A MUST READ for Fundamentalists

I'm still reading

 

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. 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.

 

Am I reading him correctly? Separation is THE DISTINCTIVE that sets fundamentalists apart, yet fundamentalists writers have never clearly defined it. Wow!

 

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.

 

The degree of separation isn't always the same though Larry.

 

True, but the commitment is there to separate both from apostasy and from disobedient brothers.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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'.

 

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?

 

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. (Heaven is going to be wonderful!)

 

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.

 

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 ]