We are in a series of posts which serve as commentary on Kevin Bauder’s tenth lecture on the subject of Biblical Separation, delivered at International Baptist College September 15-17, 2008. This is post number 7. Earlier posts on the lecture series can be found here:

• deny the gospel by deeds
• the fundamentalist from the X dimension

Posts specifically regarding Lecture 10:

1. is separation a fundamental doctrine
2. indifferentists defined
3. not indifferent, but not allies
4. how should we proceed
5. the danger of theological drift
6. NE is dead, long live NE

In concluding this series, I am first going to discuss one remaining point of philosophical difference that may or may not be important. After that discussion, I’d like to add a few summary thoughts.

~~~

I have no clips to play for you for this post. I am just going to quote a statement made frequently throughout the lecture series, almost as a defining mantra:

“Unity is a function of that which unites; fellowship is a function of that which is held in common.”

Are unity and fellowship really synonymous terms, as the statement (and much of the lecture series) implies?

[Read more...]

I just want to highlight an update to the third article in my current series. I added a link to the article not indifferent, but not allies in this paragraph:

The next clip, [36:38] New Evangelicalism is Evangelicalism is Indifferentism, describes this equation: Old New Evangelicalism = Mainstream Evangelicals = Indifferentists. The mainstream Evangelical institutions are unable to break their ties with some who are apostates. Bauder cites the Evangelical Theological Society, for example, who are unable to oust the Open Theists, essentially because of Indifferentism. (It is interesting to hear him cite this example when Fundamentalists continue to hold memberships and publish papers in the ETS. But that is another post!) In this clip, Bauder is asserting that Indifferentism has become the Evangelical mainstream.

It is worth thinking about, this connection of Fundamentalists with the ETS. Is this kind of activity a step forward for Fundamentalism? I don’t think it affects the average pastor, who may be barely aware of the ETS and what goes on there.

But how does this affect the next generation of Fundamentalist (hopefully) pastors in training under the leadership of these professors? Surely they are aware that their professor is away at ETS. Surely they are aware that he is publishing a paper.

What are they to think?

What are they to think especially when their seminary president identifies the ETS as an Indifferentist (New Evangelical) institution?

Are we supposed to now be Indifferent to Indifferentists?

We are in a series of posts which serve as commentary on Kevin Bauder’s tenth lecture on the subject of Biblical Separation, delivered at International Baptist College September 15-17, 2008. This is post number 4. Earlier posts on the lecture series can be found here:

• deny the gospel by deeds
• the fundamentalist from the X dimension

Posts specifically regarding Lecture 10:

1. is separation a fundamental doctrine
2. indifferentists defined
3. not indifferent, but not allies

This is my fourth post considering Kevin Bauder’s tenth lecture at International Baptist College. This post is entitled: ‘how should we proceed‘.

Our analysis of the situation is essentially similar (see especially post #2 and post #3). The New Evangelical Indifferentism that now characterizes the majority of evangelicalism is a travesty that demeans the gospel. The Conservative Evangelicals are not Indifferentists, but they remain closely connected to Indifferentists and even see themselves as ‘indebted’ to them. They are willing to endorse Indifferentists. This attitude constitutes a significant difference between Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals. It precludes unfettered fellowship between them.

Nevertheless, Bauder is going to suggest that some fellowship with Conservative Evangelicals (CEs) is possible for Fundamentalists (Fundies). I will let Bauder speak for himself, but it is here where his viewpoint and mine begin to diverge.

[Read more...]

We are in a series of posts which serve as commentary on Kevin Bauder’s tenth lecture on the subject of Biblical Separation, delivered at International Baptist College September 15-17, 2008. This is post number 3. Earlier posts on the lecture series can be found here:

• deny the gospel by deeds
• the fundamentalist from the X dimension

Posts specifically regarding Lecture 10:

1. is separation a fundamental doctrine
2. indifferentists defined

This is the third in my series of posts concerning Kevin Bauder’s tenth lecture. The clips in this section are going to mark out a distinction between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. In the last post, we defined indifferentism, the attitude of New Evangelicalism, which thinks it is just fine for true Christians to cooperate with people who deny the essential doctrines of Christianity and to accredit them as ‘our Christian brothers’. Bro. Bauder says the activities of Indifferentists are very serious and very damaging to Christianity itself. I agree with him!

The next point, and the subject of this post, describes the distinctions between the Indifferentists (formerly known as New Evangelicals), Conservative Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists.

I appreciate one aspect of these clips in particular. Bauder makes it clear that there is a distinct difference between Conservative Evangelicals (CEs) and Fundamentalists. He will say that this difference amounts to an insurmountable barrier which precludes almost all fellowship. I agree in the main, but likely see the barrier as larger and the opportunities for fellowship as much, much smaller. [Read more...]

That, I think, would be me…

In my universe, the history of the New Evangelical compromise is apparently vastly different from that of the universe I currently inhabit. I am not certain how I managed a paradigm shift. I haven’t visited any time portals or experienced warp drive that I know of, but apparently it has happened.

I know this is true because I am at the moment thinking about what I am hearing out of the Keven Bauder lectures at International Baptist College. I mentioned them earlier and also mentioned that I had a few critical things to say concerning them. The more that I think about this, however, I am coming to an inescapable conclusion. I must be from a parallel universe. I am not sure how I got here, but I really would like to go back to my own time and space. (And I am wondering what in the world kind of havoc my altar ego from this universe is wreaking on my own universe.)

The best way to explain this is to offer you some audio clips from Bauder’s lectures, then to explain ‘what really happened’ as I understand it. (Bear in mind that my recollections are undoubtedly from an alternate version of reality, so you can carry on as you were… these are just the meanderings of a man caught in a time wrinkle, desperately hoping to find his way out!)

First, the audio clips. The first is from near the end of Lecture 7, then several from Lecture 8. The whole presentation up to this point is a lengthy discussion of the church, its nature and boundaries. This took a total of 7 hours, 38 minutes, and 43 seconds of talking on the first two days of the seminar (3:34:34 on day 1, 4:04:09 on day two), but who’s counting? All of that got to the end of lecture 7 and finally to some of the whole reason for gathering, to talk about the Biblical Doctrine of Separation. Perhaps some of that time was necessary, but even Bauder noticed his student’s eyes glazing over as he ponderously worked his way through his subject.¹

As for the contents of the clips, I would have you think of clip one, from lecture 7, separately from the others. This is my first parallel universe experience. The succeeding clips should be considered together. They sum up my parallel universe experience from lecture 8. I will have other commentary later on a few more clips, but these will suffice to point out a major problem in fundamentalism. [Or else a major problem in the space/time continuum, I'll leave you to decide which alternative is the real reality.]

[Read more...]

1. The third day of the seminar, by the way, took another 4 hours and 3 minutes (1:28:37 for lecture 8, 1:25:39 for lecture 9, and 1:08:54). I include all this information for two reasons: 1. If you decide to work your way through this material, be prepared for a long listen. 2. It is no easy task to sift through this amount of material. If it had all been on the topic at hand, it would have been more interesting. [↩]