Hi MarkO

I guess I should say on #6 and the capital G is that this is my theory. I guess I was being a little dogmatic there, and should have asked a question first. It does seem, however, that when Calvinists talk about being Gospel-centered, for example, they are using code for Calvin.

It may be odd, but then you do have to consider the source.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

my explanations:

about #2 – I was trying to use punctuation correctly and alas I was misunderstood. Here is the complete thot in one bracket :
[topical-bone-picking-kind-of-preaching]

about #4
Yes, I know several Fundie pastors who are in a city and others who are trying to plant city churches. BUT in comparision the Fundies are mostly in the suburbs.

about #6
using a capital “G” in Gospel somehow turns that word into a Calvinist word? uh? that is the oddest thing I’ve read in the last 40 years of being either an Armenian or Reformed believer. I do alot of reading in the area of theology and have alot Phd friends in theology – first time I ever heard that.

thanks for letting me sound off.

MarkO,

Thank you for your comment. A couple of points in reply…

On #2. – Mostly, I think this is untrue for two reasons: 1. Most of the fundamentalists I know try to mainly be expository in their preaching methods. 2. Topical and textual sermons are legitimate forms of preaching. I don’t personally usually do them because I think they are harder to do right than expository. But they are legitimate forms of preaching.

On #4. – Fundamentalism is mostly a small movement, so their ‘saturation point’ has not been reached. I would venture to guess that there may be some cities where there is little in the way of fundamentalist churches. However, in cities like New York City and San Francisco I know of several strong fundamentalist works and church-planting pastors. I think you are just not aware of what fundamentalists are doing in their efforts to spread the gospel.

On #6. – Usually these days when you use capital letters for “The Gospel” people mean Calvinism. I don’t think Calvinism = The Gospel or even the gospel. However, I would point out that the CEs are not so passionate for the gospel (or Gospel) that they are not willing to allow the gospel to be tarnished by their partnerships with blasphemers. I would agree that some may be leaving Fundamentalism because they think the CEs are ‘passionate’ for the gospel, but they would be wrong in thinking that.

It looks like I am quibbling with all your even numbered reasons!

Your odd numbered reasons are part of the reason, I think. And I agree that it is complex, not a simple issue at all.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

from where I sit possibly…

1. CCM, new hymns, new use of instruments, lively worship styles, etc.

2. expository, passionate preaching among evangelicals vs. topical, bone-picking “preaching” among Fundies

3. the evangelicals are skilled at using the “new media” – they have mastered internet communication and book publishing skills.

4. The Cities – the Fundie’s lack of a unified passion to spread the Gospel everywhere. They would rather (it seems to me) defend their turf than lavishly spread the Gospel everywhere. There are some places Fundies don’t typically go to spread the Gospel – they are mostly in the suburbs.

5. the term “fundamentalist” or “fundamentalism” 100 years ago had basically one meaning in religious terms in America. now who know what it means. in our time the word “fundamentalism” has lost its meaning because there are too many ways to try to define it. To be quite honest, right now in Chrisitian America “fundamentalism” probably describes an attitude more than anything else – an edgy, confrontational attitude. some of us are worn out with that attitude.

6. keeping a primary focus on The Gospel is so refreshing. (btw – all the original 5 fundamentals are contained in the Gospel anyway, I Cor 15:1-11) conservative evangelical may not be perfect in this area but their passion for The Gospel palatable.

7. a revivied interest in the Puritan writers. a revived interest in the 5 Solas.

it is a complex issue I am sure.

However, the best antecdote for keeping the faith pure is to spread The Gospel everywhere, making those converts disciples in The Word and leave them with a personal passion for the wonder and greatness of GOD.

Hi Paul

I appreciate your response, but aside from the points about the “SI left” waiting for and pouncing on a mistake and about the NE seminaries, I can’t agree with your analysis.

I don’t want to derail this thread with KJO discussion, so please don’t add any more along that line. I will not approve any more posts in this thread on that issue. It is not correct. There are many people like me who hold to an eclectic approach who are just as concerned about the leftward drift in fundamentalist circles. We do have authority for that concern and it is the Word of God.

So let me reiterate. No more posts regarding the KJO issue, from either side. I will not approve them.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

As a Calvinist Presbyterian TR-only advocate, one might have assumed that I would be joining in the vitriol against Pastor Sweatt. Having listened to his message, I understand his concern even if he diagnosed the wrong cause. The truth is that the left-leaning SI cabal have been waiting for a mistake by someone within “old Fundamentalism” for a number of years to feed the baying Neo-Evangelical wolves. Sweatt just happened to be the fall guy. Bauder et al have waxed verbosely using double entendres in blogdom for months hinting at the need for a re-alignment with MacArthur, Piper et al but not daring to speak out to protect the constituencies of influence that they feed in.

Strangely, we note the CCM, Versions, Abstinence issues being thrown around as well as the “imperialist” charges against Bob Jones Jr., John R. Rice etc. This was not the central issue of Sweatt’s charge but in reality it was the true object of the young “Deformed” Fundamentalist viewpoint now seeking the ascendancy. Despite their bombastic approach, the Sweattgate opponents are like the rhetorician in the story who wrote in the margin of his notes, “Argument weak. Shout here.” When you have the Rap Music, Toronto Blessing, Driscoll-cussing, Mother Theresa fan of John Piper stating on his blog that you are “good breeze” then you know you are in big trouble! If I were Bauder I would be searching my conscience as to why such a deeply flawed writer could endorse me so unreservedly. Can’t imagine Bob Jones Jr ever had a similar glowing endorsement from say Jerry Falwell!

The truth is that Bauder, Pettegrew, Glenny, Straub at Central and Dave Doran, Pearson L. Johnson, Samuel A. Dawson at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary all attended openly Neo-Evangelical schools for their graduate education. Larry Oats at Maranatha did the same. Yet, paradoxically on Detroit’s website they say of their faculty that “Each is committed to the glory of God, the ministry of the local church, the need to train and send men into the gospel ministry, and the need for personal and ecclesiastical separation.” Is the latter really credible or true? I confronted one of these men personally recently and he admitted he had to objective reason for speaking out against the YF attending T4G and Shepherds Conferences when he sat under the same men for 4 years to do his graduate work! He also admitted that he did not learn any more at his compromised seminary than he would have at an accredited “separatist” one such as BJU.

I agree (again) with Kent Brandenburg that one of the root causes of this dispute is the concord on the textual issue now between the BJU/CBTS/DBTS/YFers and the Neo-Evangelicals. In 1924, the liberal paper The Christian Century was clear that “the Bible of the fundamentalist is one Bible: the Bible of Modernism is another.” Today, we have now the same Ecumenical Greek Text sold and promoted by BJU/CBTS/DBTS as for the modernist, liberal and Romanist Bibles. As Mark Dever and Mark Minnick made clear on their comments on the former’s website the TR-only position is one that they both are united in their distaste for. Can you think of another issue that Bauder and friends can write on and be published by a mainstream NE publisher like Kregel in “One Bible Only”?

The zeitgeist of our contemporary apostate age now demands a “new and improved” version of everything including the Scriptures. Our places of worship have dropped the name “church,” reduced worship to entertainment, and promoted effeminate “preacher gurus” in Hawaii shirts to share the latest psychological fad. We have also now a marked subservience to scientism as the dominant cultural standard. Did the church make such a gross error in over 500 years of interpretation? What has primarily changed since the Reformation is the way man defines and uses science. Modern scientific opinion has been elevated to the status of general revelation giving it an absolute a priori veto over how we interpret Scripture. So much for singing, ‘Immortal, invisible, God only wise!’ Textual criticism is built on the intolerant foundation of prejudice against the promises of Scripture. Its motive is driven by the axiom that modern man always seeks out a way of removing His Creator from the source of truth, as autonomous man aspires to fill the vacancy.

Critical Text (CT) advocates, such as Bauder, have no ultimate and certain standard for determining objective truth. Without the Biblical doctrine of perfect providential preservation, we are left with non-answers in these areas. This is not a minor shift but one of seismic proportions. Fortunately, most CT advocates of the past were better believers than theologians and have been able to live with the inherent contradiction of their system by simply declaring the gospel from the TR. They were incapable of following their own premises out to the end of the road they were on. This has now been challenged by the belligerent approach of the new breed of CT adherents, the proliferation of translations, and the ever mutating latest edition of the evolutionary Greek Text.

The truth is that Miss Pragmatism is a seductive mistress for those seeking the approval of the NE scholarship but unfortunately she produces some very ugly offspring. We see the Athaliah’s of the Jehoshaphat compromise with textual criticism flooding blogdom this week. Nuff said!!!

These are people have rarely gotten along with each other for very long. Norris and Rice split in the 30s. Jones Sr and Rice stood together against Graham in the 50s, but Jones Jr and Rice split over Wrytzen in the 70s. Hyles polarized and split a chunk (of one section) of the movement in the 80s.

Most of the people I know who have “left” fundamentalism as that process would be described by the SOTL or FBF people (and I realize that they would not wish to be lumped together, but for purposes of my illustration…) still believe, preach and practice all of the doctrines that Torrey et al would have described as fundamentals. But they are sick and tired of majoring on minors and being expected to fight to the death over every latest Shibboleth that comes along. When we left off contending for the faith for the sake of contending for preferences, we lost our reason for existence.

There is no one left with the stature of a Riley, Ketcham, Jones Sr or Rice that can reach across some of the lines drawn between the groups of warring fundamentalists. I think the past is just prologue…these groups will continue to divide and subdivide and splinter until there are hundreds of versions of “true” fundamentalism, all of which believe almost exactly the same things and none of which will have anything to do with the others.

Perhaps a big part of the reason so many young fundamentalists are leaving is the growing emphasis on expository ministries in some quarters of evangelicalism against the backdrop of personality-driven ministries in certain fundamentalist camps.

Maybe this exodus can be traced back to the issue of authority…”WHO says it’s this way and not that way?” It does seem that many of the younger generation are challenging ideas that have long been taken for granted as scriptural in fundamentalism. Maybe some good will come of this. Maybe this will drive us back to the Bible to reexamine some of the non-fundamental beliefs and practices we persistently hold to, and the spirit in which we hold to them.