s conduct which have brought about his stepping down from SGM. There is also an excerpt from Mahaney’s statement about what led to his stepping down.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="color: #20124d;"><em>“This is the right book from the right man at the right time. More than any other man I have known , C. J. Mahaney has taught me what humility really is. This a man whose humility is a gift to the entire church. He knows that humility is strength, and that God uses the humble in a powerful way. He understands the danger of pride and calls all to aspire to a legacy of greatness—a greatness that shows the entire world the glory of God. He points us to a cross-centered worldview that will transform every dimension of life”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>R. Albert Mohler Jr. Pres. SBTS<o:p></o:p></em></span></span></div><span style="color: #20124d;"><em> </em></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.3in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #20124d;"><em><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“In Humility: True Greatness, C. J. Mahaney provides a clear and helpful battlefield manual for the believer’s ongoing growth, the fight against pride, and the cultivation of humility. C. J. is no dry-land sailor in this conflict. He and his dear congregation manifest the Spirit’s sovereign grace-work in both their personal and corporate humility and in their seriousness about dealing with pride. A ‘proud Christian’ is an oxymoron. May the Lord of Glory, who humbled himself unto death, use this book to slay pride in you, and to form in you the true greatness of servanthood and self-denial.” J. Ligon Duncan senior minister, First Presbyterian Church<o:p></o:p></em></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Mahaney’s book, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Humility</i> was copyrighted in 2005.<o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Next piece taken from SGM website, 7.13.11 (<a href="http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/sgm/post/CJ-Mahaneys-comments-at-Covenant-Life-Church-yesterday.aspx">here</a>)</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In it Mahaney states:<o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><em><span style="color: #20124d;">“A few years ago I started to realize that there were a number of former SGM pastors who had offenses with SGM and/or me. So I began to pursue some of them for the purpose of reconciliation. In January of 2010 I sent Brent Detwiler an email asking if he had any offense with me, communicating my desire to meet with him and hear him out. In 2009 Brent had been pastoring a church in North Carolina and left SGM.<o:p></o:p></span></em></span><br />
<em><span style="color: #20124d;"> </span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><em><span style="color: #20124d;">When Brent responded to my email, he informed me that he was not willing to meet with me but that he would interact with me through email and written documents. Two months later I received a 130-page document from him outlining his perspective about my sins and failures as a leader in SGM.<o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div><em><span style="color: #20124d;"> <span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I need to tell you up front that after reading this document and ones that followed, I don’t agree with a number of Brent’s charges and conclusions, nor the manner with which he has presented his offenses. However, my purpose this evening is not to criticize Brent or defend myself, but to inform you about various ways I have sinned and failed at different points in my ministry.<o:p></o:p></span></span></em><br />
<em><span style="color: #20124d;"> </span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><em><span style="color: #20124d;">The central focus of Brent’s initial document was how I processed, responded to, and led through a relational conflict we had in 2003-2004. This conflict began when Brent and Dave Harvey brought to me correction related to certain character deficiencies and deficiencies in my leadership of the team. Rather than humbly listening to their critique and examining my heart, I reacted sinfully to what I perceived as their deficient manner of presentation, and this began a season where I was resistant to their correction.<o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div><em><span style="color: #20124d;"> <span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Here is what they experienced from me:<o:p></o:p></span></span></em><br />
<em><span style="color: #20124d;"> </span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.25in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><em><span style="color: #20124d;"><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I was difficult to entreat.<o:p></o:p></span></span></em></div><em><span style="color: #20124d;"> <span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I sinfully judged their motives.<o:p></o:p></span></span></em><br />
<em><span style="color: #20124d;"> <span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I was arrogantly confident in my perception.<o:p></o:p></span></span></em><br />
<em><span style="color: #20124d;"> <span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I compared myself favorably to them.<o:p></o:p></span></span></em><br />
<em><span style="color: #20124d;"> <span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">I was offended by what I thought to be a lack of appreciation from them for all I had done for them, and a lack of care for me in a season of trials.<o:p></o:p></span></span></em><br />
<em><span style="color: #20124d;"> </span></em><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><em><span style="color: #20124d;">And though we continued to work together, I gradually withdrew from them in my soul. And added to this I arrogantly dismissed their critique and did not inform others of their critique even after I agreed to do so. So I was in effect confirming the accuracy of their correction by how I was behaving.”<o:p></o:p></span></em></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Here is what Ligon Duncan has to say (<a href="http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2011/07/a-word-about-cj-mahaney-and-so.php">here</a>) </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Here is what Al Mohler has to say (<a href="http://blogs.courier-journal.com/faith/2011/07/12/mohler-backs-mahaney-dismisses-accusations-of-abusive-leadership">here</a>)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">I trust that the glowing inconsistency is evident to you with these aforementioned statements. Were Mohler and Duncan blind to all this in Mahaney when cooperating together with him through those years? Were they aware but unwilling to confront their friend and fellow believer?<o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Why bring this up? Why bring out dirty laundry for all to see? Because we must objectively examine men, messages, methods, etc. by the lens of the Word of God. If you scan the internet you will see hypocrisy running rampant amongst those who are willing to allow for a circling of the wagons around Mahaney and trying to make him out to be a victim or better yet a hero for having the humility and courage to come forward in light of these revelations. What nonsense! Many of these same people who are favorable to Mahaney were/are quick to judge, condemn this very same kind of behavior when found in fundamentalism (again, I am not condoning such unbiblical behavior with my statements here, just highlighting the inconsistency of some). This is hypocrisy. This is partiality, both of which are condemned by God. The darlings of evangelicalism are not so darling after all.<o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">Hopefully, some are starting to understand, all (“all” means “all, everyone, no one excluded” here) Christians have retained their old, sinful nature and it doesn’t matter where you live, where you go to church, it has the potential rear its ugly head in any and all of us, regardless of our position.<o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">As we live by God’s Word, with its Author residing within, “he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13), we will be changed, molded into Christ-likeness (Rom. 8:28, 29). There is ever within the nature of things today to push for a man centered world. Whether we look at lost mankind and its headlong push toward what we have described for us in the book of the Revelation and the rise of a one-world system, or whether it be within “Christianity” with its push of men to be listened to for one reason or another. We lift up different men and show them off and say, “follow him,” “he’s got the answers you need.” No, God’s Book has the answers you need and men are only as good as they echo what God says in His Book.<o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt;">As I have already noted in an earlier article, we need to get back to reading the Bible for ourselves and stop this eating of regurgitated food from other men who have supposed read the Bible and then write about it. I am not saying get rid of your books, please read that article, I will not repost it here, but our energies must be expended in the reading OF the Book rather than the reading ABOUT the Book.</span></div>Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-82978485700916310392011-05-23T17:04:00.000-07:002011-05-23T17:04:46.257-07:00Is it a “Converging”? Or is it really a “Departure”?<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Over the past five to six years the internet has been abuzz with various self-identified fundamentalists decrying various “problems” within fundamentalism, past and present, perceived and real, and casting a pleasant look over the fence at evangelicals, particularly those closer to the fence. Allusions have been made that a “converging” of fundamentalists and these “conservative” evangelicals would be a good and necessary corrective to those above mentioned “problems.” Those who have articulated on this vein have been really rather quiet about the real doctrinal differences with those on the other side of the fence (see Dr. Bauder’s series starting </span><a href="http://centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/212-now-about-those-differences-pt-1"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">, warning there are 24 parts in this series; for full disclosure, Dr. Bauder does seem to retreat a bit </span><a href="http://centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/312-reflections-after-the-encounter"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">). Instead they have sought to downplay those doctrines and seemingly relegate them to some “step-child,” insubordinate status in things Biblical. Now we have some who are indeed actually calling for a “converging” of these two groups as recently posted at SI (link </span><a href="http://sharperiron.org/article/antidote-cure-for-common-problem-of-evangelicalism-and-fundamentalism"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">). Still others have taken the plunge and engaged having evangelicals into their institution (links </span><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2010/11/northland-intl-universitys-convergence.html"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> and </span><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2011/01/is-niu-unchanged-northland-baptist.html"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> and </span><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2011/01/is-niu-unchanged-redux-niu-students_19.html"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> and </span><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2011/01/is-niu-unchanged-redux-niu-students.html"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">).<o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">But is this really a “converging”? Since the fundamentalist/new evangelical split of the 40’s and 50’s, the pronounced marker for their differences has been the fundamentalist’s militant adherence to the doctrine of separation and the evangelical’s repudiation of said doctrine or at best inconsistent application. With that said, this is not a “converging” but a “departure.” Those fundamentalists who wish to engage these evangelicals on an equal plain are not “converging” but “departing” from historic fundamentalism and a clear, Biblical view of the doctrine of separation just like the original new evangelicals of a generation ago did.<o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">To those who desire to “depart,” I say, bye. It is time for some “house cleaning.” It is time for some robust trumpet notes of a certain sound. Will this be pleasant? By no means! Like the previous departure, friend will be leaving friend, partnerships will be severed, fellowships will be torn. This is necessary, though it may be hard. Paul told Timothy in II Timothy 4 to “preach the Word” and then tells him that there will be those who “will not endure sound doctrine.” This departing from sound doctrine has been ongoing since Paul’s day and has particularly raged and ravaged the church since the 1800’s.<o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">For those who may wonder about “historic fundamentalism” and “the doctrine of separation,” I refer you to several books which form the basis for my understanding. First, and foremost, the Bible, then; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church</i>, by Dr. Ernest Pickering; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Contending for the Faith</i>, by Dr. Fred Moritz; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Be ye Holy: The Call to Christian Separation</i>, by Dr. Fred Moritz. For the historical context, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A History of Fundamentalism in America</i>, by Dr. George W. Dollar; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850</i>, by Dr. David Beale; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism</i>, by Dr. Ernest Pickering, and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism</i>, by Dr. Rolland McCune.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-91168869839266269522011-04-25T13:06:00.000-07:002011-04-25T13:06:36.569-07:00From Who's fount are you drinking?<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">The beloved apostle John wrote to Gaius in his third epistle, <em><span style="color: #660000;">“I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.”</span></em> There truly is no greater joy than to see fellow believers following the imperative in II Peter, <span style="color: #660000;"><em>“grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”</em></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">This walk, this growing, this maturing, that comprises what the believer is to be doing in this present life, is only accomplished through the reading and application of what is read of the Word of God. Solomon well wrote several millennia ago, <span style="color: #660000;"><em>“of making many books there is no end.”</em></span> What would he say today? The library of Alexandria, as great as it was in its day, pales in comparison to what we have available today. It greatly saddens me that so many today who name the name of Christ are not getting their proper nourishment from the Word of God but instead are drinking at the fountain of other men’s thoughts about the Word of God. It matters not whether these men are early church fathers, reformers, or contemporaries, when we accept the words of others as truth instead of seeing the truth for ourselves that is the Word of God, we are slowly and systematically starving ourselves. It would be akin to drinking skim milk instead of whole milk, all the while thinking that we were getting the full nutritional value of whole milk when we drank the skim. That just isn’t going to happen.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">I am nearing the half century mark of physical life and will be celebrating 37 years of spiritual life soon and have heard countless times of believer’s going off and following the thoughts of men about the Word of God (all the while thinking that they are actually following the Word of God) and then see the shipwreck of their lives a few years down the road. Now I am not against having books, even ones of a Biblical nature. Quite the contrary, I have a small library of my own and wish to continue to add volumes. The possessing of books, the reading of books is not the issue I am at odds with here in this article. It is what many are doing with the information gained from those reading books.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Whatever I believe as a Christian, as a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, must come from my own reading, searching, studying of the Word of God. Not what I may hear a preacher say from the pulpit, not what someone may write in a book, but what does God say in His Book. The sieve is the Word of God by which all that enters our minds as acceptable must pass through. It is not by my personal reasoning skills that everything is subjected to, but by “thus saith the Lord.” By precept and principle everything we need for growing, for walking in this Christian life is found in the Word of God. Books can be helpful but only when they echo the words of that which God has given to us in the Word of God.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">I would encourage and challenge any and all who read this article to be systematically reading through the Word of God every year. This is a start to growing. Far too many Christians are not even doing this, “brethren, these things ought not to be!” If you would like a reading schedule contact me, I have compiled one that has been a source of great joy to several others and myself through the years. </span></div>Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95280495428297055.post-32711244695709913392011-02-20T16:24:00.000-08:002011-02-20T16:25:31.869-08:00Dead Man's Curve<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Dead man’s curve, it seems that every community has one. As we travel the back roads we come across that sharp curve and we find there on the shoulder those markers of remembrance. Crosses, wreaths, flowers, stuff animals mark the spot where a friend or a loved one crashed their vehicle. Usually they are young people and when the full details are revealed we find that they were driving too fast for that section of road. Curves made to be taken at 35 mph are not usually negotiated at a speed of say 70 mph. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sad as one accident is the sadder thing is that there are usually multiple markers showing multiple accidents. For some strange reason individuals think that they can succeed doing the same thing that others have failed in doing. They think, “just because so-and-so didn’t make the curve at 70 doesn’t mean that I can’t.” So foolishly they try, maybe they make it farther through the turn but they too are not able to stay on the road and they too crash and become another fatality. They failed to learn the lesson of the markers of remembrance.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">We see this same kind of failure in the realm of Christianity. Specifically, I am referring to the failure of some to see that others have “crashed” when trying to negotiate a convergence between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. I cite one example. Let’s look at Dr. Jerry Falwell. In his early days he was considered a Fundamentalist. He was identified clearly within the Fundamentalist’s ranks. Then he started making efforts at “fellowshipping” with Evangelicals. I commend to you, Evangelist Dave Sproul’s, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">An Open Letter to Jerry Falwell</i>, written October 15, 1979. It was published by Fundamental Press of Tempe, AZ. Bro. Sproul well documents the case against Falwell. Now, as we have come down through the corridor of time, would any Fundamental pastor recommend sending their young people to Liberty? No, those ministries crashed with their departure from Fundamentalism and its separatist position. Another example would be Jack Van Impe, and there are scores of lesser known men and ministries (the Pac NW is dotted with casualties) that have followed the same road to the same fate.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">With that said, we have some today who wish to repeat the effort. Do they expect a different outcome? This coming week Dr. Tim Jordan of Calvary Baptist Church and Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, PA, is hosting a conference titled, Advancing the Church. The keynote speaker is Dr. Mark Dever, pastor of Capital Heights Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., a Southern Baptist pastor. For a bit of a critique of Pastor Dever I commend to you a few articles (</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2011/02/rap-on-mark-dever-what-is-militant_16.html">here</a> and </span><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2011/02/rap-on-mark-dever-what-is-militant.html"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> and </span><a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2010/12/convergence-of-fundamentalism-and-non.html"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">). Alongside of him will be Drs. Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran. Do these Fundamentalists expect to succeed with their, “careful, limited forms of fellowship” where others have failed? Do these men think that their ministries will not end up where Falwell’s are now? How foolish.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">To change metaphors, these men have started on the slippery slope of compromise with Evangelicalism. Doing so removes them from the firm, level ground of Biblical separation. All who have stepped over have moved from their original position. For those who would try to make the case that what the conservatives did within the SBC goes counter to the claim of slippery slopes, I would say, where the SBC is at currently is nowhere near where they once were before the separatists started their exodus. So while I would concede that some things within the SBC may have moved up the slope some, they are still a far cry from the firm, level ground of Biblical separation. I am using separation as the reference point since it is its repudiation primarily that moved the New Evangelicals out from Fundamentalism.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">Back to the original metaphor, how many more crashes must we witness before men will take the warnings that the markers of remembrance give us? Obey the posted speed signs. In this case, obey the Biblical admonitions, Rom. 16:17; II Cor. 6:14-18; II Thess. 3:6, 14, 15; I John 2:15-17, to name a few.</span></div>Brianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.com7