John MacArthur

Did Johnny have liberty to preach whatever he wanted? What was his sermon? What were his points? Do you know any of this?

 

Mac can certainly preach whereever he wants. That has never been the issue here. Anyone can preach whereever they want. The question is, Can they do that and remain a fundamentalist? Historically, the answer has always been "No." I don't think that has changed. Being a fundamentalist means something.

I don't know his sermon; I don't know his point. I do know that Hayford did not invite him to a building dedication to refute his theology.

Unfortunately this is all tied up in a personality now rather than addressing the actual issues of Roman 16:17-18, 2 Thess 3, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the other relevant passages. I realize many people like Mac and his preaching and his books. I think that is causing them to give him some slack they should not.

 

I personally would count it a privilege to preach with any of the guys Larry mentioned.

Larry, why do you so adamantly denounce the label secondary separation? It is a definite mark of modern fundamentalism. It is one reason the persons you list above and John Mac avoid the label.

Also you continue to miss a primary point in this discussion ... separation over non-essentials. Your insistence on referring to those who differ from you on secondary issues as "disobedient" is telling.

 

Because of the abuse it has taken from people who, like you, misuse it. Secondary separation conveys the very idea that we reject ... I do not believe we separate over minor doctrines or minor issues. We separate over the truth of God's word. That is not a secondary issue. When Paul said to separate from those who do not obey the word, there was nothing secondary about it. It was a primary issue.

BTW, I think the reasons why these people reject the term fundamentalist have nothing to do with secondary separation.

I am not missing that point at all. I think we grossly oversimplified the Christian revelation by denoting five really important doctrines and saying everything else doesn't matter. I can't understand that mindset. I don't understand why we say that things over which people disagree are "non-essential." The fact that someone disagrees about it does not make it non-essential. We should not look for the lowest common denominator. All of God's word is God's word and it is all important.

From my end, I cannot see how obedience is such a hard thing to do. It has unfortunately become so tied up in personalities. We have our cult icons just like pop culture does. And that is dangerous. We have watered down the truth and said it doesn't matter and I can't accept that as the NT model of dealing with false teaching and disobedience. I think that if Scripture is clear on anything, it is clear on this.

Paul says when someone teaches contrary to what you have learned from us (i.e., Scripture), mark, expose, and separate. We are not to make exceptions for friends, or really good speakers, or great opportunities. Paul says when someone disobeys the word, separate from them, yet admonish them as a brother. We are not to make exceptions for friends, or really good speakers, or great opportunities.

 

I am in prcess of reading The Fundamentals by R.A. Torrey. Was he a fundamentalist?

 

Larry, just out of curiosity sake, where you do put Milliman from Central, currently of Cedarville? Is he still a fundamentalist?

 

I don't know who Milliman is, but Cedarville is not a fundamentalist institution. I would assume Milliman, whoever he is, is in agreement with Cedarville.

 

Thats a fairly narrow view of fundamentalism. Most would assert that Cedarville is definitely somewhere on the Moderate to Modified end of fundamentalism, but to exclude them outright?

We could exclude several other "fundamentalist" institutions before singling out cedarville.

I am curious why you would not consider them fundamentalist. Are we taking social conservative issues here, or ecclesiastical separation?

 

Ecclesiastial issues ... All one needs to do is look at the parade of speakers they have in, many of whom I enjoy and listen to. They are conservative evangelicals. They are not fundamentalists. I am not saying they are a bad school (but that wasn't the question). I know people who have gone there ... some from your church, Dave ... who I like very much. They practice little if any separation. Their current president came from a very new evangelical school (that wasn't even Baptist).

Remember, a fundamentalist by definition includes separation from apostasy and disobedience.

 

I don't know how others feel but I disagree with George Dollar's terminology that is being used here. In other words, I don't believe that so-called Moderate or Modified Fundamentalists are Fundamentalists at all (for the very reasons that Pastor Larry has mentioned). I would call them Conservative Evangelicals and classic New Evangelicals, respectively. At best, Cedarville is Conservative Evangelical.

Andy

 

Larry, Milliman was a prof at Central up until last year with Bauder. He left to go to Central. I wonder what Bauder and McCune think.

With all due respect, your definition of fundamentalism reaks of Detroit. It isn't valid in the slightest sense. Although I disagree with SBC's ideas about the essentials, he recognizes your secondary separation ideas as well.

You said you would separate from me. I have never had JMac preach for me and I have never preached anywhere but fundamentalists churches. So, what exactly disqualifies me?

 

I would agree that Cedarville is definitely a borderline institution, perhaps more conservative evangelical than fundamentalist, but I would not outright exclude them. Then again, perhaps its less that I think they are fundamentalist, and more that I think their reasons for not caring about the label are valid. There are plenty of churches in MI that call themselves fundamentalist that given the guilt by association factor would make me want to drop the title all together, including some that my church would probably fellowship with. This is the dilemma faced by many "young" fundamentalists. I have no problem with separation from error or disobedience, but I don't necessarily agree with where that line has been drawn, especially by many in Detroit. The definitions are man made in many cases, and emotional or personality confict based, not based on the scripture.

Larry, I thought my church was a bastion of BJUonlyism (myself excluded), what is going on I guess we can never measure up to the mother ship down in Allen Park I don't think we have any current students at Cedarville, we did last year. A bunch at Clearwater now, and a couple Maranatha.
All very fringe instituions by your criteria
Of course, they are at least Baptist, which is more than I can say for some so called fundamental institutions. Even Cedarville could technically be called Baptist right? They are affiliated with the SBC.

 

IT is actually the historic definition of fundamentalism. McCune was around a long time ago in those fights for fundamentalism. I am not even where he is on this issue, but the definition is valid ... it is correct. All you need to do is talk to the people that were there. Today, since this generation is softer and more independent and has not had to fight those battles, we have lost the definition of what fundamentalism is. We have redefined it. And has I have said, that may be right or wrong, but it is a redefinition.

You have to understand that the major issue here is not over whether fundamentalism is right or wrong. It is over what fundamentalism is. There is a group of people who see the value of the term fundamentalism, but want to redefine it to fit their own modern ideas of fundamentalism. Today's fundamentalists, even of my stripe, are much softer and easier to get along with than those of old. We have lost the historic perspective. Old time fundamentalists split from denominations, split personal fellowship over these very issues.

The issues that I would separate from you over are not issues that I would feel comfortable bringing up in this forum.

 

This is certainly true. BUt in my neck of the woods, people don't know what fundamentalism is. They are getting it. They just don't know all the dirty stuff about it.

There is probably a great deal of this, though I cannot speak for everyone else.

I don't think there is anything fringe about Clearwater or Maranatha. I think Maranatha's problems are in the leadership. But they are certainly separatistic, so far as I konw. I get their little paper here now and then. I read it. I don't agree with their theology, but they certainly, so far as I know, are in the separatist camp. Cedarville is a long ways from those two.

Cedarville is Baptist, affiliated for a long time with the GARBC and now the SBC. It will be interesting to see what direction Brown takes it.

 

We are after all a kinder gentler group of militant fundies right?

I believe like anything else it is a pendulum swing.

It seems to be easier to maintain a semblance of separation from neo-evangelicals than to figure out who you should be separating from in your own fellowships, associations, and what have you. I personally would separate from many fundamental churches in our area before I would do the same from several churches that would be considered more evangelical. GARBC, Non-Denoms, etc. that actually are closer to the stance of historical fundamentalism than most IFB's, the term has been perverted and warped by many who have no respect for the historical position of fundamentalism, and so I think even if what you say is truely what is happening, I think it may be for the better in many cases.

Again, the cause is the sliding scale that has been applied. Its kinda like driving on I-696 during the afternoon rush. Everyone going slower than you is an idiot, and Everyone going faster than you is a maniac.

 

This is definitely a good thing. I just pretend I don't know, that way I don't get angry that I still attend an IFB church.

I was just yanking your chain on the colleges anyway. Both schools are separatist and hold to doctrine that can at least be supported as well as most others. The issues at hand (I assume) are peripheral at best, and at worst, they are among some of the most hotly contested areas of doctrine. At MBBC there is a wide swath of doctrine on the Bible faculty anyway, just as with any institution. I guess I don't view as wide a gap between these schools and cedarville as many would like to believe. Only having attended one, my knowlege is limited to the published propaganda, and hearsay.

 

I think this is definitely true. I think once you get into the realm of friends and assocations, it is hard to draw distinctions. That is the great weakness of the IFBA. They don't draw good distinctions and enforce the doctrinal statement. Their basis for fellowship from separation from the same people, not unity in doctrine. That was problemmatic for me. I think we need to be consistent on that score.

I think this is true and I think it is why DD says what he does. The historic position of fundamentalism was not nearly so broad as he draws it, and the old time fundamentalists from the 50s and 60s know this. It is the younger generation who hasn't had to fight those battles that have softened the definition.

And seriously, if someone in good conscious holds to a different position, that is fine with me. Just don't hijack the name fundamentalism. Find your own name

As for the schools, I think the difference between Maranatha/Clearwater and Cedarville is the ecclesiastical associations. All you need to do is look at the various speakers they have in. It tells the story. I would not associate with either Maranatha or Cedarville. I would not strongly discourage people from attending either one, though I would strongly encourage them to attend somewhere else. In other words, I would be positive, not negative about it.

The move of a generation follows their school education. As the schools drift, so do the churches. The resurgence of the SBC is perhaps the lone example of a rescue of a denomiation or association. I hope that it goes farther than it has so far. Most situations deteriate until separation is necessary.

 

So setting aside the discussion about definitions of what fundamentalism WAS, is this change a necessarily good or bad thing? In your opinion.

I PM'd you about the schools, we can take that offline, its not really relevant to the thread.

(of course, I looked at the title and realized we are pretty far afield on everything else too, but its a good discussion, perhaps the moderators will give us a special dispensation of grace)

 

His view of the nature of the church is "goofed-up." But I like many other things about his teachings.

 

rufus,
Could you explain "Nature of the church" and how MacArthur is "goofed-up" about it.
WallyGator