tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post7653014984951658704..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part sixKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-51595291930434818362011-12-08T10:19:06.357-08:002011-12-08T10:19:06.357-08:00"Fundamentalists who move to evangelicalism d..."Fundamentalists who move to evangelicalism do so in part because fundamentalism is too small for them to make it big.<br /><br />Bingo!"<br /><br />Actually, the right "b" word is "Baloney."<br /><br />They leave because they disagree with fundamentalism. As Steve said, most lose at least some of their "biggness" in the process.<br /><br />Even if one concedes the point about Billy Graham, it can't apply to guys like Sean Lucas.<br /><br />The PCA probably isn't any bigger a pond than independent fundamentalism. It's just a different -- and more correct pond.<br /><br />And, like Steve Davis suggests, quite a few guys leave significant contacts, years of "seniority", and the perqs of insider status in a network, to make the change. <br /><br />Like I say, the "money quote" is pure boloney.<br /><br />KeithAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-10853751052820942011-11-29T15:56:58.439-08:002011-11-29T15:56:58.439-08:00Brian,
In the end, it is neither unity nor separa...Brian,<br /><br />In the end, it is neither unity nor separation, but a view of "unity" seems to drive the doctrine ranking, which fits well with the tolerance movement. Unity becomes preeminent, and doctrine itself must bow to tolerance and unity. So unity is dumbed down and separation isn't practiced.<br /><br />Thanks.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-73702573251560137732011-11-29T13:24:02.927-08:002011-11-29T13:24:02.927-08:00Have come here from Don Johnson's link and hav...Have come here from Don Johnson's link and have appreciated your thoughts on the goings on at ETS. One thing that you have hit upon that has been nagging my mind as well is the "levels of doctrines" or "triage" that some have espoused. Indeed, where is this mentioned in the Bible? As you note, there are differing levels of impact based upon the false teaching but that is not ultimately the issue. It is that somewhere man determines what is more important when it comes to the Scriptures. Since man is fallible that makes our efforts at "levels" or "triage" suspect no matter who we are or how much of the alphabet soup of degrees we have after our name.<br />Thanks again for your insights.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08924581374605153929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-2161204018521818422011-11-29T09:26:40.491-08:002011-11-29T09:26:40.491-08:00Hi Larry,
I was thinking of 1 Timothy 6:3-5, from...Hi Larry,<br /><br />I was thinking of 1 Timothy 6:3-5, from such withdraw thyself. We can judge things like this. People should take it into consideration. I purposefully did not put names into the evaluation, so it would provoke analysis. I would agree with Trueman (even though we're not in fellowship) that evangelicalism is a detriment.<br /><br />Regarding the triage idea. Mohler borrows the word from medicine---getting to the most needy patient, ranking the severity of the condition. I believe a church decides whether it is doctrine and whether it is scriptural. Some issues are non-scriptural and others are not doctrinal or practical. A church decides whether to separate. 1 Tim 3:15, 1 Cor 5-6, etc. <br /><br />I don't see a ranking doctrines teaching in Scripture. I believe the triage of Mohler is different than what you are describing with your example. Bauder starts with the boundary and moves to the core, but the boundary being fellowship. Mohler ranks in tiers, starting with top level doctrines moving down to less important, having nothing to do with clarity. These systems are adding to Scripture and they impede true biblical separation and unity.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-86813729934120541622011-11-29T01:45:01.194-08:002011-11-29T01:45:01.194-08:00To #1, I just don't see the value of speculati...To #1, I just don't see the value of speculating on why some have supposedly left fundamentalism (if indeed they have). People leave (if they leave) for different reasons. Let them state it if they wish.<br /><br />To #2, the question of eternality relates to, among other things, God's knowledge. Does eternal mean timeless? Is God's knowledge timeless, meaning that everything is eternally present to him? Does God's knowledge know future things (to us) as future (to him)? Or are they present to him even if they are future to us? If so, in what sense is Christ's return future? If not, then does his knowledge change when future becomes present becomes past? Or is God's eternality simply a reference to his uncaused existence? <br /><br />There is debate over these issues because Scripture is not clear, and this is the biblical basis for theological triage ... Not everything in Scripture is equally clear. And the application of things is not equal. We do not, for purposes of church discipline, treat someone who speeds the same way that we treat someone who is habitually drunk, even though they are both in violation of something clear in Scripture.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-45744022085235833612011-11-28T21:12:55.669-08:002011-11-28T21:12:55.669-08:00Hi Steve
You said: the "money quote" ca...Hi Steve<br /><br />You said: <i>the "money quote" caught my eye partly because I think it's cynical, a lame and cheap shot that can be asserted but not proven.</i><br /><br />What can I say? I am cynical, lame, and a cheap shot artist. I appreciate the art in others when I see it.<br /><br />You also said: <i>There are probably some Fundamentalists who went to Evangelicalism to make it big but I haven't met any. Have you, or do you know of any?</i><br /><br />Well, Billy Graham comes to mind. Eugene Merrill. Sean Lucas. Steve Davis. (kidding, although you've made it 'big' with me!) Seriously, though, there are quite a few.<br /><br />I take 'making it big' to be the desire for influence, which is expressed in different ways, or the desire to be part of that which is big, as opposed to that which is little, irrelevant, not in the main stream.<br /><br />Maranatha!<br />Don Johnson<br />Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-11654453169329962872011-11-28T18:50:23.400-08:002011-11-28T18:50:23.400-08:00Hi Steve,
You ask yourself, like Carl Trueman has...Hi Steve,<br /><br />You ask yourself, like Carl Trueman has, why is there evangelicalism? It's not in the Bible. And when you go, you see the seminaries and the publishers. None of that exists without the money. That's what fuels it. You take away the money and it's gone. It's not just in evangelicalism. It is in fundamentalism too, but to a far, far lesser extent. Fundamentalism, which I'm not a part of either, isn't able to market like evangelicalism. You've got your Pensacola and BJU with their school curriculum, funding a lot of what they do, but those are of a different nature than what you see at the ETS. They are somewhat comparable, but they can't compete with what the compromise of evangelicals allows in that way. <br /><br />I think what I'm saying is right on. Evangelicalism is these parachurch structures that hold together the coalition. And they feed of off what they can do for each other, which revolves around money.<br /><br />I understand the big fish in the small pond idea. There are many that just don't believe in separation, which is why I said "in part." So I believe you on that.<br /><br />Thanks for dropping by.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-19668956456897746562011-11-28T17:32:08.682-08:002011-11-28T17:32:08.682-08:00Hi Don:
I've been reading Kent's blog sin...Hi Don:<br /><br />I've been reading Kent's blog since I wasn't able to attend ETS and the "money quote" caught my eye partly because I think it's cynical, a lame and cheap shot that can be asserted but not proven.<br /><br />There are probably some Fundamentalists who went to Evangelicalism to make it big but I haven't met any. Have you, or do you know of any? But I have met Fundamentalists who could've made it big (relatively speaking) in Fundamentalism but who left it for other reasons knowing that the little bit of bigness they had before might never be found in their new and bigger home (and not really caring).<br /><br />Steve DavisSteve Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07871063934302893993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-27993749523529496682011-11-28T17:04:29.117-08:002011-11-28T17:04:29.117-08:00Hi Don,
Glad you enjoyed reading about ETS here. ...Hi Don,<br /><br />Glad you enjoyed reading about ETS here. I would figure we might be very similar in our observations.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-31721749134397470262011-11-28T17:03:34.037-08:002011-11-28T17:03:34.037-08:00P.S.,
I think Bauder wants to change people's...P.S.,<br /><br />I think Bauder wants to change people's minds about fundamentalism, and he does believe in fundamentalism. If he just broke down the passages and how they applied, it would persuade the only ones that could be persuaded. Maybe he's saving that for his book. He says he's going to write one on this subject.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-30456994632382782962011-11-28T16:58:50.987-08:002011-11-28T16:58:50.987-08:00Hi Larry,
Funny on the continuationism. OK. The...Hi Larry,<br /><br />Funny on the continuationism. OK. They are going to evangelicalism, unless they would argue that they are paleoevangelicals or something like that ;-D. Some of those who have made the move were there and then there are others. You would seem to be in the know at least as much as me to recognize that. I said "in part" moving from one to another. Do I know that they move from fundamentalism to evangelicalism in part to make it big? I've got some evidence of that, but "make it big" would not be the exact words used. They use influence and significance. You have more students, higher salaries, more academic credibility, better publishing opportunities and sales, etc. You will be hard pressed, even unlikely, to make a name in scholarship and stay in fundamentalism.<br /><br />For #2, I don't believe that scripture teaches ranking doctrines for fellowship. I haven't had anyone show me where that's at in the Bible. The only arguments I get are hypothetical or philosophical ones like the question you asked me. And our church would separate over what our church believes are divisions in doctrine. Separation is separation. One messed up doctrine might send someone to hell and the other might only harm his Christian life, but we would separate over both of them although the former would be more serious for the adherent. I'm not sure about the timelessness meaning thing, but the previous statement would probably answer the question.<br /><br />On #3, I'll let Paul answer that.<br /><br />Kaiser was corny. But corny in a funny way. He had good comic timing to his corniness. He's had years to develop numbers of those types of expressions. Thanks for the story.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-68795246238657928732011-11-28T15:22:50.530-08:002011-11-28T15:22:50.530-08:001. Seems like a bit of continuationism going on he...1. Seems like a bit of continuationism going on here with the revelation of why fundamentalists are going to evangelicalism. :) ... Seriously, apart from revelation from God (which would require continuationism) or a statement by a person (which I am not aware of) how would you possibly know why fundamentalists are going to evangelicalism (if in fact they are)? <br /><br />2. To a more serious point, you say you disagree with theological triage, which I understand to be the rankings of doctrines with respect to fellowship. You would say that all doctrines are equally important for fellowship, I think. Correct me if I am wrong.<br /><br />Having said that, do you believe that someone who disagrees with you on the what exactly eternality/timelessness of God means should be treated by you the same way as some one who disagrees with you on the exclusivity of Jesus?<br /><br />3. To PSFerguson (or Kent or anyone), you say that the vast majority of evangelicals understand the call of God perfectly but just don't want to do it. Is there any possibility in your mind that they simply differ on how the call of God applies to various situations in contemporary life? <br /><br />Or to put it differently, if I believe that I should separate from Kent (for example) over some faulty doctrinal positions (because I don't do triage) and you disagree with me on that, are you one who understands God's call and just doesn't want to? Or do you simply disagree on the application of it?<br /><br />BTW, I agree with your assessment of Dr. Kaiser. I had a class with him a year or so ago, and he was an incredibly warm and personal man, and funny (though often in a corny sort of way). I had him sign one of his books for me. He asked what he should write. I said, "Put 'to my favorite Old Testament scholar' or something like that." So he did. We laughed about it. I said, 'I didn't mean for you to actually do it, but since you did, you better put my name in there so people know who you are talking about." So he added "To Larry."<br /><br />So my copy of the Promise Plan reads "To Larry, to my favorite Old Testament Scholar, Walter Kaiser."Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-64481474930754972532011-11-28T07:18:56.255-08:002011-11-28T07:18:56.255-08:00Kent
An extremely incisive analysis. I also appre...Kent<br /><br />An extremely incisive analysis. I also appreciated your balance. It is good to acknowledge the excellent work done by many evangelicals in their writings such as Carson and MacArthur. But that does not cover up the glaring failure at the heart of such a movement. <br /><br />You hit the nail right on the head about the financial necessity that underpins the whole evangelical idea. I would add to the money point the craving to be recognised and not to be regarded as a "Fundamentalist obscurantist." Ironically, it is the same reason that the anti-KJV wing of Fundamentalism are trying to distance themselves from those who believe the Bible was perfectly preserved in every age. <br /><br />I am cynical of Bauder's motives here. I am sure he is not that naive as to imagine that his listeners have somehow missed those passages on separation that run through the whole of Scripture. The vast majority of Evangelicals like Dever, Piper, MacArthur etc are like Jonah - they understand the call of God perfectly but they just don't want to do it! Going outside the camp and bearing His reproach is a step too far. It is just about acceptable to mocked on CNN by the militant atheists but it is too much to be derided by mainstream Christianity as Creationist Fundies who believe that drinking beer and smoking a cigar is not an acceptable way of living a holy life.PSFergusonhttp://www.oldfaith.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-61002040619726761582011-11-27T22:47:46.319-08:002011-11-27T22:47:46.319-08:00Ok, read it all now after a bit of family time. He...Ok, read it all now after a bit of family time. Here's your money quote:<br /><br /><i>Fundamentalists who move to evangelicalism do so in part because fundamentalism is too small for them to make it big.</i><br /><br />Bingo!<br /><br />Of course they couch it in spiritual terms like "Gospel-centered" or "Cross Centered" or "Desiring God".<br /><br />Maranatha!<br />Don Johnson<br />Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-52752249657245319932011-11-27T18:40:19.664-08:002011-11-27T18:40:19.664-08:00Philip Brown has an infrequently updated blog here...Philip Brown has an infrequently updated blog here:<br /><br />http://exegeticalthoughts.blogspot.com/<br /><br />I have corresponded with him some. He seems like a good guy, from a group of fundamentalist holiness people. He has some interesting papers available. I'd love to see his take on 1 Cor 11.<br /><br />I might have more to say later, just read the first bit of this one and wanted to mention Phil's blog.<br /><br />Maranatha!<br />Don Johnson<br />Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.com