Kent, no way of knowing, but as in all matters on the blogosphere, one has to take such identifications on faith – if someone were to fraudulently use another’s name, that would be a serious problem. I don’t think that is the case here, but if it is, I am sure I would hear about it shortly.

Jonathan, I do stop by your site occasionally, it is always interesting. I am going to write more on what separation is in the future. I think it is widely misunderstood.

Charles, thanks for the kind words. We are all in a daily battle. May God keep us faithful. And ultimately, we all answer to the Lord. Mark Dever and other conservative evangelicals don’t answer to me. The reason I highlight their doings here from time to time is to illustrate how we differ so that I might make my application of doctrine plain. Ultimately, we all have a much greater master to answer to. Hopefully when all is said and done something will remain and we won’t enter heaven ‘so as by fire’.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Good topic for discussion – goes back to the Masters line which is that lack of seperation stifles warning and effective ministry in all areas.

I am in some ways a fundie, and I certainly do believe in seperation, but not to the extent and degree of some (such as PM). However, I’d have to say that endorsing (as that is what it is) a denom that ordains women by speaking for them is way out of my comfort zone – this issue goes to the heart of God’s created order and once this domino falls, others will follow.

JH

Do you know for sure that Mark Dever made that comment?

I can not think of a better reason than those two young men whom you have great influence in ministry upon. I would also pray that fundamentalism will be kind to you, and know that you have a heart and a love for the Lord and the work of the ministry.

Charles

I recognize that some of what we are discussing is a matter of “what should we separate over.” My observation in this post, however, is with regard to the seriousness with which we treat the subject. I mentioned my meeting with pastor Minnick last week. I didn’t mention something of the serious interest and demeanor of all who were participating. I have a few comments on that in a pending post.

May I say that the fundamentalist ethos and philosophy heightens our interest in these things? We have paid a price for holding our positions and are vitally concerned with making certain our positions are right. We don’t generally treat these matters lightly, and we tend to take them very seriously.

Well, I could go on… but there will be more later. I do appreciate your taking the time to read and comment.

And for Charles,

Most of what I am writing about is fundamentalist philosophy. I am concerned that the younger generation (specifically, my two preacher-boy sons) have a thorough understanding of fundamentalist philosophy AND that they adopt it … but not just because I say so, but because I have articulated a thoroughly biblical point of view. I write for them. All others are welcome to watch, and chime in as you have.

I hope that helps explain my constant interest in this subject. (My readership isn’t all that huge… about 25 visitors a day. But I am writing just for two young men.)

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I do take the Word of God seriously, I take teaching the Words of God very seriously. I believe I am more apt to be biblical than fundamental baptist. I would rather use biblical terms than baptist terms. To be fundamental is not necessary to be biblical in terms that many would put on the term.

I love fellowship with those who love the Lord Jesus Christ, and desire to see God’s glory, and have a passion to see Christ lifted up and praised.

Charles

I believe what the Word of God says are far more important than what I have to say. Therefore I would rather teach from a biblical perspective than my own.

Our people in our churches are smarter than fifth graders. They are more interested in what the Bible teaches then what we believe being a fundamental believes.