Archives for May 2010

it’s not simple

Dave points out some of the difficulties we have in dealing with the doctrine of separation. I agree with him about the complexities we face. Separation decisions aren’t easy.

His ‘case study’ is the recent conference in Powell, TN, the International Baptist Friends Conference. His view is that it is unacceptable to enter into ministry partnership with a church and pastor from Hammond, IN. In the main, I agree with this point.

In discussing the topic, Dave says this:

My guess is that plenty of people in the FBF are prepared to overlook it. It is clear that speaking for the Pastors School in Hammond doesn’t get one excluded from Bible Conferences or have churches refuse to host your music seminars. And that reality raises the point that needs to be discussed and illustrates something that I’ve been saying for at least a couple of years now—what ripple ramifications should this have for my fellowship?

Well, that is a good question. What should our relationship be with those who don’t see Hammond as such a problem as I do (or as Dave does)?

[Read more…]

we need our leaders to lead

Gordon at Faith, Theology, & Ministry concludes his series on fundamentalism with part 9. In his concluding paragraphs are these words:

The young men that presently sit in the balance or along the sidelines in all this are sure not to be helped by the silence of the older generation at such a time as this.  I believe that the seasoned men of Fundamentalism need to publically speak to the issues at hand, and in today’s array of media options the far-reaching Internet should be the means of choice.

I and many others do not see Fundamentalism as dead.  Neither do we accept that its foundations were flawed.  Its history is still worth telling and worth knowing.  There are many Baptist churches that make Baptist a poor name to some people, but I still believe that under the Baptist name is the place to be.  There are many rogue independent churches who are precisely independent so as to do wrong without consequence, but I have no desire to change in that respect either.  Yes, there are more than a few Fundamental-labeled churches who have and are hurting not just the cause of Fundamentalism but the cause of Christ.  I have earnestly contended with more than a few prime examples here in the Dakotas and bear ministry scars because of it.  Nevertheless, I see no reason to radically redefine, realign, or redirect Fundamentalism.  I pray that you will be convinced of that as well.

I couldn’t agree more, especially with the call for the erstwhile leaders of fundamentalism to take some leadership with respect to the directions that some are promoting. We need to know if these men are on the right track. My instincts have been against what they seem to be saying. I could be wrong. But I’d like to hear from more men who stand as leaders in fundamentalism.


towards an understanding of worldliness – pt. 2

To review a bit of our previous material, here are two definitions we are working with:

GodlinessGodliness is a manner of life dominated by reverence for God displayed in respect for others that is visible to outside observers and is not confused with worldliness.

Worldly  Something is worldly when it belongs to the affairs of life on this earth, especially as opposed to the life of the spirit or of heaven.

In coming to our definition of worldly, we recognize that some things are worldly because they belong to this world and its affairs. In this sense, worldly things are earthly or natural. There is nothing inherently evil about worldly things in this sense.

However, it is undeniable that there is also a negative sense of worldly in the Scriptures. In this sense, something of this world or this life is worldly because in its earthliness or in one’s preoccupation with it, it is or becomes opposed to the life of the spirit or of heaven.

[Read more…]

May 2, 2010 – GBCVic Sermons

Our previous Wednesday’s Psalm (4.28.10):

Hallelujah! God Never Fails (Ps 105:1-45)

Two key concepts dominate this psalm: Remember! and God acts. Throughout the psalm, Israel is called to remember God’s great works in establishing the nation. None of Israel’s misdeeds are mentioned (they await Ps 106). The entire focus is on God working, directly and indirectly, to make a nation for himself. As NT Christian believers, we can be assured in our faith in the same God and are reminded to remember God’s works on our behalf as well.

The Sunday Messages:

Sin and Grace (Rm 5:12-21)

In this message we are surveying the whole of the passage we have been in, Rm 5.12-21. Today we are concentrating on the two major ideas or sets of terms in the passage. On the one hand, Paul uses five different terms for sin and on the other he uses four different terms for grace (or gift). The remarkable contrast between these terms heightens in our minds the magnitude of God’s great grace and condescension towards us in saving us from our sins.

Towards an Understanding of Worldliness (4)

In this lesson we finish discussing the cross references to the terms in Titus 2.12.

(Our recording cuts off a bit of the end of the lesson.)

Blessings and Cursings (Lev 26:1-46)

The next to last chapter of Leviticus seems like a conclusion – in it God gives to his people the promise of blessing if they obey the law and disciplinary cursing if they disobey. He also reaffirms his covenant with the patriarchs. We take warning and guidance from these words as NT believers, and we also rejoice to know that part of the promised blessings are already ours by means of the indwelling Holy Spirit based on the work of Christ on our behalf.


a series you should read

I ran across a blog that is new to me. On this blog there is an ongoing series of articles with this title:

Considerations Concerning the Proclamation of a Post-Fundamentalism Era and the Foundations for Paleo-Evangelicalism

The author explains his purpose in the first Part:

In this series of posts I shall attempt to give answers concerning the following:

  1. Whether Fundamentalism was flawed from its beginning by Scottish Common Sense Realism, sentimentalism, and populism or whether it rests more squarely upon Biblical principles;
  2. Whether Fundamentalism was only a “partial and uneducated” return to the Biblical faith because it lacks in its appreciation for the history of theological development in contrast to those who are primarily interested in defending the Reformed faith;
  3. Whether Fundamentalism should be broader in its vision and burden and be more culturally concerned as is the amillennialist  because of his kingdom-is-now theology and the post-millennialist because of his establish-the-kingdom theology;
  4. Whether Fundamentalism should be actively listening to, dialoguing with, or learning from those outside of itself for the purpose of better spiritual growth and maturity;
  5. Whether the historical lines of separation for Fundamentalists should be scrapped in favor of fresh approaches meant to allow fellowship and cooperation with Conservative Evangelicals; and
  6. Whether we are actually now in a post-Fundamentalism era and in need of something new namely Paleo-evangelicalism.

This series is a response to Bauder’s recent series of articles trying to tell the history and philosophy of Fundamentalism (and making several errors along the way). I think the whole series is worth your attention and so I am providing links to each article below:

There is more to come. You should subscribe to the RSS feed on this blog and catch the rest.

UPDATE: Here is Part Nine (the last)

Related posts on oxgoad: