Gospel-Driven Separation

Jude“Earnestly contend for the faith.” This statement from Jude 3 has long been the battle cry of fundamentalist Christians, those who are willing to do “battle royal” in defense of biblical doctrine. Fundamentalists have rightly appealed to Jude as an example of a faithful defender of the faith. He willingly entered the fray for the sake of the truth, and he called on his readers (including us!) to join him. However, Jude’s epistle is not merely a call to arms, though it certainly is that. Jude provides us with a philosophy of ministry that includes—but is not limited to—defending the faith. Indeed, his epistle gives us a look at his own heart. Though we know comparatively little about this half brother of Christ, I admire him and relate to him. If we are willing to learn, Jude can teach us much regarding the role of the believer in a wicked world. In particular, he shows us what it means to love the gospel.

We Must Love the Gospel, Not the Fight (Jude 1–3a, 24–25).
Although Jude wrote primarily to encourage believers to defend the faith against false teachers, that was not his initial intent for the epistle. After a humble introduction of himself in verse 1 and a prayer for the spiritual blessing of his readers in verse 2, Jude expressed his love for the gospel in verse 3. Yes, he wrote a blistering attack against false teachers, but not before explaining that his first desire was to write a letter rejoicing in gospel truth—“I gave all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation.” And just as he began the book with a focus on the gospel, he ended it with one of the most glorious doxologies of the New Testament in verses 24–25:

“Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.”

Jude could be called a reluctant warrior. Given a choice, he would rather fellowship around the glorious truths of Christ’s work than engage in a fight. His delight was in the gospel. That fact is significant, for it is possible for fallen men—perhaps for fundamentalists, in particular—to relish conflict and take the gospel for granted. There are plenty of examples of ministries that focus almost exclusively on separation, that delight in perpetual skirmishes, or that live to make exposés of compromising brothers. Such ministries have lost their moorings and will eventually wither for lack of nourishment. They misrepresent our Lord. Make no mistake: Jude’s epistle offers no support for such squabbling. He was passionate about the gospel of Jesus Christ. All things being equal, his preference was to point his audience’s attention to the Savior.

We Must Love the Gospel Enough to Fight for It (Jude 3b–19).
Though I described Jude as a reluctant warrior, he was indeed a warrior. His love of the gospel was no weak-kneed sentimentality. He loved the truth and the church enough to confront error with shocking intensity and candor. We noted that he would prefer to fellowship around the gospel if all things were equal. Unfortunately, all things were not equal. Enemies of the gospel had arisen, and the danger they posed to the truth and the church required Jude to defend the faith rather than merely expounding it. The call to arms wasn’t his first choice of topics, but “it was needful” (v. 3). The immediate presence and deception of enemies—they had “crept in unawares”—demanded that Jude urge his hearers to join him in contending for “the faith once delivered to the saints,” a description of the entire body of revealed truth contained in the Holy Scriptures.

There is a time to fight. When that time arose, Jude would have been shirking his duty had he penned a positive letter regarding “our common salvation.” We too must be prepared for battle, particularly when false teachers are posing a direct threat to those under our spiritual care. Think of it this way: having a game night with your children is a good thing. However, to continue the game when an attacker enters your home would be foolish and cowardly. In the face of danger you must earnestly contend for your family—not because you relish a fight, but because you love your family! So it is with the gospel. We demonstrate our love for it not only by meditating on it, but by defending it.

Of course, defending the faith in our day includes the necessity of separation. However, it also requires direct opposition of error. Jude demonstrates this in verses 4 through 19. Space prohibits me from unpacking these verses, but suffice to say that Jude pulled no punches. He didn’t go looking for a fight, but he held nothing back once it commenced. He exposed the weak character and wicked conduct of the false teachers (vv. 4, 8, 10–16, 19). He appealed to Old Testament examples of apostasy (vv. 5–7, 11, 14), demonstrating that opposition to the truth is no new thing. He reminded his readers that the arrival of enemies should have been expected since the apostles repeatedly warned against them (vv. 17–18). Indeed, every New Testament book (with the exception of Philemon) warns against false teachers. We must be ready for them, and when they attack the faith we must valiantly defend it.

Before we consider the last point, I’d like to make a necessary application to our own time. Although Jude was describing a battle with blatant unbelief and not merely an intramural disagreement, there is a vital lesson to be learned from the fact that those who were perverting the gospel were found within the professing church. Defending the faith requires a great degree of discernment and boldness. Frankly, that may mean that the battle lines are drawn differently today than they were during the last 50–100 years when fundamentalists battled unbelieving modernists and compromising new evangelicals. Things are not so simple in our day. False teaching is no respecter of movements. Standing up for the truth will sometimes require that we defend the gospel from abuses within the ranks of professing fundamentalism. If we are honest—and if we are interested in defending biblical truth rather than fundamentalist turf—we must recognize that devastating errors are being promoted by professing fundamentalists including easy-believism, revivalism, a denial of the necessity of repentance, careless exegesis, mere externalism, graceless moralism, and KJV-onlyism. Indeed, there are professing fundamentalists who pose greater danger to gospel truth than some evangelicals!

Unfortunately, we’ve traditionally been hesitant to consider these facts when drawing lines of separation. Were a fundamentalist to appear on the platform of a well-known ministry in Los Angeles or Minneapolis, his compromise would be sternly corrected. However, were the same man to appear on the platform of a well-known ministry in Hammond, little or nothing would be said. At best, this is inconsistent. At worst, it betrays the fact that separation is sometimes an “us vs. them” issue rather than a truth issue. As a convinced separatist, this is a grief to me. That is emphatically not the spirit of Jude’s epistle, nor is it consistent with biblical teaching. I’m not suggesting that we broaden our fellowship to include evangelicals. However, I am saying that critiquing orthodox evangelicals even as we tolerate heterodox fundamentalists—because they are fundamentalists—is a denial of biblical separatism. If we believe that the Bible requires that we separate from error for the sake of the gospel and the good of the church, and it certainly does, then we must practice it consistently. We must earnestly contend for the faith, regardless of the tag worn by the one abusing it.

We Must Love the Gospel Enough to Proclaim It (Jude 20–23).
It is instructive that Jude ends his hard-hitting epistle by urging his readers to be attentive to gospel ministry. Jude did not urge the church to defend a relic or a principle, but to defend the very truth that they were actively applying to the lives of both believers and unbelievers.

First, he urged believers to prayerfully build themselves up in the holy faith (v. 20), the same faith he had urged them to defend (v. 3). Doing so would help keep them in the love of God as they looked forward to Christ’s merciful coming (v. 21). This point must not be missed: defending the truth must never distract us from strengthening ourselves and one another with it. I’m reminded of Nehemiah’s leadership when the returned exiles were threatened by their enemies. He urged them to be ready to defend themselves should an attack come, but he also insisted that they not stop building the walls of Jerusalem. He insisted, if you will, that they hold a sword in one hand and a trowel in the other (Neh 4:18). Those in our day who wield only a trowel will fail to protect the truth or the church, as broad evangelicalism perpetually reminds us. Conversely, those who wield only a sword will fail in their God-given task of proclaiming the whole counsel of God. The best long-term defense for God’s people in Nehemiah’s day was a sturdy wall, not just a sword! The same is true today. The best protection for the church is that it be intentionally built up in the most holy faith even as it is warned of apostasy.

Second, Jude urged believers to compassionately minister the gospel to the lost (vv. 22–23). Not all unbelievers are to be regarded as enemies. Most are not false teachers, but the victims of false teachers. They need to hear the truth. Perhaps God will graciously allow them to be pulled from the fire by the power of the gospel!

In short, fundamentalists should be known for ministering the whole counsel of God, not just for separation. To change metaphors, imagine a hospital that boasts that it is the national leader in surgical amputations. You’d be excused for seeking medical assistance elsewhere—preferably at a hospital which is known for promoting positive health, but which is also willing to take the most drastic of measures when necessary. Separation—the battle royal—must similarly be something we’re willing to engage in as needed, but never something that prohibits us from ministering the life-changing gospel to people in need.

Conclusion
We must search our own hearts and weigh our own ministries in light of Jude’s epistle. Do we delight in the gospel or in conflict? Do we love the gospel enough to defend it? Are we certain that we are defending the truth rather than merely the turf of our movement? Are we battling error regardless of who is promoting it? Are we proclaiming the truth in addition to defending it? If not, we are not obeying Jude’s epistle, which neither starts nor ends with its third verse.

Fundamentalism must continue to be a militant movement that is willing to defend the faith. We must also be passionate about the gospel of Jesus Christ—rejoicing in it, growing in it and extending it to the lost for the glory of God.

_____

This article was originally printed in the December 2007 edition of the OBF Visitor. Articles are available (after a 3-month delay) here, and subscription information can be obtained here.

Advertisements

27 Responses

  1. Chris, are you saying that each of these …

    easy-believism, revivalism, a denial of the necessity of repentance, careless exegesis, mere externalism, graceless moralism, and KJV-onlyism

    … descend to the depths of modernist heresies (denial of the virgin birth, inspiration, etc)? Or that they descend at least as far as those who would make common cause with such?

    If so, how so?

    And are all of these accurate assessments of what many on the “right wing” of fundamentalism preach and teach or are they caricatures?

    I know guys who are stronger than I am on some things that others might call “graceless moralism” or “mere externalism”, but I don’t believe for a moment that they are guilty of such. They call for a walk in the spirit and believe in biblical sanctification.

    I suppose there are some who are the demagogues that are vilified in the fundamentalist blogosphere. I would oppose them also, if I knew any. There is one Ruckmanite on the Island here who I won’t have anything to do with. I guess he is the only one I know.

    But in the meantime, the fundamentalist blogosphere is long on praise for men who are commending the Driscolls of the world and “pledging their blood brotherhood” with him. Should we be recommending men like this?

    Well, I guess that is more than enough for now. In the main I agree with your sentiments, but I wonder if your list of sins isn’t a little weak when it comes to the professing fundamentalist. Surely the ‘professors’ are far worse than this.

    Regards,
    Don Johnson
    Jer 33.3

  2. Don,

    Not to speak for Chris here, but I can see no compelling reason to differentiate substantially between the modernist heresies in general and items 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 on Chris’s list. (Though I should clarify that I would not indict every aspect of revivalism–just the manipulative “evangelistic” methodologies.)

    In other words, I believe those five theological aberrations are every bit as antithetical to the gospel as denial of the virgin birth, and perhaps even more so than a denial of inerrancy. I’ll concede that they don’t hit quite as close to the epicenter of the gospel in my thinking as the deity of Christ, the literal resurrection or substitutionary atonement.

  3. Sorry for the delayed response.

    Here’s what I originally said:

    “Standing up for the truth will sometimes require that we defend the gospel from abuses within the ranks of professing fundamentalism. If we are honest—and if we are interested in defending biblical truth rather than fundamentalist turf—we must recognize that devastating errors are being promoted by professing fundamentalists including easy-believism, revivalism, a denial of the necessity of repentance, careless exegesis, mere externalism, graceless moralism, and KJV-onlyism. Indeed, there are professing fundamentalists who pose greater danger to gospel truth than some evangelicals!”

    I’m not interested in splitting hairs over whether denying inspiration is more damning than denying the necessity of repentance, although I would say that both are probably worse than unwise alliances. At any rate, all are biblically indefensible, and all confuse the soul-saving message of the gospel. My point is this: I’m frustrated that fundamentalists tolerate extreme easy believism (such as the well-known pastor who told me that calling the unsaved to repent is a ‘false gospel’—his words!) within our ranks, then nit-pick about a guy like MacArthur because of his associations or music. I’m not defending MacArthur. I’m saying that we are hard on conservative evangelicals even when they are more orthodox than professing fundamentalists, to whom we give a free pass. It makes me think that our defense is too often of something other than the faith.

    I’m not asking that we give a pass to anyone—just that we stop doing so for fundamentalists. If we believe that separation is necessary (and it is), let’s separate from heterodox fundamentalists (which is a strange term, indeed).

    And BTW, the pastor who denied that repentance is part of the gospel message is not a Ruckmanite, nor is he a caricature I’ve made up. He’s a well known pastor and occasional conference speaker in FBF circles.

  4. Hi Chris

    Thanks for the response (and thanks to Ben too). It was a long day for me too!

    All right, so a well known pastor says that calling the unsaved to repent is a false gospel. I would agree that is wrong and should be condemned.

    So…

    I assume you are now prepared to name his name and call for his ouster? Or something?

    You see, here is where old dudes like me get cynical about articles like this. It is all a lot of smoke unless someone is courageous enough to stand up and be counted. To shine the projector on the culprit, as it were.

    What response am I supposed to have to this? Am I just to nod sagely and agree that fundamentalism is a mess and head to the next neo [scratch that] ‘conservative’-evangelical conference?

    … I have written and rewritten several closing paragraphs. I keep deleting them. I’ll just say this: note the word ‘projector’ above and remember complaints about lack of specifics.

    Separation is hard. Jesus said it breaks up families. I know that it does. It breaks up very friends. But it must be done.

    Right?

    Regards
    Don Johnson
    Jer 33.3

  5. Don,

    What passages are you thinking of when you say: “Jesus says separation breaks up families and very friends”?

    Thanks.

    Mark

  6. KJV Matthew 10:34 ¶ Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

    I suppose some might say this is not a separation passage. I think it is.

    Regards,
    Don Johnson
    Jer 33.3

  7. Don, I wrote an article suggesting that we make the gospel the main thing and that we exercise separation over doctrinal deviancy, whether within fundamentalism or without. You responded by denying that fundamentalism has serious issues which should be corrected (which isn’t surprising, but which you know is ridiculous) and by turning the discussion into a “gotcha.”

    Nice. Score a point for Don.

    Meanwhile, your refusal to acknowledge either the legitimacy of the article’s point or the need to address problems within rather than merely lobbing grenades at “neos” (e.g. your previous statements about Mahaney) is exasperating.

    I may make a post about my friend’s error. I think he’s off on the doctrine of repentance (which is central to the message of the gospel), and he’s been public about it. I think many others are off on it as well, and a critique of his position is probably in order. But I’m not going to drop his name here based on a dare or simply to satisfy you.

    Now, if you’d like to engage the article’s point rather than looking for a loose thread to pull, feel free. Based on the way you normally address discussions about fundamentalism and evangelicalism, I’ll not hold my breath.

    Earnestly contend for fundamentalists.

  8. Chris wrote:
    “Now, if you’d like to engage the article’s point rather than looking for a loose thread to pull, feel free.”

    Love that analogy. Wish I’d thought of it when I’ve experienced your sentiments. Mind if I borrow it?

  9. Uh…sure. Just don’t use it on me.

  10. Don,

    The passage you presented seems to support Chris’s point in the article.

    Chris,

    I appreciated your article, particularly the following statement:

    “Were a fundamentalist to appear on the platform of a well-known ministry in Los Angeles or Minneapolis, his compromise would be sternly corrected. However, were the same man to appear on the platform of a well-known ministry in Hammond, little or nothing would be said. At best, this is inconsistent. At worst, it betrays the fact that separation is sometimes an “us vs. them” issue rather than a truth issue”

    I have thought and said this exact phrase countless times in the past couple years.

    I must tell you, your writing and thinking is a tremendous encouragement to me. When I contemplate totally abandoning the “fundy ship”, voices like yours encourage me to put my life vest back in the bench and earnestly contend for what’s really worth earnestly contending for :)

    Thanks.

  11. Chris,

    I thought the whole point of blogging was to pull on those loose threads. If you stop people from doing so, you’ll shut down the whole blogosphere. Good luck with that. :)

    As to your point, I think we should expect to have to deal with problems within our own movement and churches. After all, the Scriptural warnings often deal with those who creep in unawares (Jude 1:4) or false brethren unawares brought in (Gal 2:4). Peter was an insider and Paul had to deal with him. So, identifying issues within our movement is just a part of being ever vigilant.

    I also think it is helpful to deal with the subject in terms of guarding the gospel. It shows that separation is not just some minor issue that we can ignore when it becomes inconvenient. Separation is crucial so that the truth of the gospel might continue with us (Gal. 2:5).

  12. Ben,

    I am sure you are meaning it to be humorous in a sarcastic way, but I find your comment about Chris’s line troublesome. Chris did not do what he is correcting here. His comments were directly to the point that you were making.

  13. Not sure I follow here. I think I’m in complete agreement with Chris here. He may not be in complete agreement with with my comment, but I’m certainly not assuming he is or in any way suggesting he’s unfairly marginalizing my point.

  14. Hi Chris

    I have been gone all day again, so another late reply.

    I sense your exasperation. I am not trying to be exasperating. (I guess it just comes naturally.) But please do note this from my first response:

    In the main I agree with your sentiments, but I wonder if your list of sins isn’t a little weak when it comes to the professing fundamentalist. Surely the ‘professors’ are far worse than this.

    I really would like to agree with you wholeheartedly on your article. As I went through it, I was saying yes, this is true. Then I came to the line I quoted. …

    Can you see at all how it sounds to me? It sounds like the same old refrain we hear again and again. It didn’t sound to me like things that are nearly as serious as denials of the fundamentals of the faith.

    Notice what Ben said in his first reply to me:

    In other words, I believe those five theological aberrations are every bit as antithetical to the gospel as denial of the virgin birth, and perhaps even more so than a denial of inerrancy. I’ll concede that they don’t hit quite as close to the epicenter of the gospel in my thinking as the deity of Christ, the literal resurrection or substitutionary atonement.

    I am a little confused by Ben’s comment, but please note that even Ben seems to be saying that these aberrations (although he didn’t include all of your list) aren’t quite as close to the center of the gospel as other doctrinal problems might be. My confusion with his answer lies in his seeming relegation of the virgin birth to a somewhat secondary position… I would think it equates with the others, but…

    Anyway, my point here is that I am having trouble seeing at least some of this list of sins as seriously as denials of the cardinal doctrines.

    You see, I agree that we need to hold so-called fundamentalists feet to the fire as well. I agree with the point of your article.

    But… I guess you are saying that our attacks on conservative evangelicals are equivalent to this list and we need to attack our fundamentalist brethren who make these errors? Is that it? Or would you rather use a word other than attack?

    In your reply, you bring up an example of someone who is making a bad statement. I am not trying to bait you or get you to “out” this guy, or what have you. I am trying to point out that you seem to be doing something you criticized the editor of the Projector of not so long ago.

    Anyway, it is obvious that I have offended you. I am sorry for that, though I don’t think I have asked any question insincerely nor has it been my intent to offend. If you would simply rather I not post at all here, please let me know and I’ll go away.

    I love you in the Lord, brother, and hope that we can meet in the flesh one day this side of glory.

    Regards
    Don Johnson
    Jer 33.3

  15. Don,

    Just to clarify, I said the five I pulled from Chris’ list aren’t as central to the gospel as some of the historic “fundamentals.” I did say they’re as central as one and perhaps more central than another.

    But even though my opinion is that they are less central doesn’t mean that right doctrine on these matters (or the virgin birth) is not essential to the gospel. In other words, I do believe that graceless moralism is utterly incompatible with the gospel.

    If I’m being unclear here, please let me know and I’ll try to clarify more.

  16. Ben, if I understand Dr. Doran correctly, he’s referring back to the conversation about chapel, etc. at your place, apparently assuming that you were, too.

  17. Don,

    I’m not looking for a fight with you, brother. I’ve appreciated your interaction, though at times you leave me ready to abuse my computer like the guys in the “bad day” thread from a while back. It seems that saying anything negative about fundamentalism or anything positive about evangelicals is abhorrent to you. That’s precisely the mindset that leads me to say that we must defend the faith, not our turf. I don’t doubt your desire to do the former, and I appreciate you for it. I just think that you’re prone to the latter, as well. I too grow weary of illegitimate carping, but I believe that some straightforward self-criticism of our movement is essential.

    As for my list of errors, (a) I think they’re a significant problem within our movement (and outside of it, as well) and that we should address them vigorously, and (b) I never compared them to the problems of modernists that you listed (denial of inerrancy or the virgin birth, etc.). In context, I said (in the sentence following the list you cite) that the errors are more dangerous than the problems of some (not all) evangelicals. My point was that fundamentalists tolerate the errors I listed even while condemning right-wing evangelicals (like MacArthur, Dever, or Piper) who get those more crucial matters right!

    Put it this way (though I fear that the statement will be misunderstood): I think I have more in common with John MacArthur and Mark Dever than with most fundamentalists. I differ with them on applications of the separation issue and regarding applications of how the Christian should relate to the world, so we don’t cozy up with each other. I’ve not been asked to speak at Shepherd’s Conference or t4g, for example, and I’ve not asked them to preach here. But I definitely admire their ministries, albeit from “across the room,” and if I can take in good preaching at one of their conferences (much like I take in good instruction from their books or online resources), I’m not opposed to doing so. That’s a rare thing for me—to the tune of one time in my 36-plus years of life.

    On the other hand, there are professing fundamentalists with whom I have significant doctrinal disagreements, particularly regarding gospel issues (as I mentioned in the article). I’m not going to give them a free pass just because we both oppose CCM.

    At any rate, I know my response to you was rather curt. I meant what I said, but I don’t intend to be personal or hurtful. I’m sure we’ll have good fellowship when we meet someday, Lord willing.

    Your friend,
    Chris

  18. Mark,

    I praise the Lord that he’s using what’s printed here at MTC for your encouragement, friend. God is gracious!

  19. Hi Chris, thank you for your response. I understand the level at which you are placing these errors now.

    What I still don’t understand is why you think these are so serious. Perhaps you need to do an article on that? As I look at them, they are a mixed bag, some more serious than others, and some very subjective.

    Look, as I said, in the main I agree with you. We need to be critical of error within fundamentalism. That’s why I challenged you on this piece! Your list on the whole doesn’t seem that egregious to me. You say they are gospel issues. Fair enough. Show us. That’s all I’m asking.

    Regards,
    Don Johnson
    Jer 33.3

  20. […] Fifth, I must say that I found myself agreeing with many of the criticisms, or at least recognizing that they exist at least within large pockets of fundamentalism. I don’t deny, for example, that fundamentalists can be unnecessarily schismatic, can elevate secondary issues (like music) even while minimizing essential issues (like a stout soteriology), can focus on mere externals, etc. That last error—the overemphasis on secondary issues to the neglect of primary issues—is particularly prevalent, in my opinion. Johnson clearly expressed one of one of the concerns I voiced here: […]

  21. Chris,

    Have you really thought through the statement that “we must recognize that devastating errors are being promoted by professing fundamentalists including …KJV-onlyism. ” How in the world is believing that God has preserved all of His Words in the Masoretic/TR going to lead any Christian into heresy? I think you have lost your marbles here!

    Do you really think that those are KJVO such as Ian Paisley, Kent Brandenberg, Clarence Sexton, Looyd Streeter of PCC etc are on the “dangerous path to heresy” that characterizes the views of someone like Rick Warren. I imagine all of your minsiterial brethren at OBF who are KJVO will be interested to speak to you at your next meeting!

    Central and Detroit produceda book “One Bible” that attacked the KJVO brethren and two of that “scholarly group,” Denny and Pettegrew subsequently moved to openly Neo-Evangelical colleges to teach. I suggest you will not find anyone from teh KJVO tradition who openly makes such a seamless transition.

    You analysis is flawed and disturbing. Like Don Johnson stated, you need to come up with something more substantial and Biblical than throwing around your unfair adjectives about Fundamentalists that have a proven track record in faithfulness to the faith but are not influenced like you by your BJU pre-suppositions about the Critical Text.

    Do you agree with BJU’s Dr. Samuel Schnaiter, in his 1980 Ph.D. dissertation when he stated, “With regard to preservation, however, no Scripture explicitly declares anything of this sort of guidance to apply to the manuscript copyists as far as the precise wording of the text is concerned. Some have deduced such supernatural guidance from Scripture. They note passages that promise God’s Word shall never perish or be lost. However, such promises of preservation in view of the wording variations must apply only to the message of God’s Word, not its precise wording?”

  22. Sam,

    First, Detroit had nothing to do with the book you reference, so please get your facts straight.

    Second, there is nothing inherent in the belief that the Masoretic text and TR are God’s preserved Word that leads to KJVO position. And it is quite reasonable to say that anyone who claims that the KJV alone is God’s Word in the English language has crossed the line into an unorthodox position regarding inspiration.

  23. Sam, though it’s against my better judgment to reward your trolling:

    * I said that KJV-onlyism is a “devastating error.” I believe that.

    * I never mentioned Rick Warren. Where did that come from?

    * I’m not aware of anyone in the OBF who is KJVO. Our statement of faith says that we believe the Scriptures to be “inerrant in the original writings.”

    * I never mentioned any particular fundamentalists, and thus, my unnamed fundamentalists can have no track record of faithfulness to the faith. That said, I count myself to be a fundamentalist, and I appreciate the movement enough to try to point out its weak points and root out its errors. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend.”

    * Though I’m being asked to comment on a few sentences ripped from the context of a doctoral dissertation, yes, I think Schnaiter’s statement (as I understand it) is consistent with both the Scriptures and the facts of history.

    Now, I’ll not plan on keeping further comments on this issue up on my site.

  24. Chris,
    I loved the article. How often we get side tracked because of a loss of Scriptural perspective.

  25. […] “We must love the gospel, not the fight.” My Two Cents. […]

  26. […] the Christian soldier’s affections. I posted an article some time ago entitled “Gospel-Driven Separation” that insisted upon our being motivated by a love of Christ and His gospel as we […]

  27. […] separate from the portions of their movement and denominations which are unbiblical. As I said in this article, doing so would demonstrate that separation is about truth, not […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: