FBFI: Questions for Matt Olson and Northland International University

that for the first time in my life (like-ly because I am not on fb), I just liked something. Yep, right here in this thread. Mark your calendars, folks; I could learn to like this. Liking is, like, awesome.

I knew Pastor Ian of Grace Bible Church when we studied together at BJU. If I am correct (and if he graduated on time), he would be the Class of 1999.

Ian was a leader, in the best sense of that word, on campus. He brought with him a refreshing spirit of revival. Most everyone who attended BJU during his time would remember him.

I do not know what kind of music Ian has at Grace Bible Church, but I think that we might be surprised how many people in “historic Fundamentalism” have held to similar views concerning the Holy Spirit.

I am confident that Ian is not a danger to Fundamentalism. He may not do things exactly the way that we like, but it is obvious that souls are being converted and Christ is being lifted up. I might not attend his church, but I would rejoice that others do. He is real.

That being said, perhaps a Fundamentalist institution of higher learning should have a higher standard. I do hold to the maxim that we as leaders should hold to a higher standard because those who follow us always fall short.

The point is that Matt Olson and NIU are not moving in the direction of the charismatic movement. They are not any closer the to charismatic movement than BJU, PCC. Ambassador, or any other school. Don and Lou have overblown the situation and a lot of unnecessary division comes to fundamentalism because of things like this.

Matt is orthodox. He stands on the word of God. He has parted ways with some fundamentalists on some secondary issues. Fundamentalism’s history is full of good men who have done the same thing.

If you disagree with him, fine. If you don’t want to go to NIU over it, fine. But to paint him out to be someone he is not is unfair, unkind, and unprofitable.

I personally would like to request that the FBFI take this article off of their site since they have repeatedly called for fundamentalists to exercise greater grace toward each other over the past decade or so. Remember when someone tried paint you all and BJU out to be a bunch of “compromisers” back in the 90’s? It’s not profitable. Please, let’s try to stop it. I have been guilty of this same kind of thing in the past and have had to learn the hard way. In times like these we need the Lord and we need each other.

Joel,

Don carefully documented the non-cessationist views of SGM and the cessasionist positons of NIU and pointed out the apparent inconsistency. You are a cessationist as taught by the likes of Rolland McCune, Gerald Priest, William Combs, Bob McCabe, Bruce Compton, and Dave Doran, not to mention all the profs at Central. You should be agreeing for the most part with Don’s article. Why the vitriol toward him? He clarified that this article was his own work and not the work of others, nor is he speaking for others.

Assuming that Matt is a truthful man, I don’t doubt that the positive things he said regarding Grace Bible Church are generally true. However, that does not eliminate these serious doctrinal concerns. Are there some IFB Churches that are more deviant doctrinally? Yes! Should we also write about those churches? Yes. But this article is dealing with a Christian college that we all know and have supported as a strong cessationist, Baptist college. If DBTS had given some general endorsement of SGM, we would be equally concerned as DBTS grads.

Claiming the gift of apostleship is very, very dangerous! I wrote extensively about this in my Th.M. Thesis at DBTS. I will make it available on our church website next week. All our tech guys are goofing off this weekend. Meanwhile, Joel, put on your doctrinal hat and remove your taxonomy hat and re-read the article from that perspective.

It is my understanding that a lot of changes are happening at SGM, changes that most participants here would like. Ian McConnell is a new board member at SGM and will be participating in these changes I’m sure. Let’s encourage him and build him up and be constructive.

[Mike Harding]

But this article is dealing with a Christian college that we all know and have supported as a strong cessationist, Baptist college. If DBTS had given some general endorsement of SGM, we would be equally concerned as DBTS grads.

Are you no longer supportive of this Christian college?

Has this Christian college “given some general endorsement” of SGM?

Don and Mike. Question for you. In terms of process, who at FBFI approves these kinds of public blog posts?

[Don Johnson]

A good deal of irrelevant points are being made this morning. The issue is pretty simple:

SGM and Grace Bible Church are quite open about their Charismatic self-designation.

Northland’s ​published​ documents explicitly call for separation from Charismatics and the Charismatic movement.

Hence my questions.

Spent the day in prison without internet and see that a good ministry in Philadelphia is in the sights. I know the church and the pastor and thank God for the ministry in a city with such great needs. It would seem to me that there is a difference between holding that some of the charisma are available today and being part of the Charismatic Movement. Grace Bible is part of SGM. SGM is not part of the Charismatic Movement although SGM has tendencies that are charismatic. NIU separates from the Movement but must it separate from godly Christians who are non-cessationist in some areas? I can’t speak for NIU but I hope that Matt will continue his pursuit to please God rather than men. Maybe at some point he will even visit us on our side of the city in West Philly :-)

As a side note, when our church - Grace Church of Philly - was looking for an association of churches with which to identify, frankly SGM was not a good fit for us and we associated with the EFCA, partly because of some of SGM’s emphases, partly because IFB’s are mostly invisible in the Philadelphia area. Although I consider myself a soft cessationist I would not agree with SGM in some areas. I don’t have to. Those differences are significant enough that I am not part of SGM but they are not significant enough to separate from them. In fact I have enjoyed fellowship with them and pray that God would bless them in their church planting endeavors.

[Steve Newman]

I wouldn’t consider myself a “Type A” IFB, but I have questions about Northland. I know others of the same stripe who do as well, but have not always voiced them. I won’t put them all out there now, but don’t assume only FBFI folks are concerned about where Northland is headed.

They’re heading for land while the FBFI and the whole IFB movement ship sinks.

[Alex Guggenheim] Fundamentalist categorically reject charismatic doctrine so Matt Olson and the school should admit they are not fundamentalist but conservative evangelicals. I don’t have a problem with conservative evangelicals/neo evangelicals (hybrid if you will) but Matt Olson and the school should admit what they are and preserve their integrity.

The SGM statement on Apostles is horrendously stupid. Yes, Mahaney’s explanation of it is silly and erroneous. I totally disagree with their non-cecessionist views and do not care to defend them…so I say that up front because my reply isn’t meant to do that.

So a self professed Fundamentalist speaks at a church that is associated with a very different catagory of Charismatism that wasn’t exactly what the Northland statement had in mind when they defined “Charismatic” and Matt Olson should just admit he’s not a Fundamentalist? Why does speaking at that church have to be by necessity a wholesale endorsement of everything remotely connected to it? He praised their focus that we all agree on and that makes him not a real fundamentalist. Who makes the rules for who should be called a Fundamentalist and who is not?

Mike,

Man - I’m running out the door - which I hate to post this because I’ll have spelling errors and probably could say this or that better. A quick response - and I may come back and make this sharper. Then again I might just ignore it and watch some long awaited college football!

Yes, cessationism is indeed my view. However that does not mean that I could not have some level of “coop” with a ministry that had a different take on the whole cessationism - non-cessationism - open - open but sort-of-careful view, etc…… I stand with the majority of fundamentalist and fundamentalism that one’s view of “cessationism” is not a fundamental of the faith. I’d say you and others stand outside the majority view within the historic fundamentalist tradition. As a matter of fact - I travel internationally at least once a year. I’ve had the thrill of ministry in about 25 different countries - and Mike I can’t even begin to explain to you the Godly leaders and various ministries I’ve had the thrill to do “co-ministry” with that do not hold the exact view of cessationism that you and I hold. I’m not going to “kick them to the curb.” You can do that - sadly that’s probably what you would do. That might mean you are a better “alum” of certain schools in certain minds - but I’m confident Heaven is on my side here. I’m confident God would not have me turn my backs on these leaders - especially when the in the majority of cases these brothers and sisters are teachable!

To be honest, the angst here comes from guys like Don and others (in and out of the FBFI) that come-off as “police” to the fundamentalist movement. Plus I’ve watched from the shadows of several groups for nearly 20 years and heard the whispers of certain leaders from the past (and maybe not as past) who plot and sow needless discord against other fundamentalist leaders and ministries - exactly for these kind of things. Then - in the past - FBFI type of guys think they have the authority to speak for the entire movement and determine whose in and whose out. Those days are over Mike. As far as I am concerned - You guys are fired! You may not speak for the rest of fundamentalism - because you hardly represent the healthy “main” of the movement. It’s not the doctrine that is the issue - it is the determination (apart from Scriptural proof) that this doctrine and that doctrine, that this practice and that practice determines whose in and whose out.

So that’s behind the passion - which you have characterized as “vitriol.” Mike, no poison in my soul towards Don - I’m too loving for that :), just ask anyone who really knows me! Don is a brother - I enjoyed meeting him at the national FBFI this summer. But he and others like him while being my brothers and having my love, have my opposition when they do what this does.

OK - I’m pretty much done here - everything else I’ve already said too many times. So to avoid further “blah-blah-blah” I’m going back to my football game.

Hope to see you at a DBTS alumni meeting this year or next. Hey I’m going to try to be a the Central alumni gathering in October. They’re bringing some great guys back from the Pills-Central days. It would be fun to see you! Minneapolis isn’t that far from Troy!

Straight Ahead Bro!

jt

[WilliamD]

Why does speaking at that church have to be by necessity a wholesale endorsement of everything remotely connected to it?

Well that is part of the brilliance of it all…Matt didn’t speak there. He simply showed up on a Sunday to worship Jesus with the brothers and sisters of that church.

Once John Piper attended a worship service of 4th Baptist Church (true … he was on vacation)

I’m pretty sure that makes 4th a compromiser with a raging charismatic.

I am a member of 4th Baptist.

While I’m a cessationist (link to doctrinal statement below), I obviously compromised my own position

Especially to Joel, with whom I’d roast marshmallows over a camp fire and sing Kum ba yah anytime…

The issue is simply this: The Northland statement of faith calls for separation from Charismatics.

Northland is opposed to Liberalism, Neo-Orthodoxy, New Evangelicalism, Hyper-Calvinism, and the Charismatic Movement.

They also state in their catalog:

Among the gifts listed in the Bible, we believe that sign gifts (miracles, speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy) were temporary in nature and given to the church in its infant state before the completion of the canon of Scripture.Therefore, we reject the modern Charismatic Movement and the confusion it has brought.

and:

Thus, we cannot accept the position reflected in the Ecumenical Movement, Neo-Orthodoxy, New Evangelicalism, or the various branches of the Charismatic Movement. We believe cooperation should be limited to those of like precious faith.

I think I demonstrated that the SGM and Grace Bible Church are clearly charismatic. They may be different in some ways from other charismatics, but they clearly identify themselves as such.

I have no issue with them - they aren’t claiming to be anything other than what they are.

I am not dictating anything to anybody. I am asking some obvious questions. There are a lot of pastors who have young people at Northland or considering Northland who have the same kinds of questions. I, for one, would really like to see Northland maintain a clearly Baptist fundamentalist position as they used to do. Maybe they still are Baptist fundamentalists - it just isn’t as clear to me anymore.

Thus, legitimate questions. What do the Northland published documents mean? Do they mean the same thing as they appear to mean or do they mean something different? Will the teaching at NIU change or will other changes be made?

Some people, and I suspect not a few, would like to know.

After reading SGM’s statements in Don’s article, I have a question. Several of you have SGM is different from the Charismatic Movement (whatever that is) and intimate SGM is not really “charismatic.”

1. Can you tell me how they are different from the “movement”?

2. If they are different from the amorphous “movement,” how are they still not charismatic.

I think this is an important underlying issue here. Mahaney appears to be a charismatic; SGM seems to be a charismatic organization. It seems to look like a duck and quack like a duck, so I am trying to understand why I shouldn’t think it’s a duck.

As a side note, if SGM holds to all the Acts gifts, does anyone know how they define tongues?