Thank you for the comment. I appreciate what you say here. I think that the things Danny said in this particular message were less offensive than the “Anti-christ” statement. I can see how that would get one’s goat! Perhaps those who reacted so strongly were aware of other statements and were reacting to Danny from a wider context.

I agree that there does need to be mutual respect. I disagree with Calvinism but wouldn’t consider it to be “the spawn of Satan” or anything of that nature. And I think plenty of Calvinists succumb to patronizing pride in their statements also.

We are all subject to arrogance – if we could truly see ourselves as others see us, we would all do much better.

Anyway, thank you for sticking with it. Your post here is exactly what I am looking for. Thanks for that.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

When I said “we are not going to debate Calvinism here” I mean in this post. The post isn’t about theology per se, it is about a political conflict amongst those who are fundamental Baptists. You are trying to turn it into a discussion of Calvinism with your comments. I’m not interested. If you have something to say about the political dispute, you will be approved. But this post isn’t about theology.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

It was such a poorly thought out sermon mainly due to the complete misinterpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 along with other points.

[OXnote: balance of comment deleted - We are not going to debate the finer points of interpretation or get into a Calvinist-Arminian war here. The passage is open to interpretation. The Calvinist viewpoint is well known as is the Arminian viewpoint. Sweatt's message obviously tends more in the Arminian direction, but he managed to even express that clumsily. Regardless he is entitled to his opinion and he is entitled to preach it.

But let me repeat, we are NOT going to turn this into a Calvinist-Arminian debate.]

But you are right, this isn’t the end game.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Well, I read the FBFI statement and thought it was nicely and judiciously put. However, I also sensed a subtle rebuff of Bauder.

I’m sure the Cals won’t find much comfort in the statement. After all, it really doesn’ cough up the blood they wanted. And I’m also sure we haven’t heard the end of this.

Have a good one!

tjp

Thanks so much for your comment. I should be clear about Danny Sweatt’s message. In the particulars he was extremely clumsy and often wrong. But I think the particulars were not his real message, just his clumsy attempt to get his message out. More on that below.

But you are absolutely right in your assessment, especially your last two paragraphs. This line is very good:

Isn’t fundamentalism about foundational principles and our willingness to defend them?

One of the terms du jour is ‘God-centeredness’ as opposed to ‘man-centeredness’. It is highly ironic that those who use the term ‘God-centered’ the most are those who so slavishly follow men.

Back, however, to the Sweatt message and Bauder’s comments. I do agree that we shouldn’t rely on the giants of the faith (so called). And certainly a number of the names put forward by Sweatt were incredibly dumb to name as ‘heroes’ or ‘giants’ or whatever term he used. Nevertheless, Bauder in his comments seems to lump Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. in with the rest of them and seems to slur him as one of the heavy burdens fundamentalism has had to bear. I can’t imagine a more wrong-headed and offensive remark, if he meant to include Dr. Bob in his rant against ‘these leaders’. As I said, without a Dr. Bob, there would be no fundamentalism to speak of today.

It was funny to me to read one of the many comments where someone was posting about the failings of the various leaders mentioned. The worst he could say about Dr. Bob was his prayer against Al Haig, then the Secretary of State, for his refusal to allow Paisley to come to preach at Bible Conference. I was there when that prayer was made. It was rather electrifying. And six months later (or so) there was a new Sec State. So??? And by the way, this horrible offense in the mind of the commentator was done out of love and loyalty to a (gasp) Calvinist — Paisley. Isn’t that ironic in light of our brouhaha?

As for Danny Sweatt, while his particulars were clumsy, I agree with his message. Here is what I think he was trying to say: We don’t want to alienate young men, we want to keep them. But blamed if we are going to agree that in order to keep them every one of us is going to have to throw over his theological system! We should be able to work together.

I think he got carried away in sour hurt that comes from the constant subtle criticism of the neo-Calvinists that unless you see things their way, you don’t know or understand the Gospel. That does get a little old, but attacking it the way he did distracted from the main gist of his message. [Edit: that is not to say that 'sour hurt' is the right way to respond. It is understandable, but still not right.]

And in the end, I really don’t believe that it is Calvinism that is the problem with the FINOs. It is a symptom, not a cause. I really don’t care what your soteriology is, as long as you believe in justification by faith alone in Christ alone. But the problem with FINOism is that they really don’t want to be militant against worldliness or religious compromise. So in the end, going after Calvinism so strongly does miss the target. (And, BTW, I am happy to take credit for FINO, it is my term, I invented it, and am quite proud of it. I know, pride’s a sin…)

Finally, with respect to the entry of Bauder into this controversy, I think he is wrong to do so because we should be able to speak our mind (as long as we don’t promote heresy) in our meetings without fear of censure. Should we muzzle Calvinists in FBF pulpits from saying anything critical about non-Calvinists? Or about non-Calvinism? I don’t think so. I think I am a big enough boy to allow them to have their say. So why shouldn’t the other side have its say? It’s a mystery to me.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I think I’m only partially in agreement with you here. When it comes to calling out the names of “heroes of yesteryear” I think we often get ourselves into trouble, especially if we pass off their failures like they’re “no big deal”. I think Dr. Sweatt did a pretty good job bungling that. He basically went out of his way to say “if you weren’t there, you don’t get to comment”. I think that’s silly at best and downright stupid at worst.

It seems to me Bauder was trying to say that relying on “giants” of the faith is a bad idea, especially when we defend or justify their every action. Some of the big Jones Sr. and Hyles fans do that all the time.

On the other hand I kept getting the feeling this was none of Bauder’s business. So…I think you’re right, he seems to be agitating for something new. At the same time he contradicts himself a bit by saying the fundamentalists he grew up with were “right on”.

I keep saying over and over that modeling your ministry after one “big name preacher” or the next is a bad idea. We need to stop hanging our hats in one camp or the other in that way. Isn’t fundamentalism about foundational principles and our willingness to defend them?

I think the folks who are following the flavor of the month conservative evangelicals are doing the same thing, defending their every action with white hot heat. Bad idea on both sides. Is that the crux of the argument or am I nuts?

Chris

P.S.

There’s a hat tip for you in the comments on my latest post for the acronym FINO. This is the first place I saw it.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3