Bauder to FBF Leaders: “If you wish to model the kind of fundamentalism that really is worth saving, then the time has come”

Andy Naselli —  May 15, 2009 — 7 Comments

Time to Speak Up” is a bold, timely, provocative, sane word from Kevin Bauder that accomplishes at least three goals:

  1. refutes Danny Sweatt’s recent diatribe (cf. “An Example of a Fundamentalism Not Worth Saving“)
  2. assures young fundamentalists that “Sweatt does not represent historic, mainstream fundamentalism”
  3. challenges fundamentalist leaders (esp. in the FBF) to face this Calvinism-phobia (of which Sweatt’s diatribe is symptomatic) directly and promptly


  1. John Piper comments on Bauder’s article: “Good Breeze from a Fundamentalist Neighbor
  2. Justin Taylor in “Fundamentalism 101“: “Slandering fundamentalists is something of an acceptable pastime for evangelicals (not to mention the wider Christian commnunity and culture). But since slander is sin, we’re better off showing respect (even when we critique) and seeking to learn what we can.”

7 responses to Bauder to FBF Leaders: “If you wish to model the kind of fundamentalism that really is worth saving, then the time has come”

  1. Wow, that really is good. Good catch, and thanks for sharing it.

    I only wish he had given a brief summary of what he thinks are the central defining marks of the fundamentalism of which he approves.

  2. Ah, I think I see. It’s evidently based on the premise of this.

    In the words of Emily Litella, “Never mind.”

  3. As I read Bauder’s treatment of what sounds like a sad, silly chapter, I wondered why so many fundamentalists hate Reformed soteriology.

    Our hatred or love of a thing should be directly proportionate to that teaching’s clarity in Scripture. When arguing from the actual text of Scripture, doctrines like the Trinity, 6-day creationism, and the roles of women in ministry are not difficult issues because they are so clear.

    But is there any non-Calvinist arguing that the doctrines of grace are as evidently heretical as unitarianism? Is there no way a man can hold to inerrancy and still interpret Acts 13:48 monergistically?

    The issue is one of evidence and clarity. Many haters of Total Inability renounce it as if there is no evidence. We can do that with pluralism, but not with Reformation theology. As long as men use that kind of weak, rhetoric-born logic they can expect to be slowly abandoned.

    I am interested to see how Bauder’s comments are received by others.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks:

  1. Can fundamentalism be reasonable « God Is My Constant - May 18, 2009

    […] by Albert That is the basic “gist” of a recent article by Kevin Bauder as noted by Andy Naselli and John […]

  2. Andy Naselli » Blog Archive » John Piper on Kevin Bauder’s “A Time to Speak Up” - May 18, 2009

    […] John Piper commends Kevin Bauder’s “A Time to Speak Up“: […]

  3. Andy Naselli » Blog Archive » An Example of a Fundamentalism Not Worth Saving - May 18, 2009

    […] Bauder to FBF Leaders: “If you wish to model the kind of fundamentalism that really is worth savin… […]

  4. A thought on the fundamentalist debate « Bound by Mercy - May 18, 2009

    […] May 18, 2009 Posted by Jon Deedrick in Uncategorized. trackback Kevin Bauder is right. After learning of Danny Sweatt’s comments on the direction of fundamentalism, my emotions […]

Leave a Reply


Text formatting is available via select HTML.

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>