An additional comment: I think I should clarify my view of the connection of charismatism with apostasy. In listening to the rest of Dave’s Discussion 2 session he makes some comments about charismatism that made me realize I need to be more precise.

1. Simply holding to continuationism is not an apostate position. I would say it is a pernicious error, but not apostasy per se.

2. Dave mentioned the view that you must speak in tongues in order to be a genuine Christian as being an attack on the gospel, which would put that kind of charismatism into apostasy (my word, Dave didn’t use that one).

3. I think the Oneness Pentecostalism that denies the Trinity is an apostate position, although I suppose it isn’t directly connected with the charismatism.

4. I think that continuationism can slide into an apostate position with respect to inspiration when it considers a ‘word of prophecy’ to be on a par with the Scriptures. Wayne Grudem doesn’t hold this view, but he recognizes the danger. Read his The Gift of Prophecy and you will get his incredibly flawed exegesis where he tries to dumb prophecy down to just an impression, but not a revelation. He cites Agabus in Ac 21.10-11 as making ‘errors’ in his prophecy which allegedly proves that NT prophecy isn’t the same as OT prophecy. C J Mahaney and Bob Kauflin hold this view. A couple of things need to be said about this:

First, these men see the gospel danger of continuationism, that is why they work so hard at dumbing prophecy down so that it doesn’t equal new revelation.

Second, what they don’t see is that their argument attacks inerrancy because Ac 21.11 says “the Spirit says“. Is that statement in error? If inspiration is a gospel oriented issue, as Dave asserted in his discussions (and I agree with him), then these men are on very very thin ice.

Since this error is so grievous, so pernicious, as I said above, I think that if it isn’t apostasy, it is a kissing cousin of apostasy and is grounds for separation in the case of most charismatics.

Of course, that is my opinion. But I thought I should clarify and not just leave my statement out there. I realize that apostasy is a very serious charge, but if that is the first level of separation (the objective of gospel-driven separation) we need to be very careful in examining the aberrant doctrines people hold.

Enough for now.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Andy,

I have now listened to part 3 and 4 as well as all of discussion 1 and half of discussion 2. (I am on the road at an internet cafe and have spent my morning with Dave Doran. And Beverley Sills, a little bit. One of them has a lovely voice.)

I think you are right that separation on the fundamentals vs. separation as gospel-driven both require explanation. I think that what Dave is saying is essentially the same thing as the fundamentals, but I wouldn’t mind having him answer if and when he has time. I have to say that I really appreciate this presentation. I appreciate him taking the time to put it together and in principle form, I think he is expressing exactly what I think about separation/fellowship. There may be points where we might disagree with applications, but I think he is saying we need to be able to give one another a bit of space on that, as long as we are agreed on the bedrock principle. I would agree with that.

I do think there are some differences I have with Dave in lectures 3 and 4, but I’ll leave that for later, I’m enjoying a beautiful day in the BC interior and am full of love in my heart! (heh, heh)

I think Dave somewhat regretted getting specific with the KJV illustration, as I listen to the q and a, but I am curious about the answers there. And I hadn’t thought about the Hammond situation. I wonder if he would say Hammond was apostate? Not sure if I would exactly, but it isn’t a good scene. Obviously we do have some connections there through Patch that bother me (and probably some others too).

As I was listening this morning, I was wondering something else, so if Dave looks in here and chooses to answer, I’d appreciate it. I understand Dave’s emphasis on not getting into personalities for this particular presentation. He is trying to teach a principle and wants us to “hard down learn it” as Mrs Boyd used to say.

But I wonder if there isn’t a need for some clarity with respect to a guy like Piper. There are some pretty serious errors he is connected with. To me, Driscoll is an apostate in practice. To me, Open Theism is an apostate position. Same with the Toronto Blessing and charismatism in general. I am very troubled by Piper’s connections to these things, and I am very troubled by the hero worship he is accorded by many. It seems to me that at some point, people in leadership positions need to call a guy like Piper out on these connections with apostasy. Maybe it is just me. Dave might not be prepared to make those same distinctions as I would, but I wonder if he would agree with my assessment of Driscoll, Open Theism, Toronto Blessing, etc.

Anyway, I am really grateful for the work done last week. I still have lots of questions and would appreciate any answers Dave might choose to give. I think this is an important step and do urge people to download and listen to Dave’s messages.

Tracy,

I would urge you to listen to the sessions. Dave said specifically that he thought John R. Rice was wrong in the steps he took. You may not agree, but you ought to at least give a listen.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

By the time it’s all said and done, and the idea fundamentalists and the movement fundamentalists have shaken things out, I think the view of ecclesiastical separatism that will largely prevail won’t be entirely different from the separatism of Bob Jones, Sr (before Bob Jr. poisoned him with the views of Charles Woodbridge).

I think the Hamilton Hotel Resolution on separation had it about right. And perhaps today we’re seeing, not the demise of fundamentalism as some would hope, but a late course corrrective that will ultimately return us to a more even-handed, judicious, and well-focused militancy.

If the idea men and the movement men don’t get it settled, I fear the former will ultimately be swallowed up by the conservative evangelicals and the latter will simply die on the vine. There’s much at stake here, to be sure. And it’s not a little disconcerting to see that perhaps much of fundamentalism was built on a bubble.

Have a good one!

tjp

I don’t think there is a substantial difference between using “the Fundamentals” and using “the Gospel” as the driving issue behind our philosophy of Biblical separation. Both terms actually require explanation because each is subject to undue reductionism. You say you separated based on the fundamentals and someone will say you are only looking at the so-called five fundamentals and ignoring critical issues such as justification by faith alone. If I advocate gospel-drive separation, then I can be accused of ignoring inerrancy or the like. I don’t think it is a fair criticism in either case. The main benefit I see in the gospel-driven terminology is that the Scriptures use that term and concept over and over again. It brings the gospel to the forefront in a way that I think is very healthy. Paul says, for example, in Gal 2:5, “to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.” (ESV) By tying separation to the gospel like this, it may also help those not predisposed to fundamentalism, or have baggage associated with the term, to have a better chance to see the issue for what it is – a solid, important, critical doctrine.

In regard to the KJVOism example, I struggled to find someone who I thought belonged in those different groups, based on issues of fellowship. Perhaps I am uninformed, but even the most strident perfect-preservationist tends to distance himself from Ruckman. He is a polarizing individual even within the KJVO camps. I think the perfect-preservationist position is wrong on so many levels – theologically, biblically, historically, and practically, BUT I think I could fellowship with someone who holds that position if they were not militant about it (meaning they think anyone who takes a contrary position must be separated from) and if they did not press this issue publically during those times of fellowship (i.e., they did not preach on it or allude to it during those time, like in a camp speaker setting, or visiting speaker setting). I don’t see that error impacting the gospel (or a fundamental, although at times it can get close to impacting the doctrine of inspiration), so I don’t think it has to be an issue of separation. However, since it tends to be an issue of separation on the other side, it tends to be a moot issue. So, I thought the version issue example was not all that helpful because I could not fill in the chairs in my mind, but I thought the overall concept that we have problems on “our side” was well-taken. As I write that, I have Hammond in my mind and perhaps they are another group, other than Ruckman, who is heretical on the version issue, and with whom “our side” has inconsistent separation issues.