<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bauder to FBF Leaders: &#8220;If you wish to model the kind of fundamentalism that really is worth saving, then the time has come&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://andynaselli.com/theology/bauder-to-fbf-leaders-if-you-wish-to-model-the-kind-of-fundamentalism-that-really-is-worth-saving-then-the-time-has-come/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://andynaselli.com/theology/bauder-to-fbf-leaders-if-you-wish-to-model-the-kind-of-fundamentalism-that-really-is-worth-saving-then-the-time-has-come</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Exegetical, Biblical, Historical, Systematic, and Practical Theology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:35:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: A thought on the fundamentalist debate &#171; Bound by Mercy</title>
		<link>http://andynaselli.com/theology/bauder-to-fbf-leaders-if-you-wish-to-model-the-kind-of-fundamentalism-that-really-is-worth-saving-then-the-time-has-come/comment-page-1#comment-2041</link>
		<dc:creator>A thought on the fundamentalist debate &#171; Bound by Mercy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 19:47:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andynaselli.com/theology/?p=2005#comment-2041</guid>
		<description>[...] May 18, 2009 Posted by Jon Deedrick in Uncategorized.  trackback  Kevin Bauder is right. After learning of Danny Sweatt&#8217;s comments on the direction of fundamentalism, my emotions [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] May 18, 2009 Posted by Jon Deedrick in Uncategorized.  trackback  Kevin Bauder is right. After learning of Danny Sweatt&#8217;s comments on the direction of fundamentalism, my emotions [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Naselli &#187; Blog Archive &#187; An Example of a Fundamentalism Not Worth Saving</title>
		<link>http://andynaselli.com/theology/bauder-to-fbf-leaders-if-you-wish-to-model-the-kind-of-fundamentalism-that-really-is-worth-saving-then-the-time-has-come/comment-page-1#comment-2040</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Naselli &#187; Blog Archive &#187; An Example of a Fundamentalism Not Worth Saving</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 17:53:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andynaselli.com/theology/?p=2005#comment-2040</guid>
		<description>[...] Bauder to FBF Leaders: “If you wish to model the kind of fundamentalism that really is worth savin... [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Bauder to FBF Leaders: “If you wish to model the kind of fundamentalism that really is worth savin&#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Naselli &#187; Blog Archive &#187; John Piper on Kevin Bauder&#8217;s &#8220;A Time to Speak Up&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://andynaselli.com/theology/bauder-to-fbf-leaders-if-you-wish-to-model-the-kind-of-fundamentalism-that-really-is-worth-saving-then-the-time-has-come/comment-page-1#comment-2034</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Naselli &#187; Blog Archive &#187; John Piper on Kevin Bauder&#8217;s &#8220;A Time to Speak Up&#8221;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 11:33:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andynaselli.com/theology/?p=2005#comment-2034</guid>
		<description>[...] John Piper commends Kevin Bauder&#8217;s &#8220;A Time to Speak Up&#8220;: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] John Piper commends Kevin Bauder&#8217;s &#8220;A Time to Speak Up&#8220;: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Can fundamentalism be reasonable &#171; God Is My Constant</title>
		<link>http://andynaselli.com/theology/bauder-to-fbf-leaders-if-you-wish-to-model-the-kind-of-fundamentalism-that-really-is-worth-saving-then-the-time-has-come/comment-page-1#comment-2033</link>
		<dc:creator>Can fundamentalism be reasonable &#171; God Is My Constant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 08:37:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andynaselli.com/theology/?p=2005#comment-2033</guid>
		<description>[...] by Albert   That is the basic &#8220;gist&#8221; of a recent article by Kevin Bauder as noted by Andy Naselli and John [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] by Albert   That is the basic &#8220;gist&#8221; of a recent article by Kevin Bauder as noted by Andy Naselli and John [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seth Meyers</title>
		<link>http://andynaselli.com/theology/bauder-to-fbf-leaders-if-you-wish-to-model-the-kind-of-fundamentalism-that-really-is-worth-saving-then-the-time-has-come/comment-page-1#comment-2030</link>
		<dc:creator>Seth Meyers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 May 2009 13:51:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andynaselli.com/theology/?p=2005#comment-2030</guid>
		<description>As I read Bauder&#039;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&#039;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&#039;s comments are received by others.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I read Bauder&#8217;s treatment of what sounds like a sad, silly chapter, I wondered why so many fundamentalists hate Reformed soteriology. </p>
<p>Our hatred or love of a thing should be directly proportionate to that teaching&#8217;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. </p>
<p>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? </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>I am interested to see how Bauder&#8217;s comments are received by others.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Phillips</title>
		<link>http://andynaselli.com/theology/bauder-to-fbf-leaders-if-you-wish-to-model-the-kind-of-fundamentalism-that-really-is-worth-saving-then-the-time-has-come/comment-page-1#comment-2029</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Phillips</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2009 15:21:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andynaselli.com/theology/?p=2005#comment-2029</guid>
		<description>Ah, I think I see. It&#039;s evidently based on the premise of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/AACCS.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;.

In the words of Emily Litella, &quot;Never mind.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, I think I see. It&#8217;s evidently based on the premise of <a href="http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/AACCS.htm" rel="nofollow">this</a>.</p>
<p>In the words of Emily Litella, &#8220;Never mind.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Phillips</title>
		<link>http://andynaselli.com/theology/bauder-to-fbf-leaders-if-you-wish-to-model-the-kind-of-fundamentalism-that-really-is-worth-saving-then-the-time-has-come/comment-page-1#comment-2028</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Phillips</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2009 14:46:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andynaselli.com/theology/?p=2005#comment-2028</guid>
		<description>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 &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; the central defining marks of the fundamentalism of which he approves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, that really is good. Good catch, and thanks for sharing it.</p>
<p>I only wish he had given a brief summary of what he thinks <i>are</i> the central defining marks of the fundamentalism of which he approves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
