New Youth Conference for fundamentalist!

You're almost there Andy. A few more words and you will publically acknowledge that you think BJU is the wellspring of fundamentalism. Just say it: All that's right and pure comes from BJU.

 

It's only a distraction to people who are whacked out on secondary separation. There are many people who I've talked to, who are very excited about this conference.

In addition, Hamrick did NOT invite Holland to start controversy. SO WHAT if it's a distraction!? It's high time that we deal with this issue instead of misapplying Scripture. Is what Frank Hamrick doing wrong biblically? NO! If you think it is, then call him up and exhort him to reconsider. Where's your love?

There are BIG names in fundamentalism who are on both sides of this issue. Dr. Ollila is speaking at this same conference. I know that Dave Burgraff is for it and others. Maybe it's time to bring this issue to the forefront and start the debate (just like we did with the KJV issue a few years back). Let me reiterate that Dr. Hamrick did not (based on my talk with him) invite Holland to provoke this.

 

The issue would be similiar, but not entirely the same. The issue of separation in Scripture is clear; the application of it is not entirely clear.

The issue is those who teach contrary to the truth. When someone teaches contrary to the truth, we have no evidence that they are of our Lord Christ. Many will say "Lord Lord ..." but he will cast them out. So no, you cannot limit this passage to "non-believers." It is applicable, as it says, to "those who teach contrary to the truth."

No, not at all. In fact 2 John talks about those who come to you, obviously meaning those not from your local church. Paul also warns of traveling men who are to be refused entrance into the church.

This is one of hte great enigmas of MacArthur. Why does he write book like CC, and then fellowship on a formal level with a man like Hayford. It seems that there is a real disconnect between what he says and what he does. This is why I have often said that MacArthur is an anomaly. I think that is what makes it difficult and worthy of serious reflection. People here are giving him a free pass by seemingly refusing to acknowledge the problems of his associations.

 

Our church covenant has a line about abstaining from alcoholic beverages. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask members to abstain. John Piper has a very interesting paper on this very subject, although I can't remember where he comes down. Just did a google search and found this:

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/81/100481p.html


We don't do the same thing with music (i.e., have a statement about it in our constitution), although we will teach on it and we don't allow CCM in our services or at our activities. We are not prohibiting members from making their own musical decisions when they are away from church. Hopefully, we are leading them to make better choices, though.

Andy

 

That is certainly within your prerogative, but it would be interesting to know how I have taught contrary to the truth.

 

For the record, I contacted Frank today myself.

I'm not saying it was his intent. I am saying it is an unfortunate result.

I do think we need to deal with this issue. This is not the appropriate venue. Discipling young believers in godliness is much more important than settling who is a true fundamentalist and who isn't.

 

The particular institution is not important. It's not where he left by *why* he left that is the issue.


Andy

 

Greg,

I really appreciate the fact you called Frank. I hope it was beneficial. Even if it wasn't, it was the right thing to do. I commend you.

I believe Dr. Hamrick's motives to be pure. I believe he invited Rick because he is dead on in this area of youth ministry (BTW-I'm still waiting to hear of alternatives who have this same philosophy and can articulate it within our narrower circles of fundamentalism). Did Frank fully anticipate the firestorm? Probably not. Is this what Frank wanted to happen? No. Could this issue been dealt with in a more formal academic manner? Hmmm. Maybe. But my opinion is, is that nobody has had the guts to initiate it in a real tangible way.

So there it is. It's out there and we'll see where all of the big guys come down. I for one think it's high time.

One thing is for sure: God is sovereign and none of this is outside His timing.

 

So how exactly does that apply to music? Never mind, wrong forum, and that horse is dead

Amen, IT all goes back to the same flawed foundation, music just happens to be the favorite whipping boy of many a IFB preacher.

And in your analysis of my position, you mustn't forget that I am one who views Mac and Ron as CCM, in musical style, if not in association.

 

Or perhaps its Graham that has moved. That would certainly be the more obvious scenario, and fits with the facts as they clearly are. Perhaps JMac gave Billy more slack than those who he disagreed with, that does not mean that by no longer endorsing Graham anything in his belief system or practice has changed. Graham has come a long ways since that time.

 

Alternatives?

Dave Peters, Hagerman Baptist Church, Waterloo, Iowa

Chuck Phelps, Trinity Baptist Church, Concord, NH

Ken Endean, Cornerstone Baptist Church, Scarborough, ME

Evangelist Morris Gleiser

John Hartog III, Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, Ankeny, Iowa

A few that come to mind, anyway.

 

Greg,
I have heard four out of the five men listed. While they are good, godly men, they do not, IMO share the philosophy of Dr. Hamrick. Rick does.

 

Greg,

I have heard many of these men and I think there is great integrity in the bunch.

However, I'm not sure that you're fully aware (and maybe neither am I) the true nature of this conference. I don't think there is anyone in this forum who would say they weren't "God-focused." I think Dr. Hamrick's plans are to fundamentally define what a "God-focused" ministry is. I can say that I have heard very few men in our circles focus their teaching on the person, attributes, and character of God.

For example: "Beloved Congregation, I am going to preach this morning on the topic of, "Fleeing From Sin." Please turn in your Bibles to Genesis 39..." The message proceeds as expected—like we've heard 1,000 times—without a single mention of the sovereignty of God. As if God was a supporting character in the Bible.

This is simplistic, but the point is, that kids have NO idea who God is. They don't know Him and they don't adore Him. Why? Because they haven't been taught. Why? Because youth pastors don't have the right philosophy and haven't been trained.

I went to X-Baptist Bible College and I never heard this philosophy there.

As for your list, while these men are faithfully serving God and have wonderful ministries. I don't know if this specific philosophy pervades their ministries.

I have heard many of these men at other youth conferences and quite frankly I didn't hear this from them. I am not impugning their character by this, I'm just saying that I haven't heard it.

 

Pastor Larry said:
The issue is those who teach contrary to the truth. When someone teaches contrary to the truth, we have no evidence that they are of our Lord Christ. Many will say "Lord Lord ..." but he will cast them out. So no, you cannot limit this passage to "non-believers." It is applicable, as it says, to "those who teach contrary to the truth."
The two statements are actually made about the same people. "they teach contrary to truth" and "they are not of the Lord Christ" They are the same unsaved people. If you have noticed in your ministry, unsaved people tend to teach error, not truth.

In fact 2 John talks about those who come to you, obviously meaning those not from your local church. Paul also warns of traveling men who are to be refused entrance into the church.
Actually, it was their home, anyway...The issue is that these men denied the incarnation.v. 9 "this teaching about Christ" What teaching? v.7, the teaching that Jesus was God in flesh.

Both passages clearly speak of those that deny clear doctrinal truth. These are unbelievers. To use your phrase, it's apples and oranges.

 

I wrote:
Pastor Larry,
Based on Romans 16:17,18, I can no longer dialouge with you.

you responded:
That is certainly within your prerogative, but it would be interesting to know how I have taught contrary to the truth.

Your created a doctrine of seperation that you have imposed on texts of Scripture. (Sadly, this has caused you to mark and repudiate a fellow brother)

Scripture never teaches the public renunciation of a brother that has done something you wouldn't be comfortable doing. For you to FEEL uneasy and procede to create a doctrine of seperation foreign to the pages of Scripture is very sad.

 

In thecase at hand, Hayford has clearly denied doctrinal truth, and MacArthur refused to "turn away" from him. I cannot speak for the salvation of Hayford (either way). I can speak for his doctrine. It is abberant. MacArthur exposed it, but failed to turn away from the man who taught it. By the dictates of the passage at hand, he failed to obey God's word. He is therefore, living in wilfull disobedience. Many have, in the pattern of the principle of 2 Thess 3 and other passages, exhorted MacArthur to turn from this path. He has not done so. Therefore, those who would remain true to Scripture must separate from him, but admonish him as a brother. MacArthur is not our enemy. He is our brother, but he should be separated from on this matter.

In 2 John, the issue was outsiders. Those in the local church would not be described in such a manner as John described them.

But nothing you have said here shows where I have taught something contrary to the truth.

 

From the doctrinal statement contained on the website for the conference.

 

I understand what you are saying, I really do. But let's face it, many youth workers conferences are not as tightly focused thematically as this one appears to be. You get a lot of "how to do an activity" and practical stuff, and even Frank has his little comedy sketches. Are we saying that one not even one of the men I named, for example, when presented with this theme, couldn't articulate and support such an idea? What makes Dr. O and Frank that much head and shoulders above their fundamentalist counterparts that there are absolutely no others qualified in Fundamentalism? I'm not trying to be a rabblerouser here- I have heard these men. I have benefitted from their teaching. I have implemented principles I have learned from them in my ministry.

 

Greg, what did he say? Did he clarify anything for you?

 

I haven't heard back. I sent him an e-mail. I thought it would be a good place to start.