Beale on Broader Evangelicalism

[Don Johnson] But that is not all, Bethlehem Baptist is part of a denomination that is (or was) home to Open Theism. As far as I know, they never expelled these false teachers.

Piper was on the forefront of exposing and rebuking Open Theism!

https://www.desiringgod.org/books/beyond-the-bounds

Also Coverge is no more of a denomination than the GARBC is!

Did they expel them?

the Baptist General Conference (Converge) is much more of a denomination than the GARBC is, though both are too denominational for me.

“Josh, I haven’t read Naselli’s book either. The content of the book is not the main issue.”

It is when you are referencing his positions not just his practice. He specifically addressed his dissertation here:

“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.”

He wrote a PhD on Keswick theology, a book, a popular level book, and has lectured extensively on it. It’s not like we have to really grasp to understand what he is saying. He is mischaracterizing his position.

Go back and listen to the DBTS lectures from years back and you can hear McCune make the same criticisms of Keswick theology. He appears to not even be trying to understand what he is saying. I don’t agree with Naselli’s associations either; but how about not slandering the man and actually representing him accurately? Same goes for the OPC. Dr. Beale apparently doesn’t understand basic reformed theology but he is criticizing a seminary for fellowshipping with “apostate” OPC churches.

First, Dr. Beale has a good grasp of theology. He taught History of Doctrine for years. He knows the theology.

Second, I tend to agree in general with criticisms of Keswick theology, however I wouldn’t be as extremely opposed to it as I gather Naselli is. It has great flaws, but some great Christians taught it, or at least forms of it, and did a lot of good for the kingdom. D. L. Moody, Hudson Taylor, and others. So though I don’t embrace it myself, I find it hard to make a blanket condemnation.

In any case, Dr. Beale’s concerns on that point are rooted in Naselli’s dissertation, which he would have access to. I haven’t seen the dissertation, so I can’t comment on his characterization of that. Perhaps if someone has, they can clarify the point.

I have heard of more strongly Reformed minded young men (mostly young men) criticizing any kind of invitation after a service as either Keswick or Pelagian or Arminian or whatever the “pejorative-du-jour” is. In light of this, I find it plausible that Naselli might criticize them as such.

Anyway, I’m off. Grandkids time.

If he has a good grasp on theology he has apparently forgotten it.

“It has great flaws, but some great Christians taught it, or at least forms of it, and did a lot of good for the kingdom. D. L. Moody, Hudson Taylor, and others. So though I don’t embrace it myself, I find it hard to make a blanket condemnation.”

The same is true of non-separatism and you (rightly) condemn it. The rightness of a theology is not judged by its adherents but by its biblical support.

Naselli’s dissertation was turned into the book. Not sure how different it is but it sounded like it was very similar. I’ve read the book twice and listened to the lectures a couple times as well. I’ve also compared his arguments with others (McCune, Warfield, etc.) and they seem to be in the same general vein. In any case, the book is quite detailed and has around 2000 footnotes, if I remember correctly. Plenty there to understand.

I’m not here to defend Naselli. I think I stated that I think some of his associations are lamentable. But his positions aren’t defined what other “strongly reformed minded men” say. They also aren’t defined by the kind of claptrap that Beale is putting out.

More concerning to me is the list of “apostate” churches. I hope that someone who knows and loves Dr. Beale will help him to rethink some of his more outlandish statements.

Enjoy your grandkids!

MODERATOR NOTE: Keep this thread on BJU and the related issues there.

I haven’t read through all of the allegations against Andy Naselli, but what I have read indicates that a major part of what he’s in trouble for is some rather forcible enforcement of a local orthodoxy against those who would dare to question it—which is exactly the pattern that BJU has followed over the years (and may be repenting of in part), and it’s exactly the thing that Beale is doing.

Now as someone who separates himself from various parties in the church—liberal churches on the left and the KJVO/Trail of Blood/love them rules people on the right—I’m not totally against the notion that certain arguments and beliefs would place you “outside the acceptable range of views” at seminaries, churches, clleges, and the like. I think the key trick is to be up front about it, and even more importantly, to be Biblical about the matter.

All in all, not being a believer in secondary separation, I’m not terribly impressed by Beale’s list, to put it mildly. Not much of it has anything, IMO, to do with the Gospel, and if BJU is indeed walking away from that brand of fundamentalism, all I can say is Halleluiah!

[Bert Perry] All in all, not being a believer in secondary separation, I’m not terribly impressed by Beale’s list, to put it mildly. Not much of it has anything, IMO, to do with the Gospel, and if BJU is indeed walking away from that brand of fundamentalism, all I can say is Halleluiah!

BJU’s separation was clearly secondary, and my take right here is that they missed the major issue with Graham’s ministry, which was that they were “getting decisions”, but largely failing to follow up and make disciples. It’s more or less a reality that by focusing on secondary and tertiary issues, they missed the big, primary issue.

And really, that’s one BIG reason I tend to separate from some on the “theological right”. Little things become fundamentals, and hence the big things—the actual fundamentals—get sidetracked. It’s why Doug MacLachlan used to talk about the left ditch and the right ditch.

Just for clarification, do you believe that BJU’s separation from Billy Graham was primary or secondary separation? Legitimate or not?

BJU’s separation from BG was secondary separation. (Separation from a Christian (BG) who himself refused to separate from apostasy.) Part of the confusion resulted from the fact that a lot of “us” treated it as primary an, in turn, treated BG as an apostate.

Got it - BJU’s separation from BG was secondary separation.

To Bert (or Ron or anyone else if interested), do you agree that BG gave Christian recognition to those who denied the gospel? In other words, he regularly promoted people as Christian believers who were not based on their denial of fundamental gospel doctrine?

[AndyE] do you agree that BG gave Christian recognition to those who denied the gospel? In other words, he regularly promoted people as Christian believers who were not based on their denial of fundamental gospel doctrine?

The great BG error!

[AndyE]

Got it - BJU’s separation from BG was secondary separation.

To Bert (or Ron or anyone else if interested), do you agree that BG gave Christian recognition to those who denied the gospel? In other words, he regularly promoted people as Christian believers who were not based on their denial of fundamental gospel doctrine?

After reading about BG and his history I’ve come to this conclusion. First, BG had a weak doctrinal foundation influenced strongly by Finneyism (Finney’s Systematic Theology was the text for undergrad Bible Doctrines when BG was briefly at BJU) and was accepted at the places of his education, causing BG to be open to Pelagian and semi-Pelagian influences. In his early years he was comparable to Bob Jones Sr. and his fame surpassed that of Jones and Sunday. His great mistake was brought on by his naive pragmatism as he was willing to accept sponsorship from liberals and modernists to reach more people with the Gospel. I think he over-reacted to the harshness of militant fundamentalism and chose to show “love” by toleration of those that fundamentalists hated, including Roman Catholics. He refused to publicly and loudly condemn false teaching like the fundamentalists and, instead, gave them recognition with his silence as well as speaking positively about them. He did encourage converts to back to their liberal churches in hope (I think) that they would take the Gospel with them instead of “Coming out and being separate!” BTW, that practice was not always doomed to failure. I know of two instances where Graham converts went back to liberal churches and stirred up things enough to see the birth of new churches.

Ron, I was hoping for more of a yes or no. I think you tried to soften what he did with suggestions regarding his motives (“in hope [I think] that they would take the gospel…” and “chose to show love”) and root-causes (“had a weak doctrinal foundation” and “ mistake brought on by his naïve pragmatism”), but when you cut through all that, you finally do land on “gave them recognition with his silence as well as speaking positively about them.” So, I’m going to take that as a “yes” unless you don’t think that he gave people the impression that liberal and apostate unbelievers were actually Christians who believed the same gospel as himself.

I agree that BG’s actions gave people the impression that it was permissible to work with the enemy to accomplish something good. That is failure to practice 1st degree separation. i would attribute that to BG’s ignorance rather than personal malice and to his reaction to to what he perceived as an absence of love from the fighting fundamentalists with which he was familiar.