2. Dave Doran:
The church was never made by God to become some kind of "show window" that the world looks at and thinks, Wow, that's really attractive. I want to be a part of that. That's really impressive. They have everything together. They have beautiful buildings. They have wonderful programs."Yeah, but what about a Christian college? Ah, never mind. Y'all are too young.
3. Taking us back to a recent post, tonight's the big night for the latest edition of "the red carpet on the sawdust trail." I wonder what would happen if a local movie theater wanted to show it. Or if 5,000 nationwide did.
4. Does anybody know off the top of their heads how the Bob Jones family reached Baptist convictions? Though Bob Jones, Sr. was a long-time member of United Methodist churches, my understanding is that Jones, Jr. was a member of a Baptist church in eastern North Carolina in at least the latter portion of his life. And I don't know where Jones, Sr. was a member at the end of his life. Just curious . . .
5. And speaking of Bob Jones, bet you didn't know that Shoeless Joe Jackson is buried just down the street from BJU.
6. Synchronize your clocks, people.
7. The truth finally comes out. I am Dave Doran's puppet.
8. Speaking of Doran and slander, I soon expect some looney blogger to accuse him of being a closet evolutionist for his reference to "vestigial organs."
9. Quote of the Whatever Time Period It's Been Since Michael Riley Wrote It:
[T]o the degree that our music and liturgy promote sentimentalism, we have tilled the soil in which heresy grows. We don’t preach Rob Bell’s universalism; we simply prepare his audience to receive his message.Full post here.
10. John Stott is surely right:
We seem in our generation to have moved a long way from this vehement zeal for the truth which Christ and his apostles displayed.Fascinating.
But if we loved the glory of God more, and if we cared more for the eternal good of the souls of men, we would not refuse to engage in necessary controversy, when the truth of the gospel is at stake.
And finally, some old stuff I found as I was cleaning out iTunes:
11. Dever as a guest on Mohler's old radio show back in 2009:
It is shocking how many people who call themselves evangelicals really don't know what the good news [of the gospel] is. I find this all the time in conversations. I have divided more than one organization by pressing that question.12. Mohler, speaking to Sovereign Grace pastors back in 2003, as he told the chilling story of his early years at Southern Seminary: "We are dying in evangelicalism of the terminal sin of niceness. We cannot afford to be nice. Nice means, "I'm going to be polite and not raise your heterodox teaching with you." Brothers, if you ever hear me to teach anything that is in conflict with the Word of God, love me enough to tell me. Force me into confrontation with the Word, so I will either have to harden my sin in resistance against the Word and be judged for that, but obviously you pray, as I know you would, that the Holy Spirit would open my eyes and I would see.
37 comments:
Lou, sorry, but I linked to the post, so I deleted your lengthy excerpt. Folks are welcome to check out the pertinent excerpt. If you want to refute me briefly or just post your closing comment, feel free. But you should know, my convictions were well set wholly independently of Doran and Bauder. They've been helpful to me in many ways, but certainly not in cultivating affinity for anyone outside the fundamentalist movement.
And in all sincerity, Lou, I'd encourage you not to call me brother. If you consider the soteriology of MacArthur, Piper, Bauder, Doran and McCune to be a false gospel, you should be saying I'm an accursed false teacher—them as well. Of course, you're a separatist, so I assume you knew that.
Hi Ben,
On point one, until someone can be shown to be clearly and completely in the wrong, are we justified in treating them like a pariah? There are many unanswered questions and I can envision answers where no wrongdoing took place at all. So what are we to do? (That would be a rhetorical 'we', not implying that 'I' have any say in anything!)
On point 4, I don't know how BJjr or III became Baptists. I don't know if you are right about Jr, you might be confusing some facts. Dr. Bob III is a member of a church in western NC, pastored by my son's father-in-law. He has some property nearby and his rationale for placing his membership there is so as not to favor any particular Greenville church... or so I have been told, but not by him.
I sort of remember that Shoeless Joe was from Greenville, so it stands to reason that he is buried there. Another famous Jackson... Jessie, is also from Greenville.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I throw this link here since I figure if you had known about it you had included it.
http://www.drchuckphelps.com/
"Does anybody know off the top of their heads how the Bob Jones family reached Baptist convictions?"
Are you sure that "convictions" is the right word? I'm not saying it isn't, just saying that church membership is not the same as deep conviction.
My sense is that deep committment to true, historic denominational distinctives was something foreign to at least the first 3 BJs. They were/are first and foremost card carrying interdenominational fundamentalists (earlier evangelicals).
The BJU creed was their conviction - beyond that, their approach seemed to be "leave it alone, don't discuss it."
I really doubt that Sr. ever moved his membership to a baptist church. I've been told by those who heard him, that he regularly poked fun at the "BaBtists".
Also, even if III has membership is a NC baptist church, I also know from sources close to the matter that he used to attend Heritage Bible Church. Which I'm sure many will say is "baptistic" -- but it still isn't baptist.
There was a day at BJU when Sunday School classes were held by denomination, and the Methodists, Pentecostals, and other non-baptist groups had significant representation. As time moved along,though,fewer and fewer non-baptist groups held on to their fundamentalist membership card.
Today if they had denominational Sunday school, I'd expect that you'd have one HUGE baptist class, a much smaller Presby class, a similar "Bible Church" class, and pretty much nothing else.
In other words -- the card-carrying fundamentalist milieu changed around them.
Oops,
That last anonymous was me.
Keith
Ben,
I don't think that it is accurate to say that Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. was a member of the United Methodist Church.
I am not trying to play semantics here, but there is a difference. While Dr. Bob, Sr. was a Methodist, the United Methodist Church (proper) was formed in 1968 by a merger. A more important merger occurred in 1939 in which the Northern & Souther sections of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Protestant Church merged to create The Methodist Church. It was this merging in 1939 that the Fundamentalists of the day rejected because the Northern MEC had liberalism among its leaders and a general attitude of tolerance towards liberalism. It was this merger with liberalism that led to a walkout of a number of church and the formation of the Bible Protestant Church (which became - years later - the Fellowship of Fundamental Bible Churches).
Even today, there are remnants of Methodism that are strongly Fundamental - e.g. John McKnight's group (Evangelical Methodist Church - Independent) and Fundamental Methodist Church (many of which were formed soon after the 1939 merger).
Anyway, I am also curious about the progress of the "migration" from Methodism to Baptist occurred. I believe, for instance, that Dr. Bob, Jr. had his ordination from a Christian Missionary and Alliance church.
Ben:
Since my earlier comment cannot be shown in its entirety then I will not be able to repost any of it. I will, however, address the balance of your reaction in the next, later tonight or in the morning.
LM
Ben,
I think some of the confusion with United Methodist churches and Dr. Bob Sr. is that the churches he was once a part of are now United Methodist, but were not in his day. For example Dr. Bob Sr. at age 16 was employed by Big Creek Methodist church in Brannon Stand AL to teach local children how to read. My great grandfather was one of those children. He and my grandfather are now buried in that church with his ancestors. Now, that church is now United Methodist, but it was quite different 100 years ago as far as we can tell.
Don, I do not think I'm wrong about Jones Jr.'s church membership in eastern NC. I've known pastoral staff there, and it wasn't hard to find a present BJU prof referring to Jones' membership there. But no biggie, either way.
Shayne and Frank, I'm inclined to take your words for the anachronistic UMC reference. Though, I named the UMC because that's what my source (a 2008 Shepherds' Conference talk from Nathan Busenitz [PDF]) said. And it looks like he's quoting another source, so it's not as if he's slanting the story. In any case, my point wasn't to tar and feather him with the UMC, but to see if anyone knew about the Baptist transition.
Keith, it's clearly true that the movement changed around them. I'm just wondering if there's an Adoniram Judson moment out there.
FWIW, I've studied and taught on the life and ministry of Methodist evangelist Sam P. Jones. Visited his home in the late 90's. He was arguably that last great Evangelist to come out of the Methodist church.
LM
Ben:
You wrote, “If you consider the soteriology of MacArthur, Piper, Bauder, Doran and McCune to be a false gospel, you should be saying I’m an accursed false teacher—them as well….”
I know from the Scriptures that the gospel message MacArthur and Piper believe, preach and defend, commonly known and recognized by them as “Lordship Salvation” (LS) specifically on justification (how the lost man is born again) “corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).
You have suggested I have a definite understanding of Doran, Bauder and McCune’s soteriology, that it is the LS just as MacArthur advocates. Let me share briefly that…
First, I do not know for a fact that Doran, Bauder and McCune preach the same LS message that MacArthur and Piper do. If you were to tell me they do preach LS I would not accept that because I have, to date, not heard any of them preach, teach or defend the same LS interpretation of the Gospel. As a matter of fact, in July 2010, at the Faith, Theology & Ministry blog, I wrote,
“It is important to identify that the interpretation of ‘that Gospel’ men like Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran want to unite around with the so-called ‘conservative’ evangelicals is a Calvinistic soteriology in the form of the LS interpretation of the Gospel.” I asked Dave Doran if he would “tell the IFB community that he believes John MacArthur is in error with his LS interpretation of the Gospel.” Dave‘s reply was he could not answer because, “I’ve never read any of MacArthur’s books on the [Lordship Salvation] subject.”
On Bauder and McCune I do not know their position on LS because I have never heard or read either of them address it specifically and state whether or not they reject or embrace Lordship Salvation. Therefore, I reserve judgment until each man gives his own crystal clear clarification on the subject....
Second, I do not believe MacArthur and Piper are unsaved men as you suggest that I do, and that I should treat them as such. I am of the opinion that they are born again men who have gone horribly wrong in their understanding of the one true saving message, i.e., the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are, therefore, commanded to reject, mark and avoid, which I have done faithfully for well over 20 years with MacArthur in particular.
Kind regards,
LM
Lou, what does the Bible say about divisive men?
Just curious.
Lou,
are you trying to have it both ways? Do Piper and MacArthur preach "another Gospel" (Gal. 1:8,9) or not??
If they do, what does "let them be accursed"?
If they don't, just what are you up to?
Sorry, that should read, what does "let them be accursed" mean?
Gentlemen:
I have shared my opinion of certain men who believe, preach and defend the works based man-centered message for justification commonly known as “Lordship Salvation.” At the present I believe they are born again men who have gone terribly wrong in their understanding of the Gospel. I hope and pray for their recovery and repentance, just as I do for any who have likewise fallen into the trap of Lordship’s corruption of the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3). Until then believers are commanded to reject, mark them so that their message may be avoided.
LM
PS: Are you aware the JMac, in his 2009 interview with Phil Johnson, stated that he can’t recall when he believed the Gospel and was born again?
I see what you did there Lou. You think you're sneaky don't you.
On the one hand you don't want to be completely ridiculous and say J Mac isn't a Christian. . . but you want us to have that nagging little doubt there at the end. It's the kind of tactic that reminds me of Genesis 3:1.
"Are you aware the JMac, in his 2009 interview with Phil Johnson, stated that he can’t recall when he believed the Gospel and was born again?"
Oh, no! Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh my! He can't remember the date and time? He doesn't have it written in the cover of his Scofield Reference Bible right under the signature of Travelling Evangelist Brother So and So? There's no sawdust in the binding. Oh, no!
Lou give me a break. What does it matter if one can or cannot remember when one FIRST believed the gospel. The question is DOES one believe the gospel? And, even you claim to believe the MacArthur does -- in spite of what you erroneously think an erroneous understanding of it.
I'm no MacArthur groupie, but your approach to opposing him is out of line.
Keith
Lou,
My doctrine prof at MBBC told our class the same thing. Big whoop.
Furthermore, I once heard the testimony of an elder in a church who stated he had heard the Gospel since he was a child and sometime between then and when he related his testimone it had become effective in his heart.
If I have no problem with those two situations (which I don't), I have no problem with MacArthurs.
Let me clarify, my doctrine prof told us the same thing about himself, not tattling on MacArthur.
I am personally glad Lou feels compelled to post on here. I am glad he feels compelled to quote himself.
Lou, slandering others is always a good tactic when at the same time you demonstrate you are confused about their beliefs.
If a person is teaching a false gospel, they are accursed and unsaved. Your confusion and doublespeak on this matter is sad. You will find that the people on this blog aren't gullible.
The gospel isn't a buffet where you get to pick and choose who Christ is and isn't. I only hope you come to see the truth on this matter Lou.
To All:
Here is the point to help younger men who see a sinister motive and/or appear not to slow to anger.
Lordship Salvation (LS) conditions salvation (justification) on a promise to behavior expected of a Christian to become a Christian. LS looks at behavior not having believed for proof of a genuine conversion. Little wonder MacArthur cannot recall a time when he believed and received Christ as Savior.
There are those who do not recall that exact moment in time of conversion as one noted here. With MacArthur, however, I believe he struggles because his new LS interpretation of the Gospel is based on a commitment to and the performance of the “good works” (Eph: 2:10) expected of a believer to become a born again disciple of Christ. His lack of clarity is not uncommon among those who have post-conversion adopted or were approached with a LS message.
Bottom-line, and to reiterate, I believe JMac is born again, but fallen into a gross corruption of the Gospel of grace. I believe that of any who have been schooled in and unfortunately embraced his Lordship Salvation system.
That is all the time I have for today.
Yours in Him,
LM
Lou, have you written any of this down in a systematic format like a book on Lordship Salvation?
"Lordship Salvation (LS) conditions salvation (justification) on a promise to behavior expected of a Christian to become a Christian."
No it doesn't.
I don't use the term "Lordship Salvation", nor does any other presbyterian I know. And, I guess there is a chance that MacArthur has been so ad hoc in his theology that he added confusion to the discussion
Nevertheless, what I think Mac is going for (and what I know mainstream Reformed teach), is that Biblical faith includes Notitia, Assensus, and Fiducia. Notitia (knowledge of the gospel) and Assensus (assent to the historicity of the gospel story) are insufficient to qualify as faith -- even the demons posess them. Fiducia (trust in the Lord of the gospel) is the key.
One must place ones trust in Christ as his prophet, priest, and king (Lord) to claim that one has what the Bible calls faith. If merely saying, "Yeah, I believe Jesus died and rose again" qualifies, then Satan has Biblical faith.
But, I'm sure if I read the book, all my objections will fall away.
Keith
Lou, you are characteristically unwilling to answer d4's explicitly clear question about whether MacArthur and Piper preach "another gospel." Frankly, Lou, it's time for you to put your big boy separatist pants on and practice what you preach.
I can assure you that I can find no meaningful way in which I preach a different gospel from what they preach. I surely intend not to. So I can respect you if you think they (and I) preach a false gospel and treat us as heretics, but if you aren't courageous enough to say whether or not it's a false gospel and (depending on your conclusion) to apply the biblical mandates to those who preach such, then I simply have to say that you make a farce of the gospel, as you make a farce of yourself.
It would be a shame for theological and practical cowardice to hijack this post. Some good stuff was in here.
1. Without the witness of 2 to bring the accusation against Phelps, aren't we to treat him as not doing wrong?
2. I would love to know what college(s) you have in mind.
12. Mohler's experience in the fundy/modernistic fight of the SBC is right on. One thing the SBC learned from the prior fundy/modernistic failure: win.
In case any of you missed the following that I posted above I’ll repeat it for you here…
“I know from the Scriptures that the gospel message MacArthur and Piper believe, preach and defend, commonly known and recognized by them as ‘Lordship Salvation’ (LS) specifically on justification (how the lost man is born again) ‘corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ’ (2 Cor. 11:3) and frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).”
That statement was meant to convey, “false gospel.” I’ll add this for further clarity: The Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel, as it is advocated by men such as John MacArthur, John Piper and Steve Lawson is a false, non-saving message.
LM
The question was whether or not you think MacArthur and Piper are accursed. No one missed what you said. There is a disconnect in the question and your answer Lou. Please pay attention. You don't need to quote yourself anymore because you never answered the question.
If the message is false and men can't be saved by it, then the preachers who believe it are liars and accursed.
Stop being double-minded.
Bob Bixby left a link where you can check out what Pastor Phelps said about the 20/20 interview and where he gave his notes and rememberances of the alleged "cover up." The mother of the girl also left her note/letter there and it appears from their correspondence and notes, that they really were above board. May God grant grace to all involved.
Ok Lou, we're making progress. Now, since you are "of the opinion that [Piper and MacArthur] are born again men who have gone horribly wrong in their understanding of the one true saving message," and since you agree that their teaching is a false gospel, tell me this: Were the teachers of a false gospel in Galatians to be accursed, or were they born again men who'd "gone horribly wrong"?
Go ahead Lou, tell me I'm accursed. I can take it, and I'll respect you for it. I'd then encourage you to commit your energy to eradicate this teaching from the fundamentalist camp. Because it's everywhere—colleges, seminaries, pulpits. Maybe McCune's Systematic Theology would be a good place to start looking for it, since his theology has influenced many, directly and indirectly.
Mike, that link is also posted in the comments above in this thread.
I wonder if Lou would join MacArthur in the condemnation of the "gospel" Rob Bell is peddling:
http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110412
Lou has a "new" (although you've read most of it before) article up that I suspect stems from the interaction here...
Some people prefer to control the discussion and not be accountable.
Post a Comment