Does This Sound Familiar?

Here is a quote from a great warrior for the Faith, a Fundamentalist who stood when it was not popular to stand. His assessment sounds all too familiar in today’s Fundamentalism.

There is a serious effort today to redefine Fundamentalism to make it more acceptable to the “New Evangelicals” and religious compromisers. This effort really goes beyond redefining Fundamentalism to reshaping Fundamentalism. To do this requires rewriting history, ignoring facts, and sacrificing truth. The result of all this, if successful, would be the obliteration of biblical Fundamentalism and the substitution of “New Evangelicalism”—under the name of Fundamentalism—to take its place. This is being promoted largely by those who desire the support and influence of the “New Evangelicals” and, at the same time, recognition as leaders among Fundamentalists. Such a goal is unrealistic and unobtainable. Those who by conviction are biblical Fundamentalists are independents and separatists and will not be caught up in such union. Others who are nominally Fundamentalist and involved with movements heretofore considered Fundamentalist will be turned to the “New Evangelical” position. These will be men unaware of the issues, untaught on scriptural principles, or weak and unwilling to pay the price of standing for an unpopular cause. They are not men who are Fundamentalists at heart; but some of them, except for the pressures being put upon them, might have become convinced Fundamentalists eventually. As far as the Fundamentalist cause is concerned, they will not be a great loss, for such men are not likely ever to become aggressive, unwavering, and forceful. They love the parade ground but dread the battlefield. They would swell the numbers of Fundamentalism but would not ever be likely to strengthen its ranks.

I am burdened for my brethren, and I am grieved for the cause. If the Lord tarries another twenty years, I daresay there are going to be few places left that take a really biblically stand. I think this is what the Lord means when He asks if He will find faith on the earth upon His return.

Somebody has to hold the line. Somebody has to raise up the banners and mark out the frontiers. It is not a pleasant task. To be misunderstood and misjudged, not by the Liberals and open compromisers (men for whose opinion I have no regard whatsoever) but by friends of long standing, is not an easy thing. To be accused of being bitter and of hating men, of being unloving and unbrotherly and unkind is not pleasant. But Christians must remember that these painful experiences do not matter now and will eventually bring a reward.

Are we not commanded when men speak all manner of evil against us falsely for Christ’s sake to “rejoice and be exceeding glad,” for great is our reward in heaven? The godliest men I have known had weaknesses, sometimes petty vanities, and even little jealousies or prejudices, but they were not weaklings or traitors.

Dr. Bob Jones Jr. penned these words in 1985 in his book, Cornbread and Caviar: Reminiscences and Reflections. They are just as true today as when he penned them 26 years ago. Dr. Bob noted, “There is a serious effort today to redefine Fundamentalism to make it more acceptable to the “New Evangelicals” and religious compromisers. This effort really goes beyond redefining Fundamentalism to reshaping Fundamentalism. To do this requires rewriting history, ignoring facts, and sacrificing truth.” We are seeing this played out before our eyes as represented by Dr. Kevin Bauder’s articles over the past two years or so. Dr. Bauder’s articles on Proto-Fundamentalism and his more recently ended series on the differences between Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals demonstrate the effort that is afoot to “reshape Fundamentalism.” Far too many Fundamentalists have the vain notion that a course correction for Fundamentalism which makes Evangelicalism acceptable is the right course correction. History has shown repeatedly, that those who have taken this tack in the past have ALL capitulated and have gone into full blown Evangelicalism (insert here, Falwell and his ministries, Jack Van Impe as two of the more well known examples). It is foolish indeed, that anyone would try to think that somehow this will not happen to them if they take the same course. In navigation, if you leave point A on a certain heading (say 90 degrees) to get to point B, then everyone else leaving point A heading 90 degrees will also get to point B. These Fundamentalists who desire a course correction are leaving point A heading to point B and want us to think that really we are heading to point C which is actually on another compass heading. Are there course corrections to make? Sure there are, but not with a heading toward openness and acceptance of Evangelicalism.

Fundamentalist, whether young or old, we must hold the ground that men who have gone before us have sacrificed to claim. We are standing on that hallowed ground and must continue to stand for the faith once delivered to the saints, earnestly contending.

When you are traveling you always have baggage

Whether we are going for an overnight stay or an extended trip abroad, we will have baggage. Luggage of some size will be going with us, even if it is just the clothes on our backs, we have things that come along with us for good or bad. The same holds true in the Christian realm when we invite people to speak. Like the guest we invited to our home they will come with baggage, some good and some bad. We must determine ahead of time whether the baggage is something we wish to deal with or not. For the believer this determining is not done by our own wits or reason. God has given us His Word and has clearly laid out what determines acceptable baggage.

God has put forth Romans 16:17, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” and II Thess. 3:6, 14, 15, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” These passages guide us in the process of “baggage screening.” Sadly, many today, who claim to hold to the Word of God and accept its mandates, are ignoring or deliberately twisting God’s Word to accommodate some baggage.

A recent example of this is Northland International University. Back on October 5^th Rick Holland, an elder from Grace Community Church in CA (where John MacArthur is the senior elder), spoke in chapel. One then asks; what kind of baggage did Rick Holland bring with him? Well, let’s look. For starters, as already noted, he comes from MacArthur’s church. MacArthur is the most prolific advocate for Lordship Salvation. Between his books, The Gospel According to Jesus, and Hard to Believe, he has made it abundantly clear that his view of salvation is one that the unconverted must consciously submit to the implications of discipleship in order for salvation, justification to actually take place.[1] This is not the gospel that Paul articulates in Ephesians 2:8, 9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast,” or in Romans 10:9, 10, 13, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Nor is LS expressed in I Corinthians 15:1-4, “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.”

Another piece of baggage with Rick Holland is his Resolved Conference. A conference for young people supposedly based upon Jonathan Edward’s list of resolutions. With the worldly music that is foisted upon the listeners as being Christian, it is a sad spectacle of a charismatic style, emotion laden experience which is somehow supposed to assist the audience in reaching a closer relationship with the Lord. James is clear enough when he states, “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,” (James 4:4). John is also clear, “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,” (I John 2:15-17). When we bring in the world’s method and message into Christianity we are left with the constant degradation that the world brings with it in order to keep the current crowd and to entice the newcomer.

This baggage came to Northland with Rick Holland, whether Dr. Olson wanted it or not. While Rick Holland’s message was spot on (I listened to the message), this baggage came along for the ride as well and has as much influence on the audience as the message did. For by his presence, Northland gives tacit acceptance for this baggage. It would be interesting to know how many Northland students will be at the Resolved Conference in June and in following years.

Another example at Northland is the recent visit by Wayne Simien of Called to Greatness Ministries. He spoke in chapel on November 18^th. A visit to his website (www.iamctg.org) reveals his baggage. Your ears are bombarded by “Christian” rap music by various artists. A look at the camps that are available and you soon see that there are two “dance” camps for girls age 8 to 17. Again, a worldliness method to convey the message of the King of kings and Lord of lords to a world greatly in need, I think not. Wayne’s baggage came with him and again Northland gives tacit acceptance for this baggage. Will Northland’s camp ministry be extending itself by recommending its female campers to Wayne’s dance camps during the summer?

There is a future example with which I will close this article. Northland has invited in Dr. Bruce Ware from Southern Seminary to teach in their Doctor of Ministry program. What baggage does Dr. Ware bring? Well, for one he is a Southern Baptist coming into an independent Baptist university. Another piece of baggage that comes with him is his progressive dispensationalism. Dr. Ware was a contributing author for the book, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, edited by Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock. This was the first book published to espouse this new view of dispensationalism. You may ask, what is progressive dispensationalism? I encourage the reader to obtain a copy of Charles Ryrie’s book, Dispensationalism. In chapter 9 he goes into detail outlining the tenets of progressive dispensationalism. In a nutshell, it is an effort by some to bring in or reconcile Covenant Theology with Dispensationalism. Dr. Ryrie, in chapter 9 of his book, lists the basic tenets of progressive dispensationalism and I list them here:

1.      The kingdom of God is the unifying theme of biblical history.

2.      Within biblical history there are four dispensational eras.

3.      Christ has already inaugurated the Davidic reign in heaven at the right hand of the Father, which equals the throne of David, though He not yet reigns as Davidic king on earth during the Millennium.

4.      Likewise, the new covenant has already been inaugurated, though its blessings are not yet fully realized until the Millennium.

5.      The concept of the church as completely distinct from Israel and as a mystery unrevealed in the Old Testament needs revising, making the idea of two purposes and two peoples of God invalid.

6.      A complementary hermeneutic must be used alongside a literal hermeneutic. This means that the New Testament makes complementary changes to the Old Testament promises without jettisoning those original promises.

7.      The one divine plan of holistic redemption encompasses all people and all areas of human life—personal, societal, cultural, and political.

(Italics are Ryrie’s)

Dr. Bruce Ware along with Dr. Andy Naselli will be teaching a class in the summer modular of the Doctor of Ministry program titled, Models of Sanctification. With the progressive dispensationalist’s “holistic redemption” approach to the doctrine of salvation, we are left to greatly wonder about the impact that thought has one’s understanding of sanctification, which is defined as “a separation to God, an imputation of Christ as our holiness, purification from moral evil, and conformation to the image of Christ,” (Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 287).

The “baggage” that these three men (Holland, Ware, Simien) and their respective ministries bring do not pass the “baggage screening” criteria that God has given to us in His Word. As such they ought to then be denied access to our services. Just as the baggage screeners at our nation’s airport are to be alert to potential harmful substances, so to we are to be ever vigil in our “screening” process of speakers that will hold the attention of our congregations and our young people while they seek their education.

Dr. Matt Olson has done a poor job at “screening!” It is debatable whether or not immediate harm has been done to NIU’s impressionable young people. While the above listed men may not have caused immediate harm, the gate has been opened for others who may very well cause direct harm, but then all that can be done will be clean up. Dr. Olson, for the sake of fidelity to the Lord and His Word, renounce this loose “screening” process and return to the Scriptural mandates.

For those who erroneously think that unless you have a vested interest in a ministry or institution then you have no credibility in bringing concerns or criticisms (calling it “clouds without rain”); I have from my church three graduates of Northland and one former student home working so that they can finish (which they are now considering to be at another institution). One of those three who have graduated currently works on campus. So, yes, I do have a vested interest in the ministry of Northland and even if I did not, the concerns and criticisms remain the same.

---

[1] Follow these links for a detailed explanation: http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2008/07/summary-of-lordship-salvation-on-single.html and http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2010/10/let-your-yes-be-kinda-sorta.html I would also recommend that you purchase a copy of Lou Martuneac’s book, details are there at the web site.

For all you "Little Guys" out there

For the past several weeks I have been thinking about what Dr. Jeff Straub, professor at Central Seminary, posted on a blog site. I will quote his two postings so that you can see what I have been musing about. Any misspellings and poor grammar belong to the author, they have not been inserted by yours truly or anyone at the blog site.

Posted 9-20-10

I really am puzzled who get listened to on the internet . . . you can be a ministry drop-out, working in the secular world with a blog site and be certified to comment on a man like Mark Dever. Or you can be a pastor of a pretty small church but because you are all over the internet making comments and are blunt, then you are qualified to speak. Mark Dever has done more than most men for the cause of Christ. Do I like his view of eschatology . . . no. But he is not the enemy.

Where was the loud cry when John Vaughn spoke for Clarence Sexton and with Jack Schaap. Oh yea, and Mike Schrock was there also.

So, given the choice of hearing Mark Dever or Jack Schaap . . . hummmmmmmmm this is really a tough choice to make . . . NOT! Mark has done much to help redirect the SBC ship and, if you actually know anything about him, his music, preaching and style of ministry, is as strong as anything . . . no its really stronger than most everything in fundamentalism.

I for one wish I could go to Lansdale in February and am glad both Dave and Kevin have chosen to ignore the lunatics and do what is right.

Posted 9-21-10

________(blog site administrator), I weary of the foolishness of the internet. Some guys (and perhaps ladies, though I am not shooting anyone in particular, but I'll be an equal opportunity critic) seem to have nothing else to do but comment on everything. Like the rest of the world needs their opinion about everything. Often these discussions are DOMINATED by the same voices. It used to be that, in most cases, someone actually had to have something credible to say to be heard. Today, every Tom, Dick and Harry with a computer can start a blog and pontificate. They don't actually have to be qualified to say something to merit being heard, they just have to have a computer keyboard. That alone is their entrance into the conversation. Ok, so the internet gives the little guy a voice . . . Why is it the big guys never participate in these discussions? Most are too busy in the Lord's work.

Mark Dever does not care what we think of him. And frankly, why should he. What have we done to merit his consideration? Mark has done more to promote true biblical Baptist ministry in these days than most anyone I can think of. This doesn't mean he is without flaw. Can this same argument be used of Billy Graham? Of course, but who is talking about Billy Graham? Most guys who criticize Dever, don't know much about him except that he is a Southern Baptist. Truth is his preaching is substantive, whatever you think of his eschatological views, his church is top shelf, and his ministry to the wider church is outstanding. We all ought to read Polity or Nine Marks. I don't know of a fundamentalist who is making the kind of impact that Mark is making.

Most of us need to put away our keyboards and go back to the work to which God has called us. Do we really need to weigh in on every conversation, multiple times? Would our sheep be better fed if we devoted more time to them? I really wonder how some guys feed their sheep with the amount of time they spend at their key boards. They troll the internet blogs entering into everyone's conversation. Do we find Dever, Mohler, Piper, MacArthur doing this? They don't need to. They actually have a voice, a legitimate voice.

_______(blog site administrator), I'm not knocking ______(blog site name) here, but I am saying that I weary of these kinds of forums that give universal access to most any one with an opinion. Many guys have too much time on their hands. I just wonder if, when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ, we will not be severely rebuked for our misuse of time. We are to redeem the times. I am not sure that the internet is the appropriate place to do this. Why should we care what a guy thinks who has no real standing? Small churches are not in and of themselves a problem. Many faithful men has pastored them. But since most pastors of small churches have little help, they must do everything themselves, which means they have little time to waste. Let's be about our business and give our keyboards a rest. Or maybe we just need to turn off the modium.

I removed names and the blog site name because they are unnecessary to the overall scheme of things. Besides, I don’t care to advertise for them.

The tenor of Dr. Straub’s two postings over two days is telling. I get the sense that he is rather condescending toward the little guy. He speaks of concern for time management for pastors of small churches, but one would have to ask of him, a seminary professor, how much of his time did he use to become aware of a “pastor of a pretty small church” who blogs?

To be honest with any readers, I was a bit taken aback when I read his comments. I am a pastor of a small church out in the Pacific Northwest, where most pastors I know pastor small churches (the largest, sound works I am aware of flirt with 150 on a Sunday morning, most of us run 50 to 100 on a Sunday morning, still more are running 20 to 40). Some of us are out in cyberspace blogging (personally, besides myself, I know of two other pastors who blog, two of us have our own blogs). So, with that said, most of the pastors I know out here fit Dr. Straub’s description.

Dr. Straub’s comments are in a thread that is about Tim Jordan’s Advancing the Church Conference next February at Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, PA. Along with Mark Dever, who is the keynote speaker, Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. Straub’s “boss” at Central, and Dr. David Doran, president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and some of Calvary’s seminary faculty will also be speaking. Some have raised legitimate concerns about these self-identified fundamentalist seminary presidents working in common cause with Mark Dever. The blogosphere is full of men rationalizing away separatism in order to make this convergence palatable for Fundamentalists. But, I digress.

One must ask, what does it take to be “certified to comment” and therefore “qualified to speak” concerning any man, movement, issue, or whatever, let alone Mark Dever? Must that person have a college education to be “certified” and “qualified”? If so, how much education is necessary; an associate degree, a bachelors, or a masters, maybe an M. Div, a ThD or a PhD? Or does that person need years of ministry experience? If so, then how many years; 5, 10, 20, 30, or 50? Or does he need to have been a member of Dever’s church for X number of years? Yes, I am being facetious here. Dr. Straub’s comments are absurd.

As he closes his rant (for lack of a better term), he states, “why should we care what a guy thinks who has no real standing?” Yes, Dr. Straub, WHY do you care? By your statements you have taken considerable time surfing the internet to find this “pastor of a pretty small church” and locate his haunts in the blogosphere and find that he is, “all over the internet making comments and are blunt,” and that he “comment on everything.” Maybe Dr. Straub was using hyperbole in his statements, if so that makes his commenting that much more condescending to men who, by reason of God’s calling, have not “despised the day of small things” and pastor small churches around the world. By that very fact (that they pastor small churches), many do consider them to not have a standing. Talk about arrogance! I thought we were beyond comparing ourselves amongst ourselves as to how many we had in services last Sunday in order to show our worth. I guess I was wrong.

One must ask another question, “why are there pastors of pretty small churches out on the internet blogging?” Because men like Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. David Doran, and now Dr. Tim Jordan are out there seeking to influence men who are Fundamentalists to “moderate” their separatist position by bringing in that “careful, limited form of fellowship” with Evangelicals. I for one, don’t buy their reasoning and will speak out against them.

Dr. Straub, neither Mark Dever, nor Al Mohler, nor John Piper, nor John MacArthur should have a voice, a legitimate voice within Fundamentalism. Yet, sadly, many a Fundamentalist has heard the siren call of these men and has not resisted that call of compromise.

For all you “pastors of pretty small churches” keep it up! Voice your concern! Cry out against compromise! Hopefully, these men, who by the nature of their positions (seminary presidents, professors) are men of some standing by default, will get the message that they have no standing, no hearing with many of us who are “pastors of pretty small churches.”