New Youth Conference for fundamentalist!

I'm am very excited about this conference. For too long those in contemporary fundamentalism have stood back and taken cheap shots at men like J. Mac. "Association" grenades are tossed about without any biblical support.

Too often, we are motivated by fear. Not fear of God, but fear of those who are toeing the line. Afraid that if someone "associates" with someone who "associates" we'll get BLASTED!

Aefting implies that there are "fundamentalists" who would be as good a fit as Rick Holland. Who?

We read Macarthur's books, we go to his conferences, we listen to him on the radio, we prepare our sermons using his commentaries. We are being "trained" by him. Doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical that we can't invite him (or in this case, one of his pastors) to teach in person?

I have yet to see or hear one shred of biblical evidence that what ProTeens is doing is wrong. If the Bible is indeed the source of truth, then let's hear it.

 

Pastor Larry wrote:
I just think we have gone down the guilt road too much rather than preaching love based obedience. And the bad thing is that I don't even think we know that we do it.

Thank you. I could not agree more. Based on my talks with Dr. Hamrick, this is at the very heart of the conference he is putting on: That we would raise a generation that is motivated to obey out of a love for and a deep understanding of the person of God, rather than guilt and fear. Your post seems to echo what Dr. Hamrick desires to address at this conference.

 

I guess I don't understand. If we disobey God, shouldn't we feel guilt and fear? While love may be the highest motivation, is it the only Biblical motivation?

Andy

 

What you have just said (and presumably been taught from your youth, as I was) illustrates how bankrupt much of fundamentalism is theologically.

Although I *should* fear God at all times, fear is not grounded in how He is going to respond to my sin. It's grounded in my reverence and awe for who He is. To suggest that I need to be motivated by fear that God will assign guilt to my account is to deny the imputed righteousness of Christ to my account (i.e. Romans 3-8).

 

Aefting,

I am not talking about fear based on biblical truth, but rather fear of men. Should I choose who I have to speak at my church based on your opinion?

I have heard many times that it is wrong to associate with J. Mac because of his associations. Why? Many of those same people say that it is because he speaks in venues that we would not agree with (i.e. Church of God). And with the same breath they acknowledge that he does not compromise truth, but rather is a man of integrity when he speaks at those places. I could give you quotes of prominent fundamental leaders that supports this.

The fact is, you still have not given any biblical defense of your position. Tell me what's biblically wrong with having someone like Rick Holland to speak? GIVE ME BIBLE.

The reason many in the younger generation (19-35 or so) are falling away, is because they are sick of the rhetoric and lack of biblical integrity on issues such as this.

Please Aefting, give us biblical justification for your position.

 

I agree that we should have guilt and fear for disobedience, but we must preach a higher ethic. For too long we have preached man-made standards without benefit of showing the God-based ethic behind them. I would stop short of calling it "bankrupt" though I understand the sentiment behind it. I think we need a paradigm change.

As for the Bible teaching on separation that Sponge Bob asks for, the NT (and OT) is clear on separation from disobedient brothers. There can be no question that MacArthur has failed to obey the standard set forth in Roma s 16:17-18. He has failed to mark and separate from those who teach contrary to the truth. For that reason, he should be rebuked lovingly and separated from until such time as he begins to move in the biblical direction (2 Thess 3; Titus 2; etc.).

 

Pastor Larry, who are the people that MacArthur has failed to seperate from?

Would I be wrong in assuming that you believe in secondary separation?

 

Pastor Larry, Oops, one more thing. Will you now have to separate from Frank Hamrick and his ministry?

 

Are you saying that a believer can sin without consequence, without fear of God's chastening, without fear of impacting our prayer life or relationship with Him?

Those are your terms, not mine. I don't believe that anything I have said denies the imputed righteousness of Christ.


Think about this verse in 2 Thes 3:

Here is a believer who is not obeying God's instructions. Certainly, we can say that love has not motivated him to obey. So Paul says, under the inspiration of God, that we ought to separate from such a brother. That separation is supposed to produce shame. Hasn't God designed that guilt and shame to motivate the disobedient to get back to obeying?

Andy

 

I can think of few people on this planet who have so aggressively, prolifically, articulately, and biblically marked and avoided false teachers as John MacArthur has. Is he less aggressive than he should be on some issues? Probably. Are most fundamentalists completely ignoring some issues they should be addressing? Absolutely. Fundamentalists need to deal with the log in their own eye first. IMO that's exactly what Frank Hamrick is doing.

We've been round and round on the 2 Thess. and Titus 2 passages, so I'll ask my intern to enter my previous dissent into the record here.

Great comments on the God-based ethic behind the moral standards, by the way.

 

No, you should base your decision on a settled conviction of what Scripture teaches.

I consider what they are doing, as a matter of continued practice and philosophy, at Masters and GCC, in their associations and acceptance of worldly practices, to be contrary to Scripture and so I don’t see any other alternative other than to “keep away from them” in obedience to 2 Thes. 3.

In addition, I think fellowshipping with them in a spirit of cooperative ministry would take me down a path that I don’t want to go (1 Cor. 15:33). I have seen this happen at Southside and other places.

---


I’ll say it again, by inviting Rick Holland (and Bob Bixby for that matter), Frank Hamrick has shifted the focus of his conference from God-focused teen ministries to the practice of separation within fundamentalism. Perhaps that was intentional.

At the end of the day, I will be surprised if these 5 speakers are still on the docket come Reformation Day.

BTW, my postcard came in the mail today.

Andy

 

I'm not saying that a believer can sin without consequence, without fear of God's chastening, or without fear of impacting our prayer life or relationship with Him. Those are your words, not mine. I can see how you could conclude that from my statement. A biblical response will require a fairly detailed walk through most of Romans. I'll do that if I'm able next week.

Romans 6:1-2 is a pretty good starting place, though. Paul anticipates the arguments someone might have used against him. Obviously, if he anticipated that someone might conclude from his writings in chapters 3-5 that it was perfectly fine to sin with abandon, there must have been something he said to help them to that mistaken conclusion. My response to you is what he said in verses 2 ff.

I understand that you did not say God imputes guilt to a sinning believer. But if you agree that God does not hold you guilty, why should you hold yourself guilty? (Rom. 8:31-34). The motivation for righteous living is not to avoid guilt feelings, but to live a life of worship in which we do not exchange the inferior pleasures our flesh desires for the superior joys of knowing and worshiping God.

The use of 2 Thess. 3 passage as a separation catch-all is a double principialization. First of all, the context is laziness that is taking place despite clear teaching from Paul on a very specific eschatological issue. Second, the venue for the warning and separation is the local church. When fundamentalists apply this passage to every teaching of Scripture, both specific (such as the necessity of repentance for salvation--oh wait, fundamentalists don't practice separation on this one after all) and non-specific (such as music standards), they are on thin exegetical ice. When they go a step further and stretch the passage to apply outside the local church to other churches and ministries, the ice completely gives way.

I disagree. The conference itself will display Hamrick's focus. People who talk more about the speakers than the content are the ones who choose to shift the focus. Perhaps it's easier to write him off as a neo than it is to deal with the theological issues the conference seems intended to raise. A quick perusal of the website will reveal that the content is not likely to excite the many fundies who are comfortable with a man-centered, behavioristic approach to ministry.

 

I will certainly read and think about anything you write but don't feel obligated to spend that much time on my account.

Because I am? I don't see how that has anything to do with my positional sanctification. Is repentance only for unbelievers? What about the sorrow that Paul caused the Corinthian believers that he wrote about in 2 Cor. 7:8-12?

I don't have any problem with that. In fact it is our highest motivation and I embrace it whole-heartedly. I just don't believe that, Biblically, it is the only legitimate motivation. See 2 Cor. 7 and 2 Thes. 3:14 for several other examples.

I completely disagree but I guess you know that. If I had an intern like you do, I could get him to post my standard rebuttal.

I am for an emphasis in teen ministry that is God focused and theologically significant. My beef is not with the main focus of the conference (even if I have a minor reservation about totally disregarding issues of behavior). I guess I don't see the content of the conference to be as groundbreaking as who they are inviting to speak.

Andy

 

Numerous including Hayford and others. I am not going to go into detail here again about it.

Yes, you would be wrong.

I don't have anything to do with Hamrick and his ministry. There is no separation to have.

 

He has unfortunately been willing to tolerate some that he should not. In the end, I can grant him Christian liberty to do that (which I am sure he appreciates); but I cannot share his position.

I agree, but the fact that fundamentalists are worng on some things doesn't mean we should not speak out. My point is this: I am not convinced this is that big of a deal. I think it will probably be a fairly inocuous conference and probably have little impact. Most of them do. I just don't think it matters that much. I think fundamentalists are way behind the issues on much that they should be discussing.

As for 2 Thess and Titus 3 (it should have read) I think the principles contained are pretty clear. I can't see a lot of room for disagreement on the principles. The specific application of them may differ from person to person.

Ultimately separation is a individual thing. The organizers of this conference felt comfortable with the line up they have and chose to go this direction. Many fundamentalists would be uncomfortable with what I do here. But that is fine with me. I am a fundamentalist by conviction and always will be. I don't need to conform to other people's ideas to be that. Neither should Hamrick and ProTeens.

 

Numerous including Hayford and others. I am not going to go into detail here again about it. </font>[/QUOTE]I have several friends who have graduated from Masters Seminary and have never heard any of them ever mention Jack Hayford in connection with MacArthur.

 

and??

 

Wouldn't be caught dead at this thing. Calling people neo-evangelical due to the type of Christian music they listen to is truly insane. I read over that site and it seems like if you don't go to their exact kind of churches you are a neo-evangelical pagan. Makes me ashamed to see there are baptists that hateful. I agree with a lot but it shames me to see the arrogance in the site.

In Christ,

Brooks

 

Where did that site say anything about music and being neo-evangelical? Where did that site say anything about the kind of churches that people attend?