The doctrine of reconciliation is one which is understood generally by studied believers; however, there is considerable debate about the specifics of exactly what it means. The word itself simply means to completely change the position of something. In this case, it means to completely change everything to bring it into a position where God is propitiated, satisfied that His will is being done.

What does God mean when He says, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (II Cor. 5:19)? There are several acceptible views on this matter; which do not contain the idea that God reconciling the world must include the salvation of all lost people.

FIRST, there are those theologians who say that “the world” here does not mean every person in the world, but some people from all over the world, some from “all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues” (Revelation 7:9). This view is consistent with other scriptures. For instance, the Bible says that Paul’s ministry would result in an “obedience to the faith among all nations, for His name” (Romans 1:5). This view that some people from all over the world would be obedient to the faith is also consistent with scriptures which use “the world” to refer to a group of people from the world, but not every person in the world.

For example, when the Bible says, “Ye shine as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:15), who believes that this means that every person in the world is able to see our light (testimony)? Or, when Jesus said that the “gospel shall be preached in the whole world” (Matt. 26:13), who believes that He meant that every person in the world will hear the gospel? And, when the Bible says that “the gospel is come unto you as it is in all the world, and bringeth forth fruit” (Col. 1:6), surely Paul does not mean every person in all the world received the gospel and was now bringing forth fruit—at the very most, he could have meant that some people throughout the Roman world had received the gospel.

So, II Cor. 5:19, according to this view, does not have to mean that all lost people are going to be saved, and “the world” does not mean every person in the world.

SECOND, some theologians teach that there is a reconciliation of the entire world of man, but that that aspect of reconciliation saves no one. This view teaches that reconciliation is in two parts: 1.) a general part that changes the world to a position in which God could save those that believe, something which was an utter impossiblility unless Jesus died for the sins of the world; and, 2.) a specific part that comes to fruition at the time that a sinner believes, and his position is then changed from condemnation to salvation.

This second view seems to have been the teaching of L.S. Chafer. In his SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, VOL. III, Soteriology, he says, “The two aspects of reconciliation are best disclosed in II Corinthians 5:19-20. In verse 19, it is declared that the world (cosmos, which term is never by any stretch of exegesis made to represent the elect who are saved out of it) is reconciled to God.”

Chafer refers to the first aspect of reconciliation as “general reconciliation,” and to the second aspect as “specific” or “individual.” He says, “There are two aspects of reconciliation: one wrought for all by God in His love for the world and the other wrought in the individual who believes when he believes.”

Chafer explains the problem that arises: “It is assumed, thus, that general reconciliation is equivalent to general salvation. To avoid such a conclusion, it is asserted [by Chafer] that Christ died for only the elect.”

He continues, “It is evident, then, that whatever complete change is indicated for the cosmos, according to verse 19, it is not equivalent to the saving of anyone—elect or non-elect; [but] it has made the reconciliation of verse 20, which IS equivalent to salvation possible. . . .”

Chafer is saying that reconciliation is two fold, had two aspects. The first, a reconciling of the world is found in verse 19. And, the second, a reconciling of the individual believer, is found in verse 20. The first, being a general reconciling of the world, saves no one.

In chapter X, titled “For Whom Did Christ Die?” Chafer comes back to the subject of reconciliation and to II Cor. 5:19-20: “According to II Corinthians 5:19 there is a reconciliation declared to be world-wide and wrought wholly of God; yet in the verse which follows in the context it is indicated that the individual sinner has the responsibility, in addition to the universal reconciliation wrought of God to be reconciled himself to God. . . . The desideratum is not reached. . .until the individual, already included in the world’s reconciliation, is himself satisfied with that same work of Christ which has satisfied God as the solution of his own sin question. Thus there is a reconciliation which of itself saves no one, but which is a basis for the reconciliation of any and all who will believe. When they believe, they are reconciled experimentally and eternally, and become the children of God through the riches of His grace.”

According to this view of the meaning of “world,” only those who have faith in Christ are saved. Unbelievers are not truly reconciled.

THIRD, there is the view that “world” in II Corinthians 5:19-20 simply means that both Jews and Gentiles are being reconciled. Some people, especially Jews, would divide the entire world into these two groups. In this case, it is not every individual in the world who is reconciled to God, but some individuals from among both Jews and Gentiles. It is a way of saying that the Gentiles are not left out.

This view is certainly consistent with Ephesians 2:11-22. In that passage, Paul is writing to “Gentiles in the flesh. . .aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants. . .” (verses 11-12).

In the Church, the Jews and the “far off” (the Gentiles) are both reconciled, “made nigh by the blood of Christ” (verse 13). Christ has made “both one” (verse 14), both Jews and Gentiles being reconciled to God. Christ has made “one new man” (verse 15), which is the Church. Paul says that God has made this “one new man” (the Church) so that “He might reconcile both (Jew and Gentile) unto God in one body” (verse 16). In so doing, Christ made it possible for all men to have peace with God, both those who were “far off” (Gentiles) and those who were “nigh” (Jews) (verse 17).

In other words, the death of Christ placed the whole world, both Jew and Gentile, in a new position (reconciled), making it possible for sinners to be saved. Mankind and the entire universe was completely changed in position. This is reconciliation. But it did not automatically save anyone. As Chafer says, “The reconciliation of the world does not obviate the reconciliation of the individual” [SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY; VOL. III; p. 237].

To summarize this view, “God. . .reconciling the world unto himself” (II Cor. 5:19) means that Christ died and thus created the Church “that He might reconcile both (Jew and Gentile) in one body” (Eph. 2:16).

While each of the three above views of the world and of reconciliation has some elements to commend it, I do not hold to all that is taught by any of them. There is, I believe, an even better position. A fourth view is held by quite a few students of the Bible, myself included. It is the view that when Christ died, He guaranteed that the entire universe, both the world of men and the natural world, would one day be reconciled to God. It is also the view that reconciliation does not equal salvation. Reconciliation simply means that the position of all men and of everything in the natural world, the spirit world, and all else will be completely changed, so that everything will be brought into agreement with the will and purpose of God.

When all the people of God are in eternal bliss, when there is a new heaven and a new earth, when the curse of God is removed from creation, when the wicked are in the Lake of Fire, when the evil angels are in Tartarus, when Satan, the anti-Christ, and the false prophet are cast into Ghehena, and the lid has been put on the “garbage can,” then, and only then, will the universe be reconciled to God. Then, and only then, will “all things” be according to God’s will and purpose.

There is nothing in the Bible doctrine of reconciliation to suggest that every person in the world will be saved from sin, go to heaven, or have eternal fellowship with God.

Colossians 1:20-23 is the most complete treatment in Scripture of the subject of reconciliation:

VERSE 20: “And having made peace through the blood of his cross [and man can have peace with God only by being justified through faith in Jesus Who shed His blood on the cross. See Romans 5:1] by him to reconcile all things [all things, not just all people. "Things" is not in the Greek text, But, "all" ("pas") is, and the meaning of that word is "the whole." The context is that of all of creation. So, the translators have it right as "all things."] unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth or in heaven.”

Note: Some people, like J. Vernon McGee, point out that the above verse says things will be reconciled on earth and in heaven, but no mention is made of those under the earth, in Hell. This is pointed out because it is believed that reconciliation equals salvation and the fact that Hell is not mentioned might give some evidence against Universalism. However, the “all things” of verse 20 are the same “all things” that are found in verse 16 (three times), verse 17 (twice), and verse 18 (once), and the “all things” seems to be inclusive of all that God created.

The fact that “all things,” and not just all people, will be reconciled proves that reconciliation does not equal salvation. “All things” do not get saved. Only people can get saved, not the natural creation, nor even the angels.

Furthermore, Phil. 2:10-11 makes it clear that the time is coming “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”

Those words give us a very fine description of how “all things” are going to be reconciled to God, even those beings which are “under the earth,” in Hell. But it does not say that any get out of Hell after they bow their knees in Hell and admit that Jesus is Lord. They do not get out of Hell, because reconciliation does not equal salvation.

Paul continues in Col. 1:21: “And you [Christians], that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.”

That means that Christians have the position in Christ of having been completely changed (reconciled). Our experience is not yet that of being completely changed and being in complete conformilty to the will and purpose of God. Our practice falls far short of being reconciled. But, our position IN CHRIST is that of being reconciled. “In his sight” (v. 22) we are reconciled.

VERSE 22 gives us God’s definition of our personal individual reconciliation. God counts us to be just as we will be in that day when Christ presents us in heaven. That is our position. Paul says that we are reconciled “now” “In the body of his flesh [i.e., in Christ] through death [accomplished by His death] to present you [here comes the definition of our reconciliation] holy and unbameable and unreprovable in his sight.” (v. 22)

So, we conclude that reconciliation does not mean salvation. That is not the definition. Rather, it means to have a position completely changed. Bible reconciliation means that everything and everybody will be put in a position that glorifies God, that fulfills the will and purpose of God. For the Christian, this means being holy, unblameable, and unreprovable in His sight.

(2) He is mean spirited. He threatens those who dare differ with him. He blames everything on Geo Bush, which is unprecedented behavior for a sitting president. Meanwhile, Geo Bush is a decent human being, never criticizing Obama at all. This is a matter of principal with Bush. Yet, Obama continues to bash Bush. He learned this meanness in Chicago where the politicians are used to running things like a mob would do, giving offers no one can refuse and breaking the knee caps of any who voice a contrary opinion. Why do Americans think that he is a good speaker?

(3) He can not think on his feet. That is why almost everything he says is read from a teleprompter. It gets to be a joke. The other day he was speaking to an elementary school class and he had to have his teleprompter there. When he gets out of touch with his handlers, or if they forget to tell him to avoid certain obvious mistakes, he stumbles badly and makes horrific mistakes. An example is what he did the day of the shooting at Ft Hood, when 13 of our men in uniform were killed by an Islamic terrorist. The announcement was made that the president will make a statement, and when He came to the podium he spent the first 5 minutes giving “shout outs” and talking about mundane things. Guess his handlers forgot to tell him that this statement has a singular and solemn purpose and that he should only offer condolences to the families of the dead, comfort the wounded, promise to bring Justice, and assure the nation that due vigilance was being taken. This error was due to immaturity, a lack of gravitas, and a lack of common sense. The result was that our war dead were treated with disrespect and the incident was treated with less importance than it deserved.

(4) He talks in a monotone. Not only does he think that it is an effective way to speak if he talks as if he is mad all the time (which of itself leads to a monotone), he also “lectures” his audience and talks down to them in a most arrogant manner. This is very tiring. No matter what subject he is discussing, his voice is on the same pitch, same cadence, same speed, and same drop in volume on the last word of each sentence.

I think the president has an undeserved reputation as a great speaker simply because he reads the teleprompter accurately. He obviously thinks that he is a great speaker and that his talking can fix anything, so he tries to make a speech every day. I hope the American people will come to realize that it is not “great swelling words” that make an effective speaker but measured and sincere words matched by appropriate deeds. T. Roosevelt talked softly and carried a big stick. Obama talks and talks and talks loudly and carries no stick at all.

Why is Social Security a failure? First, because, if, at age 66, you had all of the money you paid to SS, plus interest, you would have far more than the average person ever collects from SS. And, you would still have enough money left over to purchase an annuity to give you a SS-like income after your savings is expired.

Secondly, remember, that you now pay 12.4% of your income to SS. That is equivalent to paying to SS one full year’s salary out of every eight. If a worker’s wages are less than $106,800.00 per year, and he works from age 20 through age 67, SS will take the equivalent of 100% of that worker’s wages for seven of those years. Imagine that! Seven years labor to pay for Social Security. Most people never draw out of SS the amount they paid, plus interest. Those who die before age 62 get nothing back from SS except $200 toward their funeral. Most men are dead before age 70. Those who die at age 70 will have received less than $100k on average. Women tend to live longer, but their average monthly payments from SS are less than what men receive.

Thirdly, there have been many cuts in SS, contrary to what politicians would have us believe. Survivor benefits have been cut. Full retirement age has been raised. Eighty percent of benefits are now taxed by the Federal government and by some State governments. Cost of living payments have been suspended for at least the next two years. These are all cuts. Politicians do not want to admit that these are cuts because anyone favoring cuts in SS would not be reelected. So, they have brought these cuts in through the back door.

And finally, SS is broke. No surprise, with all of the government abuse of this program. If the President and congress cared as much about our seniors as they do about the irresponsible big banks, the radical false environmentalists, and the greedy automobile labor union executives, they would find money to rescue SS and medicare.

Government’s mishandling of SS and medicare is typical of the ineptitude and inefficiency of any government bureaucracy. It would not be any different with government run health insurance.

If the SS taxes had been saved and invested instead of raided and spent, how much better it would have been. Through the magic of compounding, the money paid into the system, over the 45-50 years of the average beneficiary’s working career, would have been so great that SS would be solvent, and no one would have found a reason to make cuts.

As it stands today, SS is certainly an example of poor goverment planning and poor government management. Government management of our health care would be even worse. It would be a disaster.

Medicare is a similar example of mismanagement. It is unfair to medical providers, approving only a fraction of the cost of treatments and diagnostics. The result is that medicare patients and the taxpayers are the losers.

How are patients the losers?

1. Patients may have trouble finding a doctor. Doctors, and other providers, are losing money on medicare patients. Therefore, some doctors will not take any more medicare patients. Probably all doctors will keep all of their patients who turn 65 and go on medicare. But, if the patient moves, or for any other reason, is looking for a new doctor, he may not be able to find one
2. Medicare patients may not be able to go to the doctor of their choice. They can only go to a doctor who will agree to take them as patients.
3. Medicare patients may not be able to get the tests, treatments, or surgeries that their doctor says they need. Medicare decides what procedures it will cover. Of course, private insurance companies also decide what procedures they will pay for, but these decisions must be according to the policy, and the patient can shop for the best policy. The medicare patient does not have that option.
4. There is another way that medicare patients and all tax payers are the losers. When hospitals and other providers are forced to take less than the procedures cost, the real high cost is passed on to other insured patients, and, in the case of public hospitals, to the tax payers. This, in turn, drives up the premiums on all private health insurance. This premium busting cost is often overlooked. Indeed, the liberals are now using the cost of health insurance as an excuse for a “government option.” This is ironic because the Federal government is one of the biggest reasons for the high cost of private insurance.
   

And now, Mr. Obama is saying that he plans on helping to pay for government health insurance for all Americans by taking the “waste” out of medicare, five hundred billion dollars of “waste.” By “waste,” he means those “unnecessary tests and procedures” that our doctors think we need to keep us alive and keep us walking. Obama and the liberals in Congress do not believe that seniors are worth the expense to the medicare system (which the seniors bought and paid for). To Obama, it is a “waste” to keep these old, non-productive people alive.

The Federal government is breaking faith with its seniors. Social Security and medicare are “bait and switch” programs because the rules have been changed in the middle of the game. These programs are not what seniors thought they would be, and not what seniors were told that they would be at the time that those seniors were forced into them.

These programs are no longer what seniors paid for. America is indeed turning its back on its seniors.

Now the liberals want the government to take over the entire health care insurance business and the entire health industry. Those liberals want a government panel to decide health care standards and treatments for the various “classes” of people. They want the government to have power to hand out penalties to individuals, employers, insurance companies, and providers that do not do as government wants. They want a Federal Health and Insurance Commissioner with enormous, unimaginable power.

If it becomes a reality, the “government option” and government health care program will be a bigger failure than Social Security and medicare combined.  (9/23/09)

“FACT #1:  Medicare will not be ended, and no benefits or services will be cut.”

My Response:  There is no final bill as yet.  It is still a work in progress, and no one knows exactly what will be in it.  So, neither AARP nor anyone else knows if Medicare will be ended or cut.  What some members of congress have suggested, however, is that there should be a new federal health insurance and that people presently receiving Medicare should be shunted into that new program.  The idea is that all of the problems with Medicare could thus be solved.  In that case Medicare would end.  The real question is:  Will America break faith with its Seniors?  After all, Seniors bought and paid for Medicare.  Will there now be a “bait and switch?”  Medicare should be looked upon as a form of annuity, a financial instrument that is bought before the time of need.  If seniors had not been forced to buy Medicare, they might have had money to buy some other plan.  There have already been many cuts in both Medicare and Social Security, and there are many in Congress who want to make more cuts in benefits.

“FACT #2: No legislation currently in Congress would mandate the rationing of care.  Period.”

My response: Of course there isn’t.  Why would anyone in Congress write that into a bill?  The real question is:  Will rationing be the logical consequence of national health insurance?  The answer is, YES.  Under a national health insurance program, providers (Doctors and hospitals) would be told that the pay schedule for various procedures will be so much, about 1/3 of what the providers are now charging.  The consequence of the government’s pay schedule will be that in the future there will be fewer and fewer providers, and far fewer QUALITY providers.  You ask, “How do you know that the government program will pay far less than Doctors now paid?”  Answer: Because that is what has happened with Medicare.  The result of having fewer providers will be rationing of health care.  It is inevitable.   In every socialist country, this is what has happened!  Nationalized care leads to a cut in remuneration for providers, and that leads to rationing.

“FACT #3:  There is no provision of (sic) any piece of legislation that would promote euthanasia of any kind.”

My response: No.  It would take a real idiot of a Congressman to write something like that into a proposed bill, provided, of course, that he wanted it to pass.  The real question is:  Will the inevitable rationing of health care result in the government refusing to pay for procedures that might keep seniors alive?  Some in the Administration and in Congress are on record as being in favor of turning down care for old people when the money and resources are needed for young people.  These are the horrible realities of health care rationing.  Rationing can best be avoided by letting the free market system work, resulting in both young and old alike receiving the care they need.

“FACT #4:  We have not endorsed President Obama’s plan.”

My response:  Words are tricky, sometimes.  Endorsed? How about promoted?  Obama does not have a plan yet.  But is AARP pushing for a nationalized health care insurance program?  Yes.  And does Obama have AARP “in the tank” for a nationalized health insurance program?  Yes.  In fact, the President said as much yesterday.  The AARP leadership and Board does not speak for a majority of it’s membership on this.  That is why AARP is speaking out of both sides of it’s mouth on this issue.

FACT #5: “So what is AARP fighting for in health reform?  1. Stopping insurance companies from charging older Americans unaffordable premiums because of their age.  2.  Ending the practice of excluding people from insurance because of pre-existing conditions.  3.  Holding down health costs and making insurance coverage more affordable for all Americans.  4.  Making prescription drugs more affordable by narrowing the Medicare doughnut hole, bringing generics to market faster, and allowing Medicare to negotiate better drug prices.”

My response:  Comprehensive nationalized health care is not needed in order to achieve  these worthy goals.  These are worthwhile goals.  And you could add, 5. Give financial incentives to medical schools and prospective new doctors.   6.  Kick some of the illegal borderjumpers out of our country, because they are bleeding the health care system dry.  7.  Fix the tort system.   It should also be added that the 4th item above has already been achieved through the cooperation of the drug companies who are going to narrow the doughnut hole by making drugs cheaper for those who reach the $2,700 limit.  The other goals mentioned here could be reached with out having a nationalized health care system.  We do not need a government takeover of the health and insurance industries.

Dan Sweatt preached at an FBF meeting, at the Wilds, on April 6 & 7. He titled his sermon, “Young and Restless.” He is concerned that Baptist fundamentalism is losing so many young preachers who seem to be enamored by neo-evangelicals such as John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Al Mohler, and John Mac Arthur.

Sweatt’s concern is shared by many in fundamentalism. It is a concern which is enhanced by a survey of young fundamentalists conducted a few years ago. The survey results were reported on Duller Iron (that’s my name for it. Others call it Sharper Iron), an internet bulletin board. The survey revealed that a surprising number of young “fundamentalists” do not believe in a literal hell of fire where the lost will spend eternity; do not believe in any kind of separation, either personal or ecclesiastical, such as the previous generations of fundamentalists believed; and do not believe that some important doctrines must be held as true in order for a person to be considered a Christian.

It was also revealed in this survey that the young fundamentalists are having a love affair with Piper, Sproul, Mohler, MacArthur, and other neo-evangelicals.

Sweatt knows that the old “giants” of fundamentalism have been demonized in many college and seminary classrooms, and he regrets that the young fundamentalists know only the caricatures of those stalwarts of the Faith. Sweatt named some who were admired by him, but never admired by me.   I was never in Hyles’ fan club.  Roberson was a sweet man, but weak on separation.   I never cared for Bob Gray.   John R. Rice had a passion for souls, but was a theological train wreck.   However, Sweatt has a right to admire and defend these and other fundamentalists from that old generation if he so desires.   And since when does a preacher in fundamentalism have to apologize for his sermon?   That is what the boys on Duller Iron want–an apology.    This is the age of the politically correct apology,  when politicians are going around the world apologizing for our country and when people are apologizing for things their forefathers, or somebody else’s forefathers may have done.   In this case, no apology is needed.   When a sermon is preached and the shoe fits, take it off!  And if it does not fit, smile and go on with your life.

Incidentally, I have never had any heroes among the old preachers I knew, but I did admire some.   I greatly appreciated H. C. Slade, C. Woodbridge, D. Billington, M. R. DeHaan, N. Smith, and B. Jones (Sr. and Jr.).

Sweatt sees Piper, Sproul, Mohler, MacArthur, and others who are idolized by today’s young fundamentalists as EXTREME Calvinists. He believes these idols displace the Bible with a theological system; that their emphasis will not sustain church growth, or a durable movement; that they distort the Gospel.   Therefore, they make dangerous heroes for young fundamentalists, no matter that they have made worthwhile contributions, otherwise.

Kevin Bauder has written that Sweatt’s sermon was a “diatribe against Calvinism.” He declares that Dan Sweatt does not know the history of Calvinism. And besides, Bauder eschews the “giants” on Sweatt’s list. So, Kevin is asking the board of the FBF to do something to distance Dan and his ideas from the FBF.  According to Bauder, those on his  own list of people that he wanted to emulate were gentler, kinder, meeker, sweeter, and more fair than those on Sweatt’s list. Those on Sweatt’s list were bullies, according to Bauder. But none of those on Bauder’s list were bullies or empire builders, says he (“Bully” is a code word for those who “earnestly contend for the faith.”–Jude v. 3)   Strangely, Bauder never gets around to naming any of those men who were worthy of our admiration, the men who helped to make him into the sweet, gentle, meek, non-bully that he is today!

I have been acquainted with Kevin Bauder for about twenty years. He is an intelligent guy, but he has never been much of a fundamentalist, in my opinion. He has always looked at those to the left of him for approval.

I have known Pastor Dan Sweatt for about 45 years. He is an intelligent, dedicated, and talented man of God. He has legitimate concerns for fundamentalism. He may not have expressed his concerns in the best possible way. However, Bauder has given Dan’s statements the wildest possible interpretation, which always helps to win an argument, but it is not the sweet, gentle, meek, fair and non-bullying thing to do.

Bauder says that Sweatt does not know the history or the implications of Calvinism. But it is certain that Dan Sweatt knows a lot more about that history than Bauder gives him credit for.  We are not in much danger of knowledge and wisdom dying with Kevin.

Bauder excoriates Sweatt (in a gentle, kind, sweet, non-bullying way, of course) for saying, “It is difficult or impossible to judge a generation unless you have lived through it.” Well, of course, we know that we all have to make judgments about the principal people of every previous generation. But, surely Sweatt was simply saying that those who lived through a generation, and were well acquainted with some people have an advantage in understanding those times and those people. Bauder says he “remembers” all of the “giants” on Sweatt’s list, and he did not like them. But, Sweatt is about 20 years older than Bauder, and he does not simply remember those men who are now with the Lord, he KNEW them. They preached in his pulpit. He entertained them in his home, ate with them, fellowshiped with them.  And he sang in their meetings.   Sweatt knew them better, and he does not believe that the young Baptist fundamentalists have an accurate view of those men. Those young ministers have a warped and distorted view because of the ridicule heaped upon those old fundamentalists–heaped by people like Kevin Bauder.

Bauder accuses Sweatt of saying that Calvinism makes God the Author of sin. But, those who actually took the time to listen to Dan’s sermon know that this is a false charge. Dan actually said, “If we believe that God eternally decrees every thought, every word, and every deed, then we make God the Author of sin.”

So, Sweatt did not say what Bauder accused him of saying. Not every Calvinist believes that God eternally decrees every thought, every word, and every deed of all men.

It is obvious that Sweatt was talking about EXTREME  Calvinism. I know that Sweatt was not saying that there is no room in fundamentalism for Calvinists.  Calvinists have always been welcome in fundamentalism. Ian Paisley believes strongly in the sovereignty of God and in election to salvation, and he gets along  quite nicely in fundamentalism. H.C. Slade, Charles Woodbridge, Robert Ketchum, Richard Clearwater, Paul Jackson, Ernest Pickering, and David Otis Fuller were all strong electionists. And, all of these men were important pillars in fundamentalism. They were not EXTREME Calvinists. They could actually find some other subjects in the Bible in addition to election and predestination on which to preach. They did not act “hoyty-toyty” and “smarter than thou.”   They did not make up doctrines, such as, “You have to get regenerated before you can believe,” or “Prayer does not really change anything,” or “Every thought , word, and deed of every man was determined by divine eternal decree.” It was the EXTREME Calvinist heroes of the young fundamentalists to which Dan Sweatt was referring in his sermon.

Sweatt readily admits that his own generation as well as the previous generations of fundamentalists had their excesses. But, the young fundamentalists and those who attract them (neo-evangelicals) have their excesses as well. The young fundamentalists  would do well to keep this in mind.

Fundamentalism is changing,  just like Bauder says. It is changing in some places where we never expected it to change.  Some  of the changes are good, but not all of them. Most of the changes are coming about  because of what Dan Sweatt mentions in his sermon–we change because we are trying to satisfy our detractors on the left. We are looking for approval from a new batch of heroes. We want the neo-evangelicals to think we are educated, and flexible, and sweet, and gentle, and meek, and not a bully.

The Ascension

Important Last Words

A Post-Resurrection Appearance

Evidence for the Resurrection

Opened Things