A MUST READ for Fundamentalists

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Greg Linscott, Feb 11, 2005.

  1. Greg Linscott

    Greg Linscott
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/7963.jpg>

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is an excerpt from an address by Dr. Kevin Bauder of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis to the American Association of Christian Colleges and Seminaries, and it is a Must-Read for all fundamentalists.

    excerpt from A Fundamentalism Worth Saving

    whole address here: http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/AACCS.htm

    Don't skip this one over- It's important!
     
  2. Greg Linscott

    Greg Linscott
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/7963.jpg>

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm still reading
     
  4. Circuitrider

    Circuitrider
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/circuitrider2.JPG>

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2000
    Messages:
    729
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bauder is a good choice for the leadership of Central Seminary. I graduated in 1974 and have tried to stay active. If fact I am attending the MacDonald Lectures there next week.

    He has hit the nail on the head. [​IMG] As fundamentalists the thing that distinguishes us from the neos is our commitment to a separtist position. Of course many are loath to take the hard course and so they will end up like the new evangelicals in a posture of compromise and appeasement. :eek:
     
  5. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Am I reading him correctly? Separation is THE DISTINCTIVE that sets fundamentalists apart, yet fundamentalists writers have never clearly defined it. Wow!
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, Swaimj, I think separation has been pretty clearly defined. There are some areas of discernment about which separatists may differ, but as a whole separation is pretty well-defined. And Bauder is right ... He echoes what I have said many times. You cannot be a fundamentalist without separatism. Those men are conservative evangelicals.
     
  7. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    The degree of separation isn't always the same though Larry.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    True, but the commitment is there to separate both from apostasy and from disobedient brothers.
     
  9. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    I found myself agreeing with just about everything Bauder said. I especially like the idea of a fundamentalist journal. We desperately need something of that caliber to wrestle with issues and sharpen our swords.

    I am not convinced, however, that we need to change the name of our movement. We just need to do a better job of defining it.

    Andy
     
  10. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, what you call disobedient, I might not.

    For example, Bauder mentions all those theological systems (Covenant, Methodist, etc) as though they are still fundamental.

    While that is true perhaps, some of those same folks sprinkle babies.

    I don't care what a person calls himself, or how he separates from others if he pours water on babies. That fits my definition of a disobedient brother. No presbo will be welcome at my pulpit.

    Bauder said he would have a presbo. I strongly disagree.

    These older fundies are distancing themselves from the younger fundies because of some of these glaring inconsistencies.

    I strongly disagree that secondary separation makes or breaks fundamentalism. History is on my side as well.
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think Bauder called all those groups fundamentalist. What he said, I think, was that they all believe the fundamental doctrines of the faith. That truth shows that fallacy of a definition of fundamentalism that does not include biblical separation. Those groups, by definition, are all fundamental in doctrine. The differences in eschatology, polity, etc, are not fundamental doctrines. He clearly says however that that is not enough for cooperative fellowship.

    BTW, when most Presbyterians baptize babies, it means something entirely different than what most people think of. It is not salvific in any way for most Presbyterians. Having said that, I would not have a Presbyterian in my pulpit. I disagree with him on that. Nor would I have a posttrib. However, if I were invited (by some strange turn of events) to preach at a conference where a separated Presbyterian was preaching, I wouldn't have a problem.

    Secondary separation doesn't make or break fundamentalism. That is just a bad term. But one is not a fundamentalist if he does not separate from apostates and from disobedient brothers. History is not on your side, and you do not get to redefine the term to justify yourself. You don't have to separate from disobedient brothers ... But you do not get to redefine the term. Why do you even want to use the term if you don't want to share the commitments and ideals? That makes no sense. That is why JM and others have abandoned the term. They didn't want it with all that it meant.
     
  12. Greg Linscott

    Greg Linscott
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/7963.jpg>

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is interesting, though- he does, indirectly, say that there are limits- for example, they couldn't plant a church together.

    I guess I don't have a problem on certain levels of cooperation. Though I pastor a Baptist church, I am a member of the American Council of Christian Churches, and have joined alongside Fundamental Methodists, Presbyterians, and Bible Church types, as well as other Baptists, to declare and define our allegiance and defense of core doctrinal issues- the Fundamentals. We can sharpen one another, and speak out together against error. We don't cooperate on evangelism or discipleship or other local church based programs, and we probably won't be having a prophecy conference anytime soon. [​IMG] But one of the things that prompted me to join last year was that such partnerships and cooperation seemed in keeping with historic Fundamentalism, and demonstrates a biblical perspective on responsibility to the church at large- the body of Christ.

    Daniel David, if memory serves me correctly, you were a strong defender of Holland/MacArthur in our thread on the GodFocused conference. If you are taking such a hard line against "presbos," do you have a problem with MacArthur's associations with the likes of RC Sproul?

    I'm saying that Bauder is right- separation needs some efforts to be refined and defended. He's not always offering solutions in the address, but he does seem to me to be putting out a call to action to this generation to rightly divide the Word, and use it to impact our culture through transforming our churches. Unite aginst apostasy. Recognize the differences, but also affirm the things we share.

    Count me in.
     
  13. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you are missing Bauder's point. Though there may be some individuals who have done an admirable job of defining and practicing separation, fundamentalism as a movement does not now have, nor has it ever had a clear definition of separation, one that has been clearly defined and faithfully and universally practiced. The definition and practice of separation has been a constant source of disagreement within fundamentalism since the inception of the movement. Separation has been practiced on an as-needed basis, but an agreed-upon definition has not been developed. That is what Bauder (if I understand him correctly) is saying...and I think I've seen you make that point as well, PL.

    The article is interesting and thought-provoking. I enjoyed reading it and I look forward to seeing others interact with it. BTW, I have searched the net in vain for a web-site for AACC&S. I would like to know what institutions are included in it. Does anyone have info on this?
     
  14. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually Larry, I have history on my side. It is the Type A folks who are extending fundamentalism to a position that depends upon a faulty view of 2 Thes 3.

    I don't disagree that we must separate from disobedient brethren. What us Type B folks disagree about is what chategorizes one as disobedient.

    One's view of separation is so far down the line from covenant theology, baby sprinkling, arminians, amill, etc. To me, those issues are more significant.

    You can stop pretending we don't believe in separation from brothers. We just don't buy into the Type A ideas.
     
  15. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    SwaimJ,

    The American Association of Christian Colleges and Seminaries is the college association 'arm' of the American Association of Christian Schools (AACS). You can view their website at:

    http://www.aacs.org/HtmlPages/1.aspx

    The colleges and seminaries associated with the AACC&S would also include Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary! The schools in the association are by and far 'fundamentalist'.
     
  16. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that the major 'flaw' in Bauder's statements (I am still reading the longer version!) is that he sees that there isn't a consistent 'standard' of separation that could be applied universally. The doctrine of ecclesiastical separation (apart from the doctrine of personal separation) is not one that can be applied universally. A case in point is that some, if not all, fundamentalists cannot be completely agreed as to the degree in which one practices separation. Some fundamentalists may not want to associate themselves with other fundamentalists because of denominational issues, but are otherwise agreed on the fundamentals, including a stance on separation. A good example would be that a Calvinist (Particular) Baptist would not want to associate with a Free-Will Baptist (or, vice versa) in an ecclesiastical objective in which they could otherwise join in an activity or goal (such as a revival, evangelistic meeting, operating a school, etc...). It would be impractible to have a standardized view of separation by fundamentalists, since it is practical that even some fundamentalists separate from other fundamentalists!

    Another here (Daniel David) has suggested that separation includes disassociation from churches that hold to non-Baptist views (such as baby-sprinkling). To me, he is correct in stating that this is a deviation of truth, and as such, It is not practical to ecclesiastically join with another church in some function or objective that holds to such views. But is this a valid application of the doctrine of separation? I'm not saying that such is not a correct application, but it is a practical use of separation for some fundamentalists. I personally don't think that you can create a uniform and universally acceptable doctrine of separation that can be applied universally, with exception to separation from clear and evident apostacy. Perhaps this is the problem with fundamentalism today, in that we have applied separation to areas that give us cause to separate from one another because of another's views in non-fundamental doctrines, rather than in separation from clear and evident apostacy. Could this be a clue? Thoughts anyone?
     
  17. Greg Linscott

    Greg Linscott
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/7963.jpg>

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I am getting out of this is that there is a distinction between separation and denominations. It seems that Bauder is not arguing for the surrender of denominational or local church distinctives, because it is here we will find the greatest degree of unity and will be able to function most effectively. But it does seem to me that he is also observing that separation as an end to itself leads to isolation, and practically speaking, ignores the responsibility we have to believers despite our differences.
     
  18. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    0
    ;) I'll certainly be glad when we all get to heaven and won't have to argue this kind of stuff anymore since there won't be any such thing as denominations or "differences".While I definitely see the biblical need for separation in this present world it is definitely just another evidence of the sinfulness of man.

    "Even so,come Lord Jesus!"

    Greg Sr. [​IMG] (Heaven is going to be wonderful!)
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The consistency of a standard is a matter of debate, but only really within a certain circle. Within this circle, the issues are ones of personal conscience. But historically, the people and ministries from which fundamenatalists separated were fairly consistent. It has only been in the very recent history where some have tried to redefine and confuse the issue such as DD has. And as I say, the reason is not readily apparent. Why would someone who doesn't share the values and commitments want the name? That makes no sense.
     
  20. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry, you are amazing. I am redefining nothing. I am merely pointing out that an insistence on secondary separation over ones view of separation, while tolerating error in such issues as infant sprinkling, amill, covenant, etc., is not only ludicrous, but laughable.

    We B types sniffed out that double standard awhile ago.

    You said you would cooperate with a separated presbyterian. I would not. I believe matters of infant sprinklin, etc., take priority over ones view of separation.

    FOr me, and many other young fundies, we separate over doctrine first. We do not rally behind secondary separation while winking at much more grievous theological error, like you have.

    [ February 12, 2005, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Daniel David ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...