Christian schools unfortunately change through the years as do churches and preachers. Some change for the better and others for the worse. This is the story of Bob Jones University.
‘Earlier we documented Bob Jones University (BJU) stepping into ecumenical compromise with Franklin Graham. See BJU Embraces Franklin Graham’s Ecumenical Movement. That was the latest among many excursions, engineered by BJU president Steve Pettit, into non-separatist evangelicallism and the ecumenical movement. From Dr. David Beale’s new book Christian Fundamentalism in America I included a brief excerpt in the BJU/Graham article above and in the BJU: Compromised Spiritual Sanctification for Secular Pragmatism article. Dr. David Beale has written an article to expand on and bolster his argument. That article follows. (Originally appeared 12/14/21).
“After being the premier fundamentalist academic institution for eighty-seven years, BJU elected Dr. Steve Pettit in 2014, as the president who steered the University out of separatist Fundamentalism into the inclusive, Broad Evangelical movement,” David Beale, Christian Fundamentalism in America (Maitland, FL: Xulon, 2021), 179, 530.
• Dr. Andy Naselli, in his 2006 BJU dissertation, scorns independent, Fundamental Baptists for giving invitations to “surrender oneself to God.” Naselli criticizes the practice and calls it a “second blessing.” Naselli unsuccessfully tried to identify the Fundamentalist movement with Keswick extremes on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Naselli then identified with Broad Evangelicalism. He now serves on the faculty of John Piper’s College and Seminary, which are Reformed Charismatic schools urging every Christian to seek all NT gifts, including tongues and healing. Piper claims that “Signs and wonders” and all spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 are valid for today and must be “earnestly desired.” Piper says, “Prophecy and tongues will continue until Jesus comes.”1 Naselli is a pastor of Piper’s Bethlehem Baptist Church.
Naselli seeks to transform Fundamentalists into Evangelicalism. In 2019, Dr. Pettit brought Naselli back to BJU to present the lectures for the annual Steward Custer Lecture Series. Naselli’s books were promoted. The late Dr. Custer all his life had been a stalwart Fundamentalist. Naselli represents Broad Evangelicalism. The bond between BJU and Evangelicalism has been clear since the beginning of Pettit’s administration.
• Dr. Sam Horn was executive vice president for enrollment and ministerial advancement at Bob Jones University when, on 2-7-2020, Dr. Pettit announced to all, “Dr. Horn is greatly honored today, and BJU is honored to have one of its own become the next president of The Master’s University and Seminary.” Horn succeeded Dr. John Stead. Dr. John MacArthur, a leading Evangelical, had led The Master’s University and Seminary as president from 1984 to 2018. Dr. Pettit preached for John MacArthur in a conference that year (2020). John Street, Chair of Biblical Counseling at The Master’s University, spoke at BJU’s CoRE Conference March 9–10, 2020. Street is an adjunct professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. By claiming that the word Fundamentalism can have no single definition,2 BJU leaders claim the label separatist but practice non-separatism (inclusivism). With such a notion, BJU attempts to sit on both sides of the fence—Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism—at the same time.
• Under Dr. Pettit’s administration, BJU students are permitted to bond with churches of denominations harboring apostasy.3 The following churches (underscored below) are among those approved for BJU students to attend.
• Covenant Community (Taylors, SC): An Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). On one of their website videos, the pastor poured water on a little child’s head and said, “This is like Abraham’s ‘baptizing his whole house’” (Genesis 17). The pastor substituted the word baptism for the word circumcision and called it regeneration. Augustine and Roman Catholicism devised and standardized this doctrine, which assumes an OT circumcisional regeneration for Jewish males.4 Romanism transformed that doctrine into NT water baptismal regeneration to elect infants. Forms of that doctrine passed into Reformed theology. John Calvin insisted that OT circumcision engrafted the Jewish infant into the covenant [elect] family of God; thus, NT baptism engrafts a newborn child into the body of Christ.5 Reformed doctrine leads many to believe the seed of regeneration is implanted at infant baptism, though salvation might occur later.6
• Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (Simpsonville, SC), PCA church.
• Second Presbyterian Church (Greenville, SC): A Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). This church’s senior pastor is Dr. Richard Phillips, adjunct professor and member of the Board of Trustees at Westminster Theological Seminary, which enforces no dress codes and allows the use of alcoholic beverages.7
➢ Richard Phillips is also on the Board of Directors of (1) the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals; (2) the Council of The Gospel Coalition, and (3) the Council of the Gospel Reformation Network.8
➢ On October 12, 2019, at Phillips’ Second Presbyterian Church, Dr. Pettit participated in a Conference on Reformed Theology.
• To begin chapel on February 5, 2018, Dr. Pettit announced, “We are honored this morning to have as our guest Dr. Gene Fant,” president of North Greenville University, a Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) school. Fant was welcomed with a standing ovation.9 The so-called “SBC Conservative Resurgence” has now spiraled into a deadening mix.10
• Calvary First Baptist Church (Greenville, SC): SBC church.
• Roper Mountain Baptist Church (Greenville): SBC church.
• Rock Springs Baptist Church (Easley, SC): SBC church. Dr. Pettit, BJU President, spoke here October 6, 2019.
• White Oak Baptist Church (Greenville, SC): Affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, the South Carolina Baptist Convention, and the Greenville Baptist Association. Their lead pastor is Lonnie Polson, BJU Division Chair of Communication of the School of Fine Arts. Their music director is Jeff Stegall, BJU Associate Professor in the Theatre Arts Department.
• For the article, “Bob Jones University Embraces Franklin Graham’s Ecumenical Movement: HaveYou Finally Seen Enough?” click the following link: BJU Embraces Franklin Graham….
• Dr. Steve Pettit permits dress style, music, and entertainment of the world’s style. For the Artist Series of January 27, 2015, he brought in the music group, “Cantus,” which includes beer drinkers and known homosexuals.11
• The following letter was sent to me on 10-14-2021 from a concerned grandfather who has grandchildren at BJU:
In 2021, at Bob Jones University, the first of the fall semester’s artist series was conducted on October 7 in the FMA. The program was titled “Symphonic Hollywood: Featuring the Music of Lee Holdridge.” The guest conductor was Richard Kaufman. The featured selections were beautifully done, and each was announced by Kaufman, interspersed with lavish praise on BJU and its leadership. Kaufman mentioned his background which included his participation with a Los Angeles orchestra in which he played violin for the recording of music for “Animal House,” a raunchy R-rated movie. He expressed no regret for its production. On the contrary, he mentioned that his contribution helped launch his career as a conductor. Not once did he mention any conflict between Christian beliefs and the moral cesspool of Hollywood. Nor did he give any confirmation of Christian belief. Yet he gave the impression that a believer could function contentedly in such an environment. Toward the end of the program, Jay Matthews and another representative, on behalf of the University, awarded Kaufman with a certificate and plaque granting him lifetime membership as an honorary alumnus of BJU. In the program notes on Kaufman, the bio states that “his wife Gayle is a former dancer and actress in film, television, and on Broadway, and his daughter, Whitney, is a highly successful singer and actress.”
All of this conveys to BJU students that a vocation in the worldly Hollywood scene is perfectly acceptable and, indeed highly commendable. The artist series productions have in recent years included more Broadway-type productions, mingled with the brilliant work of such Christian artists as Dan Forrest. “Broadway” sums up the philosophy of the new Bob Jones University— broad and inclusive.
Students are not learning to distinguish the true from the false kinds of entertainment, evangelicalism, and life-styes. This is lamentable and tragic. There was a day when Bob Jones University could be trusted to instill in its students the virtues of a separated godly lifestyle. Now the University simply wants to “fit into” the culture, to accommodate and even imitate its behavior.
Conclusion
Believers identified with the SBC, PCA, OPC, etc. are lending credibility to false teachers and false gospels. The believer who willingly does such is living in sin. People all over the country know that BJU is Evangelical. It is old news. Evangelicals often say, “Identification is a non-essential.” That mindset constitutes the difference between Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism! Indifference is dangerous! It is a path God forbids! “For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John verse 11). One’s personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ determines his church identification! “Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward” (2 John vs. 8). We must never entangle the message of the gospel with man-made organizations and institutions that harbor false gospels.
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers…. After my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also, of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:28–30).
Every moment of our lives, we are building our ministries upon either the foundation of gold, silver, and precious stones, or upon a foundation of wood, hay, and stubble. “Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is” (1 Corinthians 3:11–13). “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:10–11a). “And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.” (First John 2:28). In Romans 1:1, Paul introduces himself as “a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God.”
Charles H. Spurgeon promised his church, “That I might not stultify [invalidate] my testimony, I have cut myself clear of those who err from the faith, and even from those who associate with them. What more can I do to be honest with you?”12
Dr. Bob Jones Sr. so often cried, “Earnestly contend for the faith. Stand up and fight.”
David Beale (Enlarged 12-8-21)
David Beale taught courses on Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism for some thirty years at Bob Jones University and Seminary. He is a prolific writer and historian. Since Dr. Beale retired in 2010 he has taught and preached in schools and churches.
4) Augustine, City of God, 6.26–27; Enchiridion: On Faith, Hope, and Love 43; cf. 93; Sermon 294; and On Forgiveness of Sins, and Baptism 1.27.
5) John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (4.15.1—22).
6) L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939), 632–42.
7) Letters from a recent graduate to David Beale (2021); see Paul M. Elliott, Christianity and Neo-Liberalism: The Spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Beyond (Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2005).
10) George Houghton, “Are Conservative Southern Baptists Fundamentalists?” Faith Pulpit, January/February 2004 at: https://faith.edu/faith-news/are-conservative-southern-baptists fundamentalists/; J. Gerald Harris, The Rise and Fall of the Conservative Resurgence: The Southern Baptist Convention: 1979-2021 (Taos, NM: Trust House, 2021); and David Beale, “SBC Today,” in Baptist History in England and America: Personalities, Positions, and Practices (Maitland, FL: Xulon Press, 2018), 581–83.
If you have read the “About” me for this blog you know I am an independent Baptist. I was saved (accepted the Lord Jesus Christ) when I was a very young lad through the ministry of an independent Baptist Church where I also followed the Lord in baptism and heard some good preaching from His Word. However, having now walked with the Lord these many, many years I have seen a lot of “things” within “Christianity” that did and do bother me. Today, I came across the following and thought I would share it with you. This is only the first Part so i will share the others later.
‘Over the last few years there has been a significant movement to rethink “fundamentalism,” a term often applied to churches that would qualify to be listed in our database here at KJV Churches. Largely driven by younger believers, mostly Millennials, this movement has questioned many of the positions and attitudes held by a number of prominent figures who purport to hold to “Old Time Religion” or the “Old Paths,” and without a doubt there are many valid questions and rebukes necessary in many sectors of “fundamental” Christianity.
In this series, we intend to deal with a number of the real issues that should be addressed with regard to the supposed “Old Time Religion” and “fundamentalism,” but at the same time it is our desire to inspect the attitudes displayed by the “Recovering Fundamentalist” movement. As with most things, there are ditches on both sides of the road, and while a strong argument can be made against the traditional model that frequently covers up sin, overlooks abuse, and welcomes “fallen” men while ignoring and blaming the victims, we must be careful not to allow a knee-jerk reaction that will result in the same rotten attitudes, ungodly spirit, and combative approach that is many times the fruit of the “fundamentalists.”
Meddling Millennials
The generational divide between the majority of the church leadership, made up of Generation X and Baby Boomers (of disrespectful “OK, Boomer” fame), and the up-and-coming Millennials, the generation to which this author belongs, has been the cause for a lot of conflict. We Millennials have a very different approach to certain things which makes us appear to be a threat to many people, especially those who appreciate their authoritative positions and perceive any question as a threat or assume that any disagreement is an attack. The older generations must understand that a person presenting a question is not necessarily seeking to supplant whoever is in authority. Often it is done in a spirit of reconciliation, hoping to correct a wrong, perceived or real, and to restore respect for whoever was in error. Simply put, most Millennials aren’t interested in sweeping things under the rug, regardless of the consequences.
My generation experienced the Internet as young people, so we remember the days before instant, worldwide communication was possible even though many of us met our spouses and best friends online. We’re the pre-Internet generation that has in a very real sense shaped the Internet as it exists today. Our unique experiences have created a group of people, from 25-40 years old, that believe that respect is earned and can be lost, authority does not automatically deserve respect, and that age does not automatically mean wisdom (Job 32:9) when it departs from the word of God. As a result, our generational perspective does not automatically follow that of our predecessors. We are more likely to investigate a man’s character and testimony, and not just assume that he was a great man because he was a “great soul winner”. We’ve seen too many “great men” go to prison to assume that large numbers of “conversions” or a big Bible College are the marks of spirituality.
Personally, I’ve long since stopped identifying with men or movements, since many that I respected as a child turned out to be problematic, to say the least, once I reached adulthood. It’s true that there are Biblical commands to respect those that have positions of authority, but all too often the warnings and responsibilities of those tasked with those positions have been ignored, while the man in question hides behind a “man of God” moniker and rejects all criticism as an attack on “the ministry.” I don’t even know how many times as a child that I heard my pastor preach grave warnings about speaking out against the pastor (him, of course), talking about she-bears, lightning strikes, and leprosy attacks, as if he himself were Elisha, Elijah, or Moses. Another shocking recollection is of the pastor (same man) claiming that the church funds were low because he had chosen not to receive his salary, and that God wasn’t blessing the church as a result.
It is the unfortunate reality of modern “Christianity” (“Churchianity” is much more accurate, since it’s more about the “church” than it is about Christ) that those in places of authority heartily accept the “benefits” that come with being the CEO of a government-recognized 501(c)(3) charity, yet ignore the stern warnings in the Scriptures about how to deal with God’s flock (Acts 20:28-29; 1 Peter 5:2-3; 2 Peter 2:3; Hebrews 13:7, 17, etc.). Too many pastors have assumed the right to skin God’s sheep at will, abusing Christ’s flock and manipulating the LORD’s heritage for their own benefit, be it physical (just look at the average BMI of Baptist pastors), monetary, or spiritual, seeking the preeminence that belongs exclusively to the LORD. Now, lest the reader assume that fingers are being pointed at Generation X or the “Boomers,” allow me to clarify: this danger exists in any generation, for any pastor, who ignores the scriptures and seeks his own benefit instead of that of the body of Christ.
Assuming anyone is still reading at this point, there may be some anger in that so far nothing has been said against those meddlesome “Recovering Fundamentalists.” Don’t worry, we’ll get there. But since the “Recovery” movement is a response to the real problems in so-called “Fundamentalism,” those issues should be addressed first, which will allow us to see how this new movement started and why, and we’ll be better prepared to address the issues that they themselves face and the problems they are causing for themselves and for the body of Christ. Don’t worry: there are plenty of problems to go around, and there is plenty of blame to be shared.
What’s the Big Deal?
Over the last few decades the focus of self-professed fundamentalist churches has shifted from the glory of God, edification of the body, and the evangelization of the lost to a pragmatic approach to maintaining the status quo of church attendance, bus ridership, and financial giving. Paris Reidhead’s warning against pragmatism in his famous sermon Ten Shekels and a Shirt (listen to it if you haven’t already) has been completely ignored by the body of Christ. While it may be easy for “conservative” churches (traditional music, KJV only, etc.) to point fingers at “megachurches” with their sports complexes, coffee shops, and polo-shirt-wearing “campus pastors,” we must take stock of our own attitudes and recognize that our own religious system focuses on itself and its own self-propagation more than the glory of God and the spiritual edification of the body.
The results of this sad state of “Christianity” is that young people have started to look behind the curtain and realize that the “Holy Spirit” that is talked about so frequently is really just emotionalism dressed up as spirituality in order to sell a religious program. Thus, it’s no wonder that the sales tactics of a sleazy used car salesman are employed to fill the pews, and that the same approach to maintaining the membership is used, despite the differing content. Don’t believe me? Consider this question:
“What if we take away the cool music and the cushioned chairs? What if the screens are gone and the stage is no longer decorated? What if the air conditioning is off and the comforts are removed? Would his Word still be enough for his people to come together?” – David Platt
The question is valid regardless of who said it; many “fundamentalists” revere serial adulterers and child molesters, so I don’t care what you think about Platt, nor does it matter what I think about him. Consider about the question and imagine how many of the “members” of your church would still faithfully attend if there were no comfortable seats, if there were no heating or air conditioning. How many of the young people would come if it wasn’t for the goodies or fun activities? If all your church did were to assemble, stand together for two or three hours, sing a few hymns a cappella, and listen to the word preached and Christ glorified for two hours, how many would be left at the end of a year? What would the tithing records look like? How many missionaries would you be able to support? How would you pay the mortgage?
You see, we Millennials were sold a bill of goods. We were told that Christ was all that mattered, but we saw that the reality was very different. Just so that we’re clear, that’s called hypocrisy and it’s one of the things that irritates the LORD the most. And, it’s not very appreciated by young people that believed you when we were young and then saw the results of your hypocrisy. So, it’s understandable when young people who would have served God wholeheartedly if they had an example to follow, instead leave church, develop a resentful attitude, or look for a place where they can truly serve God without the humanistic impediments that are so rampant in many “fundamental” churches.
Conclusion (don’t worry, there’s more to come)
So, we haven’t gotten around to bashing those pesky “Recovering Fundamentalists” yet. That’s ok, there’s plenty of blame and rebuke to go around. In a future post we will start to unpack the response, good and bad, of the Millennial generation to the problems we addressed in this post. Just keep in mind that the most important problem to deal with is OUR problem, just like Christ said:
Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye. (Luke 6:42)
Do you want to “see clearly” to deal with the issues that someone else has? Great! Start with yourself, just like I must start with myself. When you recognize and deal with the problems at home, you’ll both be more objective and more merciful with the errors of others (Galatians 5:1). But if you start in the flesh and only look at the mistakes of others, you’ll just create more strife, division, and contention (Proverbs 13:10).’https://www.kjvchurches.com/recovering-part-1-meet-the-millennials/
‘Earlier we documented Bob Jones University (BJU) stepping into ecumenical compromise with Franklin Graham. See BJU Embraces Franklin Graham’s Ecumenical Movement. That was the latest among many excursions, engineered by BJU president Steve Pettit, into non-separatist evangelicallism and the ecumenical movement. From Dr. David Beale’s new book Christian Fundamentalism in America I included a brief excerpt in the BJU/Graham article above and in the BJU: Compromised Spiritual Sanctification for Secular Pragmatism article. Dr. David Beale has written an article to expand on and bolster his argument. That article follows.
“After being the premier fundamentalist academic institution for eighty-seven years, BJU elected Dr. Steve Pettit in 2014, as the president who steered the University out of separatist Fundamentalism into the inclusive, Broad Evangelical movement,” David Beale, Christian Fundamentalism in America (Maitland, FL: Xulon, 2021), 179, 530.
• Dr. Andy Naselli, in his 2006 BJU dissertation, scorns independent, Fundamental Baptists for giving invitations to “surrender oneself to God.” Naselli criticizes the practice and calls it a “second blessing.” Naselli unsuccessfully tried to identify the Fundamentalist movement with Keswick extremes on the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Naselli then identified with Broad Evangelicalism. He now serves on the faculty of John Piper’s College and Seminary, which are Reformed Charismatic schools urging every Christian to seek all NT gifts, including tongues and healing. Piper claims that “Signs and wonders” and all spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 are valid for today and must be “earnestly desired.” Piper says, “Prophecy and tongues will continue until Jesus comes.”1 Naselli is a pastor of Piper’s Bethlehem Baptist Church.
Naselli seeks to transform Fundamentalists into Evangelicalism. In 2019, Dr. Pettit brought Naselli back to BJU to present the lectures for the annual Steward Custer Lecture Series. Naselli’s books were promoted. The late Dr. Custer all his life had been a stalwart Fundamentalist. Naselli represents Broad Evangelicalism. The bond between BJU and Evangelicalism has been clear since the beginning of Pettit’s administration.
• Dr. Sam Horn was executive vice president for enrollment and ministerial advancement at Bob Jones University when, on 2-7-2020, Dr. Pettit announced to all, “Dr. Horn is greatly honored today, and BJU is honored to have one of its own become the next president of The Master’s University and Seminary.” Horn succeeded Dr. John Stead. Dr. John MacArthur, a leading Evangelical, had led The Master’s University and Seminary as president from 1984 to 2018. Dr. Pettit preached for John MacArthur in a conference that year (2020). John Street, Chair of Biblical Counseling at The Master’s University, spoke at BJU’s CoRE Conference March 9–10, 2020. Street is an adjunct professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. By claiming that the word Fundamentalism can have no single definition,2 BJU leaders claim the label separatist but practice non-separatism (inclusivism). With such a notion, BJU attempts to sit on both sides of the fence—Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism—at the same time.
• Under Dr. Pettit’s administration, BJU students are permitted to bond with churches of denominations harboring apostasy.3 The following churches (underscored below) are among those approved for BJU students to attend.
• Covenant Community (Taylors, SC): An Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). On one of their website videos, the pastor poured water on a little child’s head and said, “This is like Abraham’s ‘baptizing his whole house’” (Genesis 17). The pastor substituted the word baptism for the word circumcision and called it regeneration. Augustine and Roman Catholicism devised and standardized this doctrine, which assumes an OT circumcisional regeneration for Jewish males.4 Romanism transformed that doctrine into NT water baptismal regeneration to elect infants. Forms of that doctrine passed into Reformed theology. John Calvin insisted that OT circumcision engrafted the Jewish infant into the covenant [elect] family of God; thus, NT baptism engrafts a newborn child into the body of Christ.5 Reformed doctrine leads many to believe the seed of regeneration is implanted at infant baptism, though salvation might occur later.6
• Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church (Simpsonville, SC), PCA church.
• Second Presbyterian Church (Greenville, SC): A Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). This church’s senior pastor is Dr. Richard Phillips, adjunct professor and member of the Board of Trustees at Westminster Theological Seminary, which enforces no dress codes and allows the use of alcoholic beverages.7
➢ Richard Phillips is also on the Board of Directors of (1) the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals; (2) the Council of The Gospel Coalition, and (3) the Council of the Gospel Reformation Network.8
➢ On October 12, 2019, at Phillips’ Second Presbyterian Church, Dr. Pettit participated in a Conference on Reformed Theology.
• To begin chapel on February 5, 2018, Dr. Pettit announced, “We are honored this morning to have as our guest Dr. Gene Fant,” president of North Greenville University, a Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) school. Prior to preaching the chapel message, Fant was welcomed with a standing ovation.9 The so-called “SBC Conservative Resurgence” has now spiraled into a deadening mix.10
• Calvary First Baptist Church (Greenville, SC): SBC church.
• Roper Mountain Baptist Church (Greenville): SBC church.
• Rock Springs Baptist Church (Easley, SC): SBC church. Dr. Pettit, BJU President, spoke here October 6, 2019.
• White Oak Baptist Church (Greenville, SC): Affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, the South Carolina Baptist Convention, and the Greenville Baptist Association. Their lead pastor is Lonnie Polson, BJU Division Chair of Communication of the School of Fine Arts. Their music director is Jeff Stegall, BJU Associate Professor in the Theatre Arts Department.
• For the article, “Bob Jones University Embraces Franklin Graham’s Ecumenical Movement: HaveYou Finally Seen Enough?” click the following link: BJU Embraces Franklin Graham….
• Dr. Steve Pettit permits dress style, music, and entertainment of the world’s style. For the Artist Series of January 27, 2015, he brought in the music group, “Cantus,” which includes beer drinkers and known homosexuals.11
• The following letter was sent to me on 10-14-2021 from a concerned grandfather who has grandchildren at BJU:
In 2021, at Bob Jones University, the first of the fall semester’s artist series was conducted on October 7 in the FMA. The program was titled “Symphonic Hollywood: Featuring the Music of Lee Holdridge.” The guest conductor was Richard Kaufman. The featured selections were beautifully done, and each was announced by Kaufman, interspersed with lavish praise on BJU and its leadership. Kaufman mentioned his background which included his participation with a Los Angeles orchestra in which he played violin for the recording of music for “Animal House,” a raunchy R-rated movie. He expressed no regret for its production. On the contrary, he mentioned that his contribution helped launch his career as a conductor. Not once did he mention any conflict between Christian beliefs and the moral cesspool of Hollywood. Nor did he give any confirmation of Christian belief. Yet he gave the impression that a believer could function contentedly in such an environment. Toward the end of the program, Jay Matthews and another representative, on behalf of the University, awarded Kaufman with a certificate and plaque granting him lifetime membership as an honorary alumnus of BJU. In the program notes on Kaufman, the bio states that “his wife Gayle is a former dancer and actress in film, television, and on Broadway, and his daughter, Whitney, is a highly successful singer and actress.”
All of this conveys to BJU students that a vocation in the worldly Hollywood scene is perfectly acceptable and, indeed highly commendable. The artist series productions have in recent years included more Broadway-type productions, mingled with the brilliant work of such Christian artists as Dan Forrest. “Broadway” sums up the philosophy of the new Bob Jones University— broad and inclusive.
Students are not learning to distinguish the true from the false kinds of entertainment, evangelicalism, and life-styes. This is lamentable and tragic. There was a day when Bob Jones University could be trusted to instill in its students the virtues of a separated godly lifestyle. Now the University simply wants to “fit into” the culture, to accommodate and even imitate its behavior.
Conclusion
Believers identified with the SBC, PCA, OPC, etc. are lending credibility to false teachers and false gospels. The believer who willingly does such is living in sin. People all over the country know that BJU is Evangelical. It is old news. Evangelicals often say, “Identification is a non-essential.” That mindset constitutes the difference between Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism! Indifference is dangerous! It is a path God forbids! “For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John verse 11). One’s personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ determines his church identification! “Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward” (2 John vs. 8). We must never entangle the message of the gospel with man-made organizations and institutions that harbor false gospels.
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers…. After my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also, of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:28–30).
Every moment of our lives, we are building our ministries upon either the foundation of gold, silver, and precious stones, or upon a foundation of wood, hay, and stubble. “Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is” (1 Corinthians 3:11–13). “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:10–11a). “And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.” (First John 2:28). In Romans 1:1, Paul introduces himself as “a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God.”
Charles H. Spurgeon promised his church, “That I might not stultify [invalidate] my testimony, I have cut myself clear of those who err from the faith, and even from those who associate with them. What more can I do to be honest with you?”12
Dr. Bob Jones Sr. so often cried, “Earnestly contend for the faith. Stand up and fight.”
David Beale (Enlarged 12-8-21)
David Beale taught courses on Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism for some thirty years at Bob Jones University and Seminary. He is a prolific writer and historian. Since Dr. Beale retired in 2010 he has taught and preached in schools and churches.
4) Augustine, City of God, 6.26–27; Enchiridion: On Faith, Hope, and Love 43; cf. 93; Sermon 294; and On Forgiveness of Sins, and Baptism 1.27.
5) John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (4.15.1—22).
6) L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939), 632–42.
7) Letters from a recent graduate to David Beale (2021); see Paul M. Elliott, Christianity and Neo-Liberalism: The Spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Beyond (Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2005).
10) George Houghton, “Are Conservative Southern Baptists Fundamentalists?” Faith Pulpit, January/February 2004 at: https://faith.edu/faith-news/are-conservative-southern-baptists fundamentalists/; J. Gerald Harris, The Rise and Fall of the Conservative Resurgence: The Southern Baptist Convention: 1979-2021 (Taos, NM: Trust House, 2021); and David Beale, “SBC Today,” in Baptist History in England and America: Personalities, Positions, and Practices (Maitland, FL: Xulon Press, 2018), 581–83.
‘One way to get a Nobel prize in something, you’ve got to break some new ground or discover something no one has ever seen. In the world, the making of a printing press or light bulb changes everything. People still try to invent a better mousetrap. It happens. The phone replaced the telegraph and now our mobile devices, the phone.
Everyone can learn something new from scripture. You might even change or tweak a doctrine you’ve always believed. On the whole, you don’t want to teach from the Bible what no one has ever heard before. The goal is the original intent and understanding of the Author.
From the left comes progressivism. The U. S. Constitution, just over two hundred years old, means something different than when it was written. Loosely constructed, it has a flexible interpretation into which new meanings arise. Hegelian dialectics say a new thesis comes from synthesis of antithesis and a former thesis. Everything can be improved.
Early after the inspiration and then propagation of the Bible, men found new things no one ever saw in scripture. Many of these “finds” started a new movement. People have their fathers, the father of this or that teaching, contradictory to the other, causing division and new factions and denominations. Some of these changes become quite significant, a majority supplanting the constituents of the original teaching.
At the time of the Reformation, it was as if the world first found sole fide and sole scriptura. Men often call justification the Reformation doctrine of justification. This opened a large, proverbial can of worms. Many could read their own Bible in their own language. Others now dug into their own copy of the original languages of scripture. Skepticism grew. “If we didn’t know this before, what else did they not tell us.” It became a time ripe for religious shysters and this practice hasn’t stopped since then.
Socinus
The Italian, Laelius Socinus, was born in 1525 into a distinguished family of lawyers. Early his attention turned from law to scripture research. He doubted the teachings of Roman Catholicism. Socinus moved in 1548 to Zurich to study Greek and Hebrew. He still questioned established doctrine and challenged the Reformers. Laelius wrote his own confession of faith, which introduced different, conflicting beliefs. They took hold of his nephew, Faustus Socinus, born in 1539.
Faustus rejected orthodox Roman Catholic doctrines. The Inquisition denounced him in 1559, so he fled to Zurich in 1562. There he acquired his uncle’s writings. His doubt of Catholicism turned anti-Trinitarian. The Reformation did not go far enough for Socinus. His first published work in 1562 on the prologue of John rejected the essential deity of Jesus Christ.
Socinus’s journeys ended in Poland, where he became leader of the Minor Reformed Church, the Polish Brethren. His writings in the form of the Racovian Catechism survived through the press of the Racovian Academy of Rakow, Poland. His beliefs took the name, Socinianism, now also a catch-all for any type of dissenting doctrine.
Socinianism held that Jesus did not exist until his physical conception. God adopted Him as Son at His conception and became Son of God when the Holy Spirit conceived Him in Mary, a Gnostic view called “adoptionism.” It rejected the doctrine of original sin.
Socianism denied the omniscience of God. It introduced the first well developed concept of “open theism,” which said that man couldn’t have free will under a traditional (and scriptural) understanding of omniscience.
Socinianism also taught the moral example theory of atonement, teaching that Jesus sacrificed himself to motivate people to repent and believe. His death gave men the ability to be saved by their own works, who weren’t sinners by nature anyway.
Unitarians
The work of Socinus lived on in the belief of early English Unitarians, Henry Hedworth and John Biddle. Socinian belief was helped along also by its position of conscientious objection, a practice of refusing to perform military service. This principle was very popular with many and made Socinianism much more attractive to potential adherents. The First Unitarian Church, which followed Socianism as passed down through its leaders in England, was started in 1774 on Essex Street in London, where British Unitarian headquarters are still today.
As the Puritans of colonial America apostatized through various means, Unitarianism, a modern iteration of Socinianism took hold in the Congregational Church in America. After 1820, Congregationalists took Unitarianism as their established doctrine. The doctrine of Christ diminished to Jesus a good man and perhaps a prophet of God and in a sense the Son of God, but not God Himself.
Spirit of Skepticism
I write as an example of the diversity in the history of Christian doctrine and why it takes place. When you read the beliefs of Socinians, you easily see them in modern liberal Christianity. They influence on religious cults that deny the deity of Jesus Christ.
A limited amount of skepticism wards away the acceptance of false doctrine. Better is a Berean attitude (Acts 17:11), searching the scripture to see if these things are so, and what Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, proving all things, holding fast to that which is good.
As I grew up among fundamentalists and independent Baptists, I witnessed regular desire to find something new in the Bible. Many sermons espoused interpretations I had never heard and didn’t see in the text. A preacher often said, “God gave it to me.” You should know God used the man because no one had seen such insights into scripture.
The same spirit of doctrinal novelty continues today in many evangelical churches. The same practice led Joseph Smith in his founding of Mormonism. Many cults arose in 19th century America under the same spirit of skepticism of established historical doctrines.
The Temptation of Novel Teaching
The temptation of novel teaching preys on anyone. Faustus Socinus accepted many orthodox doctrines of his day. He rejected Christ as fully God and fully human because it was contrary to sound reason (ratio sana). This steered Socinians toward Enlightenment thinking, where human reason took the highest role as arbiter of truth.
Here’s a good question! ‘Are Fundamentalists deplorable, despicable, even dangerous people? Well, one must first realize that there are all kinds of fundamentalists. There are Muslim Fundamentalists, so one must consider what they believe and practice. There are Jewish Fundamentalists, and even many Jews find them a little weird. Then there are Christian Fundamentalists whom many consider odd. But then, that decision was made without considering complete information, and that is the definition of prejudice. While Christian Fundamentalists should never be weird or odd, the Bible requires them to be peculiar. A biblically peculiar person reminds people of Christ. However, most secular people could never comprehend the daily lifestyle of a biblical Fundamentalist. One must also understand that fundamental simply means going back to the origins or the basics. A college basketball team loses 20 games in a row, so the coach gets the team around him and says, “Guys, we must get back to the fundamentals. This is a basketball. That is a basket, and the purpose is to get this ball in that basket without getting fouled.” I believe all Christians need to get back to the basics of Christianity, discarding the nonsense, the lies, the false traditions, and the heresy—back to barebones Christianity, i.e., Fundamentalism.U.S. Fundamentalists (a term from the 1940s), including many who identify as Evangelicals, comprise about 30 percent to 40 percent of the U.S. population. They are simply Christians who take the Bible seriously and are willing to stand alone if necessary for their beliefs. Their stand is usually conspicuous for its responsible militancy, and that militancy has occasioned slanderous accusations that they are mendacious, mad, or malicious in their stand. It seems opponents find it easier to accuse Fundamentalists of being mad and mean rather than discuss and debate their militant positions. Biblical militancy will always result in help and will never harm anyone. And no true Fundamentalist will seek to force his view on anyone. That accusation has been made by people who interpret a loving yet militant statement as “trying to force his ideas down my throat.” The critic simply cannot refute what he has heard. Because of Fundamentalists’ high view of Scripture (it is inspired, infallible, and inerrant as well as invaluable for proper living), they adhere to the fundamentals of the faith. Their core beliefs—Christ’s virgin birth, virtuous life, vicarious death, victorious resurrection, and visible return, as well as the validity of miracles and the veracity of Scripture. Of course, at one time, all orthodox Christians believed those doctrines! So, who changed? Furthermore, most Fundamentalists insist on the independence of each local church, refusing any religious hierarchy or authority over a local congregation. Therefore, they refuse to belong to any denomination. Each local Fundamentalist congregation must be judged on its own merits. Most are tender and compassionate, while some are tyrannical and cold. There were exceptions to the anti-denomination position in the early 1900s when many highly competent Fundamentalists were in the Presbyterian U.S.A. and the Northern (later American) Baptist Convention. During that era when the Fundamentalist/Modernist battle was raging, many great preachers refused to recognize the theological corruption in their groups or, if admitted, they refused to leave their beloved denominations. Such a move would have had a significant impact on their family, friends, finances, and future. Many others did leave and became what they should have always been—unaffiliated or independent Christians, as were the first-century Christians. Fundamentalists are not the new boy on the block. Resource books are wrong when they call Fundamentalism a phenomenon of the 20th century. While the name is new, the movement goes back to an empty tomb in a beautiful garden outside Jerusalem. Harvard Divinity School Professor (and Church Historian) Kirsopp Lake wrote, “Fundamentalism is virtually synonymous with orthodox Christianity.” He added, “It is a mistake, often made by educated persons who happen to have but little knowledge of historical theology, to suppose that Fundamentalism is a new and strange form of thought. It is nothing of the kind: it is the…survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians.”Dr. Lake continued, “The Fundamentalist may be wrong: I think that he is. [No, if we are original Christians, then Fundamentalism is not wrong.] But it is we who have departed from the tradition, not he, and I am sorry for the fate of anyone who tries to argue with a Fundamentalist on the basis of authority. The Bible and the corpus theologicum of the Church is [sic] on the Fundamentalist side.” (Kirsopp Lake, The Religion of Yesterday and To-morrow, (Boston, New York, Houghton Mifflin, 1925), pp 61-62.) It is a fact, recognized by all, that the best support for your position is the positive comments by your critics as per Lake’s above. To repeat, even unbelieving scholars teach that the original Christians were Fundamentalists called by different names—Christians, Disciples, Believers, Followers, Arnoldists, Donatists, Waldensians, Hussites, etc. As years passed, some got loose in their beliefs and took on spurious views, which exploded into the world’s religious mess today. Fundamentalists eschew formalism, anthems, vestments, and repetition and usually prefer, even demand, simplicity in worship, doctrinally sound hymns, and serious Bible teaching and preaching. They meet in massive megachurches, smaller “churchy” buildings, storefronts, or even homes. They are also known for their independence; consequently, some Fundamentalists will fuss with me for “speaking for them.” Of course, I speak for myself, prompted by my knowledge of church history and current events. The very suggestion that modern Fundamentalists (those who adhere to the basics) are the same as original Christians causes heartburn, palpitations, and hot flashes across the fruited plain. After all, aren’t Fundamentalist Christians uncouth, unsophisticated, and uneducated louts responsible for dandruff, sunspots, drought, and partly responsible for global warming? Aren’t they blamable for the declining population of copperheads and rattlesnakes in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Tennessee? Didn’t they organize the Flat Earth Society? Don’t their children live in constant fear, and their wives are usually pious, plump, put-down—and pregnant? Well, maybe the above charges are outrageous, but surely, Fundamentalists are legalistic and pharisaical! No, all these accusations indicate that the critic is desperate and devious, if not dishonest. Or, maybe just simply dumb. The world generally has a silly, untrue caricature of Fundamentalists. A Fundamentalist has recognized himself as a sinner, repented of sin, and received Christ as Savior based upon His sacrificial death and physical resurrection. Following his salvation, he seeks to honor Christ in every respect. He takes the scriptural commands seriously to live godly, separate from compromise, and he lovingly rebukes those who stray from the truth. Moreover, he will try to pass to his children those same characteristics. That means Fundamentalists are obligated to obey the Ten Commandments, treat others the way they want to be treated, respect the dignity of all people, show genuine love in response to hate, generously give to help others, stand for biblical truth against all odds, whatever the cost, even to correct but not coerce those who do not stand for truth. To an informed Christian, the truth cannot be sacrificed on the altar of a bogus tolerance. Tolerance is often used as a smokescreen to secretly and safely retreat from orthodoxy. We are told repeatedly, all views have equal merit, and none should be considered better than another.Practically everyone believes that lie. All persons are considered equal, but not all positions are. Anyone can have odd ideas, and he has a right to them, so I respect him and recognize his right to express his views. However, while he is equal to me, his ideas are not necessarily sane, scholarly, or scriptural. His ideas can be foolish and unsound, but he must realize that he should support his silly views with facts. To say we must be tolerant of all people and give as much equivalency to all ideas is nonsense. However silly, a person may believe what he wants, and he may espouse those beliefs, but that does not mean his behavior must be accepted. There is no right to do wrong. Modern philosophy says that you can’t disagree with anyone since it will hurt his feelings. So? Such is life in the real world. If one takes that senseless position, then one can never disagree with anyone about anything. What a crock! The Christian must always seek to do right in all circumstances, realizing it is never right to do wrong. A Fundamentalist is incensed when lies are presented as truth, when evil is presented as good, and when the young and innocent are harmed. He is there when the depressed need a friend. He keeps his word at all costs and is known for his kindness, gentleness, and faithfulness. He eschews anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, and filthy communication. He is known for his humility of mind (esteeming others better than himself), meekness, longsuffering, blamelessness, and harmlessness. He lives in a crooked and perverse nation, among whom he is supposed to shine as a light in a dark world. However, that light is flickering almost to extinction. The Apostle Paul records a command for all Christians in Philippians 4:8, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” I have gladly accepted the term Fundamentalist knowing my critics and the ignorant have perverted its original meaning. They have done so because they cannot reply and are highly unkind, unfair, and uncivil when dealing with Fundamentalists. After all, tolerance only goes so far!If I am a devoted Christian (a Fundamentalist), I will be careful about my morals, manners, and militancy. Bible Fundamentalists are known for their love of people, principles, and precepts—all with passion. I have tried to live as a genuine Christian Fundamentalist (not always successfully) for more than 70 years. Moreover, I just published my memoirs, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets to, among other things, further enlighten those who don’t know that all genuine Christians are biblical Fundamentalists. Christian Fundamentalists are not deranged, deplorable, demented, or dangerous but gentle, gracious, and generous people.’https://donboys.cstnews.com/are-fundamentalists-deplorable-despicable-and-dangerous-people
The older I get the less I wish to be identified with certain groups. When I was younger I identified with those considered fundamentalists. Sadly, today there are many in the ‘fundamentalist’ group that speak of essential and non-essential doctrines just as evangelicals have done for sometime. Kent Brandburg states it well in the following article.
‘As the children of Israel prepare to enter the land, Moses declares the requirements from God for them. Sometimes speakers will say, if there is anything you should remember, it’s this. Before Moses gets into all the details, which are many, he talks about their relationship to those details as an explanation of their necessary approach to what God told them. If there is a God, which there is, and one, it would seem that what all-powerful, all-knowing holy God would want and should receive the attention of people. In Deuteronomy 4, Moses prepares God’s people for the statement of what God wants from them. Read these first ten verses of that chapter, a normal theme through the book of Deuteronomy, which stands as a handbook for an interpretation of the rest of the Old Testament as well.
1 Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. 2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. 3 Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you. 4 But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day. 5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. 6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. 7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? 8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? 9 Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons’ sons; 10 Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children.
The tendency in reading posts with large, even smaller, portions of scripture is to skip over them with your eyes. Read those carefully. Then I draw your attention to verse two, specifically, “neither shall ye diminish ought from it.” If anyone would know about diminishing what God had said, it was Moses, who would not enter the land because of his disobedience in striking the rock. God wants all of what He said kept or obeyed. Moses diminished this one thing — one — and he didn’t go into the land because of it.
In the above portion of Deuteronomy, a book which reads like a treaty between God and His people, their making an agreement based on His terms, which is laid out in words, a less than subtle warning is given of future bad consequences for not hearkening to and obeying God’s words, communicated by the terms “statutes,” “judgments,” “commandments,” and “words.” Verse 3 reminds, “Your eyes have seen what the LORD did . . . . the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you.” And then on the other hand, they lived because they cleaved to the LORD (verse 4). To put it together, someone could truly say, if I diminish I could be destroyed. It’s serious.
You can’t say that you are supportive of scripture if you are going to support the parts of it only that will allow your life to proceed without the hassle of decreasing size and overwhelming unpopularity — in other words, one that trusts — and fears — the Lord. That diminishes the Word of God. There must be greater fear of and love of God than there is desire for the earthly success associated with numbers. The Diminishing of and by the Fundamental or Primary Doctrine Designation
Phil Johnson@Phil_Johnson_
“…fundamental, primary doctrines will be commonly recognized by like-minded men [under] the illumination of the one Holy Spirit, rather than privately found in the 21st century by young pastors looking to make a name for themselves.”
The idea of fundamental and primary doctrines is an evangelical or fundamentalist chimera. They’ve made it up to serve a need and now refer to it like it exists. They also use essential and non-essential doctrines. As I’ve written many times here, the list of essentials is shrinking. What was once essential is now non-essential, when nothing that God says is treated as non-essential, just the opposite.
The Holy Spirit illuminates all doctrine of scripture, not “fundamental, primary” ones. This is just diminishing the Word of God in the areas where conflict exists. Certain teachings of the Bible especially clash with the world, causing a more difficult life. Professing believers want a Christianity that affords eternal life and all the niceties and acceptability of the world. It is a Christianity that diminishes the most unpopular teachings. Even in the Johnson tweet of the Don Green quote, more conservative evangelicals, who have capitulated already, fear further capitulation that takes their trajectory, except further.
God doesn’t accept the mere acceptance of some percentage of what He said. It’s 100% with Him. Sure, sanctification is a struggle, but believers are sanctified by everything He said, not just the primary things He said. That is not how the Holy Spirit works, and it is a doctrine that misrepresents the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. It is indefensible. If there is a message someone should get from the gospel of John is that the Lord Jesus did everything the Father wanted Him to do. When we pray the model prayer, that God’s will would be done on earth as it is in heaven — everyone in heaven does everything God said, not categorize His sayings into primary and tertiary and allow the latter to go by the wayside.
I understand the concern of Don Green and Phil Johnson about young evangelicals ejecting from their so-called primary doctrines. The degree of pragmatism and reductionism and sheer lust among millennial evangelicals is head wagging. I appreciate that there are degrees of apostasy. I see it in Revelation 2 and 3 with those churches, but the Lord Jesus didn’t come to any of those churches and say, “I warn thee of thy depreciation of the primary doctrines, and I will come quickly to deal only with these, leaving the secondary doctrines and practices ignored.”
By shoving apparent secondary doctrines and practices into a secondary or tertiary category or box, evangelicals diminish the Word of God. They also send these young men of whom they state concern along the same trajectory that they take, except taking it further than what they have. Everyone can opt out of something God said just be shifting it into a different category. And then they can say, the Holy Spirit brought to my attention that this was secondary, which is why I’m not teaching it, practicing it, or defending it.
The doctrines and practices evangelicals and fundamentalists call secondary results in the diminishing of what they call primary. Their secondary doctrines and practices sometimes have a greater impact. I’m saying, as one example, that music style impacts life, both doctrine and practice in someone’s life, more than his doctrine of the Trinity in instances, not to justify the distortion of the latter. Irreverent music shapes the wrong thinking about God, and forms a new god in their imagination not in line with the God of the Bible. And they are giving God something He doesn’t want in the way of worship. It makes provision for the flesh and sends someone away from God in love for the world. They feel justified in their perversion because this is only a primary doctrine or practice to them. It warps love of and for God, and then others, so that the two great commandments are not obeyed.
What I’m writing in this post thus far is right. That should be what matters. Is it the truth? They can ignore or shirk me, but the downward path will continue. They will help grease the skid that empties further away from God and even in the lake of fire, all to protect this primary/secondary chimera.’
Some ‘new’ fundamentalists have surrendered to the new Calvinist conservative evangelical scholarship that is so prevalent today. Much of that scholarship is in the Southern Baptist camp. Therefore, many of those who think they are whatever a fundamentalist is supposed to be, have sought unity with Al Mohler, Mark Dever, T4G and TGC crowd.
Southern Baptist & New Calvinist Mark Dever
However, not all Bible believing Baptists have conceded Biblical truth for ‘scholarship’.
Southern Baptist & New Calvinist Al Mohler
‘Three or four times, I think, an anonymous person has posted a comment in which he writes a short paragraph to say that I’m not a scholar, except in a very small circle of KJVO churches. His evidence of this is the lack of acknowledgement received from evangelical scholarship. I’m not recognized in scholarly circles, he says, which proves I’m not a scholar. His point for these comments is to discredit what I write with hopes that no one takes what I write seriously.
Whether I’m a scholar or not had not occurred to me until this person had written these anonymous comments. I’d like to address this, because now it seems like an interesting subject to me. It brought back to memory an article written by Aaron Strouse, “What Is Biblical Scholarship?” Does it matter if someone is considered a scholar? What matters to me is if what I’m writing is true, hence the title of the blog, What Is Truth.
Obviously the idea behind anonymous’s comments is that recognition from certain association is what makes someone a scholar. This reminds me of how the religious leaders dealt with Jesus. To them, Jesus wasn’t a scholar, because He didn’t receive the imprimatur of the sacral society of the day. These men essentially quoted each other and received their endorsement by approved person. The Lord Jesus on the other hand spoke with direct authority, proving His doctrine from scripture. I call this making your cake from scratch versus making it out of the box. Jesus went directly to the source of authority.
A long time ago I knew that I would not get the acceptance of mainstream scholarship. It gives its approval to its own people, which must take “correct” positions. It’s very much like the accreditation of the state schools. Almost all of it relates to power and money. Darwinism is a prerequisite for inclusion in the scientific establishment. We all know that a establishment exists in Washington, DC that protects itself from outside competition.
The money factor in establishment scholarship relates especially to the schools and the publishers. Schools need a broad position to attract the most possible students for more tuition and money to pay for buildings and faculty. Accreditation relates to size. Publishers, as one might understand, need books that will sell enough to make money. The two are interrelated and scholarship means fitting into positions acceptable to a larger group of people. The power lies in positions that will bring the money that pays mortgages. Someone who does not toe the line will lose out. He should know that in advance as he makes his decision to elevate the truth above acceptance and power.
I’m saying that the truth trumps so-called scholarship. The real power is in heaven, and the approval should be Jesus Christ. Moses rejected the court of Pharoah for the people of God. When I go door to door, the people I talk to don’t ask me if I’m a scholar. I’ve got to stand and show them the truth from the Bible, where they believe it because it is God’s Word. I don’t quote and footnote and explain that so-and-so Dr. Scholar says. When someone does discipleship in the church, he doesn’t say, let’s do this because “most scholars say.” He opens his Bible and proves things straight from the Bible.
The Lord Jesus said, By their fruits ye shall know them. When He said that, He was saying that you judge someone by what kind of fruit is produced, the followers. Are the people following you obedient to the Word of God? As a result, are the people following you living obedient, holy lives in surrender to Jesus Christ? That’s also what builds a church.
My approach on this blog is to present a biblical and historical position. That will stand up to scrutiny. If I write something here that is true — it is biblical and historical — and someone says, “that’s not scholarly” or “you aren’t a scholar,” that doesn’t overturn what I’ve written. What should matter is whether what I’ve written is true.
I could point to at least five or ten different issues or matters where I have proven something from scripture to overturn a “scholar.” Daniel Wallace, who is considered a scholar in the mainstream, wrote an article that said that God did not in fact preserve every Word to be available for God’s people. I dealt with every one of his arguments in a biblical manner without getting an answer, except for personal attack. What I wrote stands, whether he is a scholar or not.
Many years ago, I unveiled the gender discord argument between Hebrew noun and pronoun that backs up the position of a masculine pronoun as antecedent of a feminine noun in Psalm 12:6-7. I sent a paper out by email that made its way all over the country. With clear proof of that gender discord position with numerous examples relating to the Word of God, I never received an answer from those who took the wrong view. Proximity of antecedent to the noun comes back into play. I debunked the argument of gender discord, but “scholars” would not rescind. This dishonesty is scholarship, I’ve found. What is more important? Being a scholar or telling the truth?
I’ve written many articles proving from scripture that unity is based upon all the teaching of scripture and not the “essentials.” There is no biblical proof of unity based on “essential doctrines.” This is very important if unity is very important, which it is.
I understand that I’m defending unpopular positions here, but that doesn’t mean that what I’m writing is false. The “scholars” should prove that what I’m writing is wrong, based upon scripture. They don’t do that. Are they really scholars? Is that what we want scholarship to be?
Even if I’m not a scholar, which I’m happy to agree, that I’m not one, I believe Thomas Ross, who posts here on Friday, is a scholar in a class of anyone who might be called a scholar. He has his personal devotions in Hebrew and Greek. I believe he has large portions of scripture memorized in the original language. I’ve read a lot of scholarship, and he is a scholar. He stands up easily to other so-called scholars, except actually being a scholar. Thomas Ross writes here, perhaps because he recognizes that I write the truth. Is in a regular, consistent way proving the truth, scholarship? That should be what matters.
In the end, we’re going to stand before God, and He’s going to judge. That’s the judgment I’m concerned about. Many, if not most of these scholars, will stand before God, but not at the bema seat judgment. They’ll stand before Him at the Great White Throne Judgment. They aren’t even saved, and this is evidenced by their elevation of “scholarship” ahead of truth. God is going to judge based upon the truth, not what men agree is scholarly.’ http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2020/01/does-it-matter-if-someone-is-scholar-or.html
whatyareckon 