You asked, “I’m just wondering…how many of those who refuse to take a strong separated stand against the compromise of Mohler & Duncan do so because they want to go to T4G 2010 in Louisville in a few months?”

IMO, this is a major reason why so few of the Reformed men who still claim the “fundamentalist” title have reacted to the problem with their evangelical counter-parts signing the MD. Can you inagime the outcry if it had been a non-Calvinist pastor in IFB circles had signed the MD?

On the other hand, some of the YFs in particular have been so enamored with the so-called “conservative” evangelical camp that they may now have little problem with Mohler and Duncan signing and if truth be known some of them may have signed it in spirit already.

“We are witnessing a consistent pattern among some of our Reformed IFB men to tolerate, give benefit of the doubt and/or excuse things in the ministries of the “conservative” evangelicals that they (IFB men) would never allow for, tolerate or excuse in their own ministry or in a fellow IFB’s ministry.”

You might want to read an article I wrote on that theme. It is, Al Mohler Signs TMD: Tolerance & Compromise Will, In its Wake, Leave Casualties

Lou

You know, I had forgotten about that angle. I just went over to the t4g 2010 web-site. It is to be held at Louisville in April. The usual group headlines the event. Unless MacArthur withdraws, it will show (yet again) that he is all talk and no action.

Ironically, the theme is: “The (Unadjusted) Gospel”.

Sheesh!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Keith,

There is no problem with fellowship around Calvinism per se. There is a problem when someone makes Calvinism (or any other pet doctrine) the “get out of jail free” card whereby virtually any other error can be overlooked. Some in the King James Only movement are guilty of the same thing.

Personally, I don’t think “separation” and “IFB” are more important than anything. I don’t think a long standing theological heritage is more important than anything either. I think fidelity to the gospel is the first essential of Christianity. I think that fidelity to the gospel is so important that contention, even with other professing Christians, is demanded by the Scriptures in order to remain faithful to the gospel in all its glory. It is simply a matter of obeying God rather than being bound by men or traditions.

Let me ask you some questions:

1. Do you think it was right for Al Mohler to sign the Manhattan Declaration?
2. Do you think it would be right for other Christians to continue to invite Mohler to their conferences without demanding and receiving some kind of retraction for said signing?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

You wrote, “I think bro. Mohler has grievously erred in granting Christian recognition to people who are not true Christians. Until he repudiates that recognition, we must mark him as a disobedient brother and dissuade others from sitting under his influence.”
100% agreed that 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15 is the mandate for Mohler’s actions.

You also write in this thread,

“Please note the comments by so many fundamentalists writing on this issue. Many are obviously uncomfortable with Mohler here, but they can’t quite bring themselves to note the barrier this action puts between them and Mohler.”

This is also very true. We have men in IFB circles, and I mean the Reformed IFB men, who are willing to tolerate and/or excuse obvious doctrinal aberrations (non-cessation of charismatic sign gifts) and disconcerting issues like signing the MD by the so-called “conservative” evangelicals (ce) like Mohler, Piper, Mahaney, et. al.

Things they would never tolerate or allow for in their own ministries are tolerated when found in the ce camp. Can you imagine what the reaction would be if a well-known IFB pastor or college president had signed the MD? IMO, we see a much greater out-cry from IFB men.

In any event, our Reformed IFB men are going to go to the evangelical conferences and will happily sit under the preaching/teaching ministry of Mohler, Piper, Mahaney and even Driscoll as many have already. The glue that holds that fellowship together in spite of the obvious reasons to avoid those men is their mutual affinity for Calvinism. They (IFB men) want the fellowship around Calvinism and will tolerate and/or give benefit of the doubt to the obvious problems among the conservative evangelical Calvinists to have that fellowship.

Lou

Hi Jack,

That’s exactly right. Not everyone gets this.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Hi Chris

Well, I think I have been marking them here. I am suggesting that there is a new kind of fundamentalism upon us that seems unwilling to mark men like this in their disobedience.

Please note the comments by so many fundamentalists writing on this issue. Many are obviously uncomfortable with Mohler here, but they can’t quite bring themselves to note the barrier this action puts between them and Mohler. On this issue, MacArthur has said the right thing. It remains to be seen if he will do the right thing, going forward. Past actions warn me not to hold my breath.

The simple point I am making is that these men are not fundamentalists, they know the line that marks out fundamentalism from their position, and they really want no part of it. So why should erstwhile fundamentalists play footsie with them?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Chris