New Youth Conference for fundamentalist!

Pastor Larry,

Sorry, the term neo-evangelical threw me off. I had been reading a paper that defined it in that sense. Sorry, I just put my foot in my mouth.

In Christ,

Brooks

 

My point being that none I know would even come close to equating Hayford and MacArthur. I don't know how many Masters Graduates you know. But I see no foundation for your statement.

 

So??? Who equated Hayford and MacArthur? Did you even read this thread? I hate to be rude, but go back and read the question and the answer. I did not equate MacArthur and Hayford in any sense. And how many Master's grads you or I know is irrelevant to the point at hand. My statement was based on the foundation of truth.

 

So??? Who equated Hayford and MacArthur? Did you even read this thread? I hate to be rude, but go back and read the question and the answer. I did not equate MacArthur and Hayford in any sense. And how many Master's grads you or I know is irrelevant to the point at hand. My statement was based on the foundation of truth. </font>[/QUOTE]Didn't you write in response to Pastor Larry, who are the people that MacArthur has failed to seperate from?Numerous including Hayford and others. I am not going to go into detail here again about it"?

I saw no foundation of truth. You mentioned he failed to separate. But I saw no reason why you believe that. So by stating he did not separate do you not also say he is equal or the same.

A man's followers are representative of him. So if MacArthur's followers do not mention or support Hayford what makes you think he does.

 

I thought this thread was supposed to be about this new conferance, not separation. It looks like the topic of the conferance is a good one. Much of what is called youth ministry today is nothing more than a group of young people going on activities and hereing a cheap little devotional.

 

Yes, I did. But you accused me of equating MacArhthur and Hayford. Your proper citation of my comments shows that you were wrong. I did not equate them.

What?? Failing to separate means just that. It doesn't mean they are equal. Mac is a pretty good theologian. Hayford is a third wave charismatic who is, in some respects, a heretic. They are not equal. But MacArthur has preached for Hayford and has spoken very highly of him. That is sin on his part.

I imagine that MacArthur would object to you calling his seminary grads followers of him. I certainly would object to you calling them that. But the fact is that MacArthur has failed to separate from Hayford that is objective fact. We can discuss the ramifications of it. There can be no dispute about the fact of it.

The question is, how does that play in a fundamental conference such as this one that Hamrick is putting on. What affect should that have? That is the topic of this thread. I have said, I am not sure. I would be uncomfortable with such an invitation. I think there are better ways to go about it. This smacks of getting a name in there.

 

So when Jesus preached in the synagogue that was sin too? When D.L. Moody preached in the Mormon Tabernacle that was sin too?

 

Apples and oranges to be sure. Jesus preached to confront, not to encourage. Jesus never spoke highly of false teachers.

I have no idea if this is true or not, nor what the circumstances were. So I can't comment on it.

Start another thread if you are interested in carrying on this discussion. Let's not sidetrack this one anymore.

 

There seems to be some implications that Frank Hamrick invited Holland simply because of his name or because Dr. Hamrick had some ulterior motive. I think that is slanderous and if you have any questions about his motives you should contact him.

I have read through the godfocused.org website several times, and I see nothing from ProTeens but a desire to train young men to "Magnify the Majesty of God."

I also don't think that because they invited Rick who associates with J. Mac who associates with Mohler (or whoever) who associates with... means that ProTeens is endorsing everything that any of these men does. I for one, don't agree with everything that all of the Dr. Bobs believe. (BTW doesn't Ian Paisley still speak at the Univeristy and hold an honorary degree? I just love the pass we give to BJ). I would assume that ProTeens would receive flak for ANYONE outside of the tight fundamentalist circle being defined by some.

My circle is broader because I think J.Mac is a strong fundamentalist. I certainly don't believe he is an apostate, unbeliever, or one who is causing divisions. Nor do I believe he cooperates with apostates.

I would recommend that anyone who has concerns should write to ProTeens (their address is on the website) and give them an opportunity to explain their position.

MacArthur is hardly a neo. I don't know of a single apostate that he cooperates with.

 

If it's sin on his part, it is likewise sin on the part of Bob Jones III, who has led BJU to join the TRACS accrediting organization, of which Jack Hayford's seminary is a member. When BJU reaches full member status in TRACS, they will participate in endorsing the ministry of Jack Hayford. MacArthur has said good things about Hayford as a person, but to my knowledge he has never endorsed his ministry. Correct me on that point if I'm wrong.

Not in the way you want him to, perhaps. MacArthur has also been critical of Hayford's theology. Likewise, BJU has been critical of charismatic theology, but there can be no dispute that at this moment BJU is failing to separate from Hayford.

 

Siegfried, we already had that discussion about TRACS. It is apples and oranges. It simply isn't the same thing.

 

Of course you're right. It IS apples and oranges.

BJU is endorsing Hayford's ministry. MacArthur is not.

 

YOu know better ... .. Fundamentalism has a lot of issues to deal with. This type of problem is simply not one of them. Think about it for a minute. Participating in a nationwide accrediting institution for the purpose of evaluating educational standards and processes is not anywhere near the same as preaching in someone's pulpit, or giving glowing recommendations of that person. If you can't see that, then ... well I am not sure what to say. That seems so patently obvious that it would hard to miss. No one claims that any school is "endorsing" another because they happen to be memebers of the same accrediting body.

Listen, I like MacArthur in a lot of things. I appreciate his ministry, just as I do the Jones's. But both of them have their blindspots. MacArthur's happens to be in the area of separation where he sends mixed messages.

 

This is common misconception. Simply no cooperating with apostates does not mean one is a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist separates from disobedient brothers, not simply apostates.

 

You are a very knowledgeable man, but I believe your understanding of accreditation is deficient. It is not merely some faceless board that reviews a school's academic program and stamps approval if it meets certain standards. Accreditation is built upon the concept of peer review.

In other words, member schools lead applicants through a rigorous process of self study in which they are forced to examine their objectives/mission and measure as scientifically as possible how well they are accomplishing their missions. The association membership evaluates the work a school has done, then as a group chooses whether or not to grant accreditation.

When BJU completes this process, Jack Hayford's school will sit in judgment of whether BJU is fulfilling its mission. When Jack Hayford's school comes up for periodic review as to whether it is accomplishing its objectives, BJU will sit in judgment and participate in extending renewal of their accreditation. If that's not "endorsement," please tell me what dictionary you are using.

By the way, here is a quote from Kings Seminary's web site describing its purpose:

Does BJU really want to affirm that Kings Seminary is accomplishing these objectives?

 

This is common misconception. Simply no cooperating with apostates does not mean one is a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist separates from disobedient brothers, not simply apostates. </font>[/QUOTE]You've created a false dichotomy--that MacArthur must be either a fundamentalist or a neo-evangelical. Carl Henry coined the term neo-evangelical to define a group of people who agreed with fundamentalists on the fundamental doctrines but wanted to preserve unity by not fighting with the apostates. Billy Graham would be a well-known example.

Your definition of fundamentalism may not include MacArthur, but he's certainly not a neo-evangelical. No one has even tried to refute my contention that few people in the world today have more articulately, aggressively, effectively, and biblically contended for the faith.

 

TRACS is not fellowship on a christian/theological level. BJU would no more be endorsing King's Seminary this way than they would be endorsing Clemson by accepting an incoming student's transfer credits. It's a flawed analogy. Accredidation evaluates academic credibility, not theological accuracy and application.

Inviting Holland to this conference is not the same type of issue. This is cooperation on a ministry level, and there are narrower implications because of that.

 

Greg,

I agree with you often, but your assertions are not an accurate analysis of the accreditation process as I have personally been involved in it and have had it explained to me in greater detail by people more knowledgeable than anyone on this board, I would gladly wager.

Accepting credits is totally different from participating in an accrediting association. It is also much more than evaluating academic credibility. Rather, it delves to the very heart of institutional mission.

You are correct that it does not examine theological accuracy, but it does examine in great detail whether an institution is accomplishing its mission. When Jack Hayford says, as I've quoted above, that his seminary's purpose is to help students mature in their walk with Christ, etc., and BJU participates in affirming that he's doing that, then they are endorsing the effectiveness of his discipling and training ministry.

That's a decision BJU has made, and I'm not going to say they're wrong. It is, however, inconsistent with their previous stands on secondary separation, and it's a far higher level of cooperation than bringing a person to a conference for a few days to speak on a specified topic of expertise.

 

Siegfried,

I think you are wrong on the philosphical underpinnings of accreditation. Accreditation is a peer board (made up of multiple schools, not just one) saying that a school is accomplishing its mission in line with its stated purpose and ideals. I don't think BJU would have any issue saying that Hayford's school is doing that. Seeing eye to eye theologically is not a part of the accreditation process. I think you also misunderstand secondary separation with respect to this. BJU is not joining with King's College any more than they are joined with Furman, or USC, or Clemson because they happen to have state connections in the education department and nursing. You really reaching hard to blame BJU for some reason and I think it is falling short on substance.

As for MacArthur and new evangelicalism, yes, those are the two broad categories. MacArthur, by definition that the New Evangelicals gave themselves, is a new evangelical because he repudiates ecclesiastical separation. Not all new evangelicals are alike to be sure. There are conservative evangelicals (which is what MacArthur is) and all kinds of categories to the left of that. The conservative evangelicals are very close to fundamentalists with the exception of separation.