September 15, 2014
September 10, 2014
This is an article that I reissue every Memorial Day weekend and on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack on our nation. Let us once again remember, but never forget, those who serve today, those who served throughout our nation's heritage and the fallen who gave their all that we might be free.
For this commemorative moment I would like to focus our attention on another national tragedy, the American Civil War. There were many terrible battles in that war: Antietem, Fredericksburg, Chickamauga and Vicksburg. None was more costly, nor so much at stake than at the Battle of Gettysburg. After three days of battle there were approximately 50,000 American casualties.
One of the most endearing and treasured memories from Gettysburg was not forged on the battlefield itself. No, for we must go forward to November 19, 1863 when President Abraham Lincoln came to honor what had been done there and deliver his immortal Gettysburg Address.
On June 1, 1865, Senator Charles Sumner commented on what is now considered the most famous speech by President Abraham Lincoln. In his eulogy on the slain president, he called it a “monumental act.” He said Lincoln was mistaken that “the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here.” Rather, the Bostonian remarked, “The world noted at once what he said, and will never cease to remember it. The battle itself was less important than the speech.” (From Abraham Lincoln Online)
With that I offer for your encouragement Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work, which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
August 18, 2014
article first appeared Jan. 31, 2011. These
FBFI resolutions on the SBC were adopted in 1994 & 1995. The 1994 resolution was co-authored by Dave Doran. The 1995 resolution was co-written by Drs. Dave
Doran, Tim Jordan, and Matt Olson. Their authorship leads to one question: Over
the years since 1994-95, Who Changed? See the commentary, and related readings at the conclusion of this
REGARDING THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION (1994)
REGARDING THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION (1995)While applauding the attempts of conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention to reemphasize the doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, we do not believe that these men are “fundamental” Southern Baptists. Our reasoning is twofold: first, they still accept the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham which makes them New Evangelicals; and second, they do not desire to be known as Fundamentalists. Writing in “The Church God Approves,” James Draper, conservative in the Southern Baptist Convention, condemns Fundamentalists for their divisiveness, bigotry and unfairness; and says that they have a wholly negative approach and show little love and compassion. Those who call for cooperation in pulpit ministries between Fundamentalists and Southern Baptists either misread the nature of the conservative movement in the Convention, or themselves have compromised the cause of Biblical separation.
In recent years some strides have been made to rid the “convention of its liberal and neo-orthodox factions,” but not all of them.** Many of the “dangerous drifts” described above, however, remain in the SBC.The FBF applauds those in the Southern Baptist Convention who fought a battle for the inerrancy of Scripture, but disagree with Jerry Falwell and Tim Lee who attempt to convince followers that the SBC conservatives are Fundamentalists. At best, conservative Southern Baptists are New Evangelicals who cooperate with and promote the ecumenical evangelism ministry of Billy Graham. The Southern Baptist Convention dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, the two Southern Baptist leaders who signed the 1994 ecumenical Evangelicals and Catholics Together* agreement (the furor created caused them later to ask to have their names removed), and statements made by Convention leaders embracing charismatics indicate dangerous drifts in the SBC.We believe that statements made by Charles Stanley, twice elected president of the SBC, such as, “If it’s a Southern Baptist seminary, it should be balanced in its approach. If you’re going to have liberals, you need strong conservatives . . . if you’ve got people who don’t believe in the virgin birth, you need people who do,” lead to unscriptural confusion. Adrian Rogers, elected to two terms as president of the Southern Baptist Convention, has said, “I don’t want any witch hunt to purge the seminaries.” Statements such as these reveal that even conservative leadership in the SBC will not take the strong stands necessary to rid the Convention of its liberal and neo-orthodox factions. Until this happens, we do not see how independent fundamental Baptists can make common cause with Southern Baptists.
On February 22-25 at Calvary Baptist Seminary (Lansdale, PA) Dr. Dave Doran and Dr. Kevin Bauder will be participating in a cooperative pulpit ministry with SBC pastor Dr. Mark Dever. The 1994 FBF resolution above warns of compromising the cause of biblical separatism. Dever maintains close friendships with and participates in cooperative efforts with ecumenical compromisers and charismatics. Does the common cause cooperative ministry of Bauder and Doran with Dever at Lansdale compromise the cause of biblical separatism? How do Brothers Doran and Bauder justify their “cooperation in pulpit ministries” at Lansdale with SBC pastor Mark Dever?What is glaringly left out of this issue is the matter of separation. [Kevin] Bauder claims that the “conservative evangelicals” aren’t New Evangelicals and he conveniently defines New Evangelicalism in a way that proves his point (whereas his predecessors at Central, Richard Clearwaters and Ernest Pickering, understood New Evangelism much more clearly).While there are many aspects of New Evangelicalism, the defining principle from its inception was a “repudiation of separatism.” That was the way that Harold Ockenga put it. That is Billy and Franklin Graham’s foundational working principle.And by that definition, every Southern Baptist conservative is a New Evangelical. That is evident by the simple fact that they remain in the SBC, which is an unholy organization that encompasses theological liberalism, Charismaticism, Masonism, ecumenical evangelism, modern textual criticism, Amillennialism, the rock & roll emerging philosophy, female preachers, psychoheresy, Catholic mysticism, and other errors and evils. (David Cloud: Conservative Evangelicals, Jan. 27, 2011.)
Dr. Rick Arrowood details the current posture of SBC pastor Mark Dever,
Does that read like the personal resume of a man who is committed to the theology, application and cause of biblical separatism? It appears troubling inconsistencies among evangelicals such as Mark Dever are no longer a barrier to fellowship and cooperative ministerial efforts for certain men in Fundamental circles who profess allegiance to the cause of biblical separatism as defined in the 1994-95 FBF resolutions on the Southern Baptist Convention.Just because a man like Dr. Dever is seen by some as a “conservative Southern Baptist, who fights for truth in the SBC,” does not mean he fits in as a separatist and should be called a fundamentalist. Matter-a-fact, he would not want to wear that name tag. He is a leader among Southern Baptists:•He serves on the Board of Southern Theological Seminary under the direction of Dr. Al Mohler. (Dr. Mohler signed the ecumenical Manhattan Declaration and watches over the Billy Graham School of Evangelism and Home Missions at Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY. [Mohler served as chair for the 2001 Billy Graham Crusade in Louisville])•Dr. Dever also willingly teaches at Gordon-Conwell College in Massachusetts, long known as a leading institution for New-Evangelicalism and compromise.•To add to the matter, Dr. Dever is quite reformed and a-millennial, which, of course, is a far-cry from the position promoted by the founders of Calvary, Detroit, Central and Northland.•He has spoken it [sic] the past and is slated to speak in the future with Dr. C.J. Mahaney, one of the founders of the Together For The Gospel [T4G] Conference where he states that his desire is to start churches that are reformed in theology and charismatic in doctrine. T4G has attracted an assortment of our young men, exposing them not only to doctrinal error, but also a steady diet of Sovereign Grace Music.(Dr. Rick Arrowood: Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism)
For those who may not be aware the 1994 FBF resolution on the SBC was prepared and submitted by the resolutions committee that included Dave Doran. Brother Doran signed on to and therefore endorsed the 1994 resolution on the SBC, which closed as follows,Who really is changing as we see this new wave of picking and choosing, applying and justifying, defending and mitigating, “mixing and mingling?” If it is right for us to “platform fellowship” with new-evangelicals and those in the SBC, why have we not had them preach in our colleges, seminaries and fellowships over the past sixty years? A Southern Baptist teaching theology in a fundamentalist church, college or seminary has his roots in Southern Baptist soil, and when transplanted temporarily to a fundamental church or school brings that soil with him. If our position has been wrong, then we have missed the placating of well-organized denominationalism with its comforts and retirement benefits. Perhaps we should go to those retired fundamental Baptist missionaries, who have sacrificed term after term on a foreign field, who may be physically and financially struggling in some nursing home, and apologize to them, admitting the Lottie Moon Missions Program would have been a better choice for them. Can you see the shifting of the sand and how it strikes at the foundation of our fundamental Baptist history? (Dr. Rick Arrowood: Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism)
The 1995 FBF resolution was prepared and submitted by the committee that included Dave Doran, Matt Olson and Tim Jordan. The 1995 resolution closed with,“Those who call for cooperation in pulpit ministries between Fundamentalists and Southern Baptists either misread the nature of the conservative movement in the Convention, or themselves have compromised the cause of Biblical separation.”
Yet, Matt Olson will be featuring SBC theologian Dr. Bruce Ware at NIU later this year. In a matter of days Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder will join SBC pastor Mark Dever, invited by Tim Jordan, in a ministerial effort at Calvary Baptist Seminary, Lansdale.“…we [Doran, Olson, Jordan] do not see how independent fundamental Baptists can make common cause with Southern Baptists.”
*In 2009 Southern Baptist leaders including Dr. Al Mohler signed the Manhattan Declaration (MD). The MD is the first cousin of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Signing the MD extended Christian recognition to Roman Catholics and apostates. Mohler and other SBC signatories have been admonished by their peers, but have not repented of their deed, which compromised the Gospel. (See- Al Mohler Signs the Manhattan Declaration)
**2001- 01.6 Regarding the Southern Baptist Convention
See the FBFI Resolutions for access to the resolution archives.The FBFI expresses gratitude to God for the changes in the Southern Baptist Convention nationally since 1979. We commend the reaffirmation of inerrancy, now a confessional requirement for its agencies—the seminaries, Mission Boards and its publishing arm. Furthermore, we applaud the repudiation of homosexuality and the confessional commitment to a biblical role for women. However, we exhort our brethren to continue reformation by opposing the ecumenism of Billy Graham and “Evangelicals and Catholics Together.” We also urge perseverance at the state and local levels, purging the theological and moral decay. And, where purging is not possible, we urge Southern Baptists to withdraw and rebuild, showing fidelity to the Scripture. Until Southern Baptists fully recognize and repudiate the destruction of Neo-evangelicalism that has weakened their churches and seminaries, the Scriptural response of Fundamental Baptists must continue to be separation.
Kevin Bauder & Dave Doran Join Mark Dever at Calvary, Lansdale: Is This a Fundamentalism Worth Saving?
August 11, 2014
August 4, 2014
The truth is that all of us have a mean streak. The “works of the flesh” (our flesh) include “hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife” (Galatians 5:19-20). We all have flesh, and our flesh is selfish, and the selfishness of our flesh often comes out in meanness. Unfortunately sometimes our carnal meanness comes out in the debates preachers have with one another on important issues. Even a legitimate debate over a serious issue of right-and-wrong can be muddied by the rancor and carnality of some who speak on the right side! May God preserve us from this tendency, which has done damage to legitimate causes. Really, being mean is not a necessary part of taking a stand!
A Christian can be spiritual and Christ-like when he must reprove a brother or oppose an error (look at Leviticus 19:17-18, Proverbs 25:12, Luke 17:3, Ephesians 5:8-11, First Timothy 5:17-20, Second Timothy 4:2, and Titus 1:10-13). But he can also be mean. We must heed the words of the apostle in Second Timothy 2:24-26 (read them again). When we must reprove the wrong actions of a Christian brother, we must remember to “count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (Second Thessalonians 3:15). Wisdom gives discernment, but it also gives “meekness” (James 3:13), if it is “the wisdom that is from above.” On the other hand, there is an “earthly” kind of “wisdom” that claims discernment but is characterized by “envying and strife” (James 3:14-16) and should be rejected by God’s servants. This un-Christian kind of argument is marred by certain all-too-common flaws:
1. BEING HYPER-CRITICAL.
When we must oppose something wrong, we are still obligated to keep “the royal law”, which is “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (James 2:8). It is never right to treat another man in a way that we would not want to be treated. Yet when a serious issue arises that calls on the faithful servant of God to make statements against the error of another man, the rebuking brother can be tempted to find fault with far more of the erring brother’s words and actions than is necessary, reasonable, and loving. Nit-picking is all right when we are examining our own standards and teachings (see Matthew 5:17-20), but it is unfair when we evaluate the words and works of another. Giving people room is always a good idea. Being overly critical always has negative consequences, including undermining our own arguments. Years ago I heard Dr. Fred Schwartz, leader of the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade, counsel us always to understate our case. He said that understating our charges and assertions will protect us from overstating them, and that overstating our case even once can ruin our attempts at getting our point across. His advice is good for preachers. When we must warn or rebuke, let us be conservative in our accusations, giving the brethren the benefit of the doubt. Christian love “is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil” (First Corinthians 13:4-6). Even in controversy, we still must love.
2. CONNECTING THE DOTS.
Sometimes we wrong our brother by seeming to accuse him of having opinions he does not have. This is often done by critics who associate their target unreasonably with the views of people that can be connected with him by some elongated chain of linked associations. Years ago, it was sadly not uncommon to hear or read the condemnation of a pastor because he had a speaker in his church who had worked with another man who had endorsed a man that advocated an unscriptural position. Normal, mature people could see that this complicated game of connect-the-dots did not prove that the one being criticized held to the unscriptural views of the one at the other end of the string of dots! We need to watch what we are reading to see if the impression we are getting by means of connecting dots is an accurate representation of somebody’s viewpoint. We also need to get a more scriptural understanding of the principle of “ecclesiastical separation.” The first and main application of this principle is that men who preach sound doctrine must not be yoked together with unbelievers, teachers who deny cardinal truths of the gospel. This kind of separation is taught in many scriptures, including Second Corinthians 6:11-18, Second Timothy 2:14-21, and Titus 3:9-11. We also are taught not to fellowship (partner or endorse) any sinful work, whether committed by believers or unbelievers (Ephesians 5:8-11). And we are also taught to use caution in our cooperation with orthodox people who err in some matter of doctrine or practice (see Romans 14 and again Second Thessalonians 3), not counting them as enemies, admonishing them as brothers, but not endorsing what is wrong about them. The practice of treating the erring brother as an apostate, and cutting off somebody who makes mistakes as if he were an unbeliever, although common among fundamentalists for decades, is not really scriptural. Neither is condemning a preacher by unreasonably connecting the dots.
3. BEING SARCASTIC AND MEAN.
Jesus said that “whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council” (Matthew 5:22). Sarcastic, demeaning references to people should never come out of the mouth of a Christian. Yet religious periodicals sometimes publish such unsavory, insulting words. There is no reason that religious debate cannot be carried on with dignity, respect, restraint, and intelligence. Sincere followers of the Lord should reject the influence of those who resort to snide remarks and mocking slams in their supposed defense of the truth. John R. Rice many years ago backed away from a leading fundamentalist with whom he had been affiliated because of the caustic, harmful, and untruthful things that were being published in his paper. He said that he didn’t want his daughters (then young and still at home) to be corrupted by this kind of reading material. Godly people should be offended by this kind of stuff, which does not come from spiritual men.
4. JUDGING MOTIVES.
Of course, the Lord Jesus taught us not to judge people (Matthew 7:1-5). First Corinthians 2:15 says that spiritual people must judge things, but this is not the same as judging people. We judge things based on objective standards (in the Bible) of what is right and what is wrong. We can say, “That’s wrong!” because of what the Bible says. But we are not qualified and we are not allowed to judge another person’s heart by claiming to know their motives (see First Corinthians 4:3-5). “His real reason for saying this is…” is a sentiment we find in the writings of some who would influence the Christian world, but such writing undermines the spiritual lives of readers that afflict themselves with it. You don’t know another man’s heart. You have no right to state the motivation of a brother with whom you differ. Discussion can always be civil, taking the high road, and without resorting to the judging of motives.
5. DISPLAYING UNWARANTED PREJUDICE.
The Lord Jesus would not go along with John’s suggestion that a certain man be rebuked for “casting out devils” in Jesus’ name because he “followeth not with us” (read Luke 9:49-50). John was not objecting to this man’s doctrine, or to his work, but only to his doing the Lord’s work while not associated with John’s group. In response to this objection the Lord said,
“Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.”We have a tendency to harbor prejudices against preachers and ministries that do not run in our circles. Sometimes the judgment of a writer about an issue is distorted by his prejudice against the advocates of a certain position. It would surprise us how often the harshness of somebody involved in a debate is really created by personal wrongs he thinks his opponent has inflicted on him. This is why when Jesus warned His followers about “offenses” (things that cause people to stumble spiritually) He said, “Take heed to yourselves” (Luke 17:1-4). The way Christians treat each other often has the effect of causing people to stumble. He then instructed them about going ahead and dealing directly with wrongs committed by one brother against another.
“If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.”This instruction is not hard to understand or to follow: rebuke, repent, forgive. And yet it is because even good people fail to follow these words of Jesus that the Christian cause gets a bad name. Contending for the truth has been harmed and hindered because men with personal grudges or sectarian prejudices set themselves up to represent God’s side in an issue. We must take heed to ourselves before we open our mouths or publish our articles.
The days in which we live are confusing to sincere servants of the Lord Jesus, largely because “the serpent” (who is “subtil” according to Genesis 3:1 and Second Corinthians 11:3) works to remove from issues the black-and-white quality that makes decision-making easy. Good people with clear minds must examine many issues publicly so that we all can be helped. But when advocates of a viewpoint do so based on earthly wisdom that generates envy and strife, their contribution to the discussion fails to be helpful. It is actually harmful. Therefore sincere seekers of the truth must reject their influence, and pray for all of us to act and talk like Christians as we teach what is right.
Dr. Rick Flanders
July 29, 2014
Brian Ernsberger has just published a penetrating review of an article “Growing Systematically” written by Matt
Olson. The pseudo-fundamentalist site
Sharper Iron features Olson’s article. I encourage you to read, like a study, Pastor
Ernsberger’s “Elvis has Left the Building” at his Parsings of a Preacher blog.
Wow! “There are many ways to grow in our Christian faith”?! The
greatest harm here is that he intersperses some truth with this off the wall,
unorthodox babble. Matt [Olson], where is the Scriptural support for such a
statement, that we can grow our Christian faith with some other source other
than the Word of God? Paul in Romans 10:17 is rather explicit, “So then
faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Our faith comes
by the hearing of the Word of God, not man’s writing no matter how “Christian”
his literature might be. Instead, we see the influence of these “two decades
of ministry” in which he has been pouring over men’s writings to the point
of leaving his Biblical mooring of the Bible being his only source for faith.
He has imbibed and accepted the notion of the reformed thinkers that say we
need a theologian to give us the understanding of the Scriptures.
July 21, 2014
“My associations with R. V. Clearwaters, often identified with the ugly side of fundamentalism, would contradict what is too often thought to be the mean and unholy spirit that brought fundamentalism down as a “movement.” My 14 years with ‘Doc’ tell a different tale, which has caused me to respond and correct rumors, innuendos and other barnacle-like rubbish about the man and his ministry and leadership.”Here now is Dr. Rolland McCune in “A Review Article by Rolland D. McCune, Th.D. of RECLAIMING AUTHENTIC FUNDAMENTALISM” by Douglas R. McLachlan (American Association of Christian Schools, 1992). He wrote:
“Doc, as a good leader, prudently chose his hills to die on based on several non-negotiable biblical truths and convictions. But in a showdown when these were being challenged, trampled, disobeyed, avoided or neglected, he was militantly aggressive. This earned him a lot of unwanted and unearned opprobrium over the decades, actually to this very day.”
Site Publisher Commentary:Militancy has always characterized Fundamentalism. It is not so much a matter of personality as adherence to principle. Militancy has been so fogged over by its detractors that it has become a wholly negative concept, even for many Fundamentalists. Dr. George Houghton, of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, gave an excellent definition of militancy.What exactly is militancy, anyway? One dictionary says it is to be “engaged in warfare or combat . . . aggressively active (as in a cause).” It springs from one’s values, is expressed as an attitude, and results in certain behavior. One’s values are those things in which one strongly believes. They are what one believes to be fundamentally important and true. From this comes an attitude which is unwilling to tolerate any divergence from these fundamentally important truths and seeks to defend them. It results in behavior which speaks up when these truths are attacked or diluted and which refuses to cooperate with any activity which would minimize their importance. The term is a military one and carries the idea of defending what one believes to be true. I must confess that I do not hear a clear note of militancy in the book under discussion. Forcefulness in leadership and in defending the faith is simply not there. (The concept of “Militant Meekness” or “a militancy for the meekness of Christ” [p. 140] is a little confusing in terms of historic Fundamentalist militancy.) The idea of “servant leaders” (p.40ff.), while certainly a biblical thought,  seems expunged of all notions of aggressiveness. Some of this may be explained by the author’s non-confrontational type of personality. Many of us could identify with this. But again militancy is not a matter of personality. There are many Fundamentalists who are reticent and retiring but who are militant in the fight for truth. George Houghton. “The Matter of Militancy,” Faith Pulpit (May 1994) The idea of “servant leadership” as it is propagated in the New Evangelical community was severely criticized by by David F. Wells, a fellow New Evangelical. He says that the term “has the ring of piety about it. But it is false piety, or it plays on an understanding of servanthood that is antithetical to biblical understanding. Contemporary servant leaders are typically individuals without any ideas of their own, people whose convictions shift with the popular opinion to which they assiduously attune themselves, people who bow to the wishes of “the body” from which their direction and standing derive” (No Place For Truth [Eermans, 1993]’ pp. 214-15). His attack was directed at the lack of convictions and biblical/doctrinal truth that has overtaken the New Evangelical movement and that has displaced theology with psychology and the prescriptions of the modern self movement. This is not the case with the author of Reclaiming . . . Fundamentalism, but a word of caution is in order. Without forceful leadership and the aggressive prosecution of a biblical philosophy and agenda, the Fundamentalist will find his vision being challenged by another who is quite militant about his own proposal. Well’s point is well taken: Servant leadership does not necessitate a benign, non-aggressive stance.
I believe that it is fair to say that Kevin Bauder has very little militant principle in him. After all, he has yet to put it on the mat over people like and the doings of Al Mohler, John Piper, Ligon Duncan and Mark Dever. His pattern, that of Dave Doran, and men like them is to tolerate, allow for, excuse and/or ignore the doctrinal aberrations, ecumenical compromises and worldliness of their new friends in the so-called “conservative” evangelicalism. That is not militancy!
It’s also interesting that Kevin Bauder has besmirched and castigated men like John R. Rice and Bob Jones, Jr.1 (when he reacted to Danny Sweatt2), but now points out the virtues of his mentors. Sadly, he’s allowed the hype surrounding the leadership of those that he’s criticized to color his comments while allowing his personal relationships with others to hold them in esteem. When the history of fundamentalism is written, there will be those who will look at the acerbic, acrimonious tones3 of the writings of Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran in particular and decide that they simply would never want to associate with or emulate their brand of compromising Christianity.
(First appeared Nov. 7, 2011. With the on-going slide into New Evangelicalism by Dr. Al Mohler and Kevin Bauder’s ignoring and/or excusing it, this article is even more applicable today than it was at its first publication.)
1) Kevin Bauder: A Call for His Removal From the Platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship
Dr. Bauder’s criticisms of Dr. Jones and Dr. Rice was not speech that edifies. It was not a display of Christ-like love. Bauder’s tone was not the sound of humble integrity. The caricatures of Jones and Rice, while barely skirting personal attacks, certainly did not honor the Lord or those men. It is irrefutable that the speech with which Dr. Bauder described Drs. Jones and Rice is antithetical to what the FBFI leadership called for.2) The IFB & Calvinism: Flashpoint!
3) And the acerbic, acrimonious arrogant tone of the pseudo-fundamentalists SI administrator Jim Peet who seems incapable of being gracious when criticized even when by a kinder, gentler, well-meaning and esteemed man as Dr. Rolland McCune. See Jim Peet: In the Jaws of a Lion
July 14, 2014
Site Publisher’s Commentary
Dr. Nuttall wrote, “It is often intellectual scholars who laud these strange pronouncements that turn a blind eye to doctrinal error.” I would offer, as a related example, the recent activities of Dr. Al Mohler. In recent years Mohler has aligned himself with, and thereby given credibility to cult movements such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Mormon Church and to this generation’s high priest of New Evangelicalism- Rick Warren. In spite of these associations Mohler has willfully forged his followers in an around Bible believing circles continue to heap “lavish praise” upon him promote his speaking tour, his books, and/or tolerate, allow for, ignore or excuse Mohler’s compromises and betrayal of God’s Word. For further reading, see:
Al Mohler: So Much for Sola Scripture
“Al Mohler has betrayed the very basic, the primary distinctive that Baptists have clung to for centuries, that the Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice.”Kevin Bauder: When Facts Give Way for the Sake of Agenda
What of Kevin Bauder’s revisionist histories and omission of widely known facts in various articles he has posted? There appears to be an agenda that includes blurring the lines of distinction between fundamentalists and the so-called “conservative” evangelicals over what constitutes authentic biblical separation. Kevin Bauder has a long-standing, established record of omitting relevant facts about the star personalities and fellowships of “conservative” evangelicalism, and its star personalities. He has consistently demonstrated a serious problem with acknowledging and addressing the truth about the evangelicals’ doctrinal aberrations, ecumenical compromises, worldliness and cultural relativism. He has avoided appealing to and applying any Scriptural principles to the doctrine and actions of his new friends in evangelicalism, particularly Al Mohler and Mark Dever.