Matt Olson: "to draw dividing lines that He has not drawn grieves Him, hurts the body of Christ"
What Matters Most: How We Draw the Lines
I can visit a church on Sunday morning, fellowship with believers, love what I am seeing, encourage fellow believers in what they are doing—and still choose not to join that particular local assembly. When we start separating over every belief and opinion we soon find ourselves standing all alone, criticizing the rest of body of Christ. I don’t think that is what God intended
- 86 views
It is interesting that these two churches are only 5 miles apart both very vibrant and growing. And someone is trying to find a fundamentalist church in the greater Philly area which has 5 million people living there.
[Paul J]It is interesting that these two churches are only 5 miles apart both very vibrant and growing. And someone is trying to find a fundamentalist church in the greater Philly area which has 5 million people living there.
That is interesting. I’d be interested to see some accounts of IFB church plants that are vibrant and growing as well.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Joel Osteen called, he wanted to thank those who consider “vibrant and growing” as qualifications for biblical ministries.
Now to a more important point. For those of you interested in SGM, here is an article that is worth reading:
It is from the blog of Brent Dewiler to inform those going to the link of its source. But what it contains is some information about dates and approaches on the formation of a new church government at SGM which you can also get at the SGM website. It is a letter from Phil Sasser, Chairman of the Polity Committee (Brent adds his commentary in blue font). I found a few interesting quotes by Sasser:
But polity has historically been a basis of acceptable separation between solidly orthodox Christian churches. And if we separate for these doctrinal reasons, may God grant us the grace to do so in a God-glorifying way.
So it is clear that these enlightened SGMers aren’t so enlightened after all because Sasser accepts the legitimacy of a separatist view over polity, what do you know?!
But here is amore interesting one:
Remember that Sovereign Grace churches have enjoyed a wonderful history of connectivity that will never be erased; even if we no longer share the same governance we will still have much more in common with each other than we do with any other churches or denominations with which we presently enjoy fellowship.
Hmmm…so if Matt Olson is going fishing for students for NIU (I do not know but it seems a reasonable possibility) hopefully he is fully aware of what he is up against. Sasser views those churches as ones with which they now share connectivity, though they may depart when the new government is formed due to polity separation, associations with which they will have “much more in common” than any other church or denomination outside of that particular group but with which they enjoy fellowship.
Finally this quote:
The Polity Committee is working hard to not drag the process out too long but at the same time to carefully consider the options and the implications of each option. The Committee has not yet decided whether to adopt an apostolic, presbyterian, or independent polity.
So whatever has been said or claimed about the SGM apostolic doctrine, it is quite clear that the Polity Committee has not reckoned this fully charismatic doctrine to be non-bibical in its continued consideration as an option for polity.
For those who feel not so at ease with SGM and the strange development of its embrace by conservative Evangelicals and now a historically Fundamentalist Institution, here is a fascinating article which documents the parallel between the giving of SGM under Mahaney’s direction and his rise within the SBC and Southern Seminary itself along with Together for the Gospel and the Gospel Coalition emphasizing his relationships with Mohler and Dever.
“Then they went from town to town, instructing the believers to follow the decisions made by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. 5 So the churches were strengthened in their faith and grew larger every day.”
Joel,
Here are class notes from one of my seminary profs on “Contemporary Theological Issues”. It does not answer your historical question, but gives more info on the current scene.
Miraculous or so-called “sign” gifts are usually identified as prophecy, healing, speaking in tongues, and interpretation of tongues. Some have extended healing to include a variety of phenomena of the Spirit, e.g., exorcism, healing of social or personal relationships, and even bodily resurrections. Also, some charismatics have considered the gift of tongues to be foreign languages; others, special ecstatic speech.
Two general categories of Christians may be noted in relation to miraculous gifts for this current church age—cessationists (those who believe the miraculous sign gifts ceased with the closing of the NT canon), and continuationists [or non-cessationists] (those who believe that these gifts are meant for Christians to experience throughout the church age. The latter are usually called pentecostalists or charismatics. Within the current Charismatic or (more properly) the Neo-Charismatic Movement there are various schools of thought and interpretation of the miraculous gifts. Two principal ones are the Pentecostals (or charistmatics) proper, and the Third Wave or Vineyard group.
I. The Third Wave movement (Signs and Wonders movement).
A. Early Leaders: John Wimber (1934–1997), former leader of Vineyard Christian Fellowship, Anaheim, and C. Peter Wagner (b. 1930), formerly professor of church growth, Fuller Theological Seminary School of World Mission. Term coined on spur of moment by Wagner (cf. MacArthur, p. 128). Real beginning with “MC510 Signs, Wonders and Church Growth” at Fuller Theological Seminary in 1982 with John Wimber. See entire issue of Christian Life (October, 1982), devoted to the movement.
B. Teachings.
1. Not wishing to be identified as charismatic, or Pentecostal, but a “third” movement of the Spirit of God. But really a semantic diversion.
2. A preoccupation with all the charismata or sign gifts—all are available today: tongues, healings, prophetic revelation, visions, ecstatic experiences, mystical phenomena, and miraculous powers—even surpassing the Apostles! These phenomena are available (some say essential) supplements to the gospel.
3. A significant difference between Pentecostalism and Third Wave: the former holds to the doctrine of subsequence, i.e, that Baptism of the Spirit is a special experience after or subsequent to conversion; the latter group generally believe that Spirit baptism occurs at the time of conversion. However, both groups indicate not only the continuation of miracles, but of miracle workers. Some cessationists will say that miracles do continue but not the gift of miracles.
4. There is an ethical “oughtness” to the signs and wonders: you must evidence these to be true witnesses to a spiritually-starved world.
C. “Excuses” for people not being healed.
1. Insufficient faith for healing (James 5:15).
2. Personal, unconfessed sin (James 5:16).
3. Persistent and widespread disunity in the fellowships of believers (1 Cor 11:30).
4. Incomplete or inaccurate diagnoses prevent people from praying correctly.
5. Sometimes God heals gradually, not immediately (Wimber, Power Healing, p. 152).
D. Power evangelism. Importance of salvation found in signs, not repentance. For mamy, miracles are more important than the gospel message. What produced amazing evangelistic results in the early church? “The answer is deceptively simple. While Christianity was being presented to unbelievers in both word and deed, it was the deed that far exceeded the word in evangelistic effectiveness” (Wagner, The Third Wave, p. 79).
E. Current promoters of Third Wave and their views.
1. John Piper, Reformed Baptist pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, is associated with Third Wave. See his endorsement at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3505/signwonder.html Piper writes,
“It would be a risk not to seek spiritual gifts for myself and my church. It would be a risk not to pray with the early church, “Grant your servants to speak your word with boldness while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through your holy servant Jesus.” Disobedience is always a greater risk than obedience.”
2. C. Samuel Storms, president of Grace Training Center, a Bible school connected with the Metro Vineyard Fellowship of Kansas City, where he also serves as associate pastor. Storms believes that the NT does not preclude subsequent experiences of the Holy Spirit, but encourages and endorses them. He associates these experiences with the filling of the Spirit, or rather “fillings,” since there can be many. Storms speaks for most continuationists by noting differences between them and the cessationists:
CESSATIONISTS CONTINUATIONISTS
Possibility of miraculous phenomena after the apostolic age, but no gift of miracles. The gift of miracles is available today.
No continuation of revelatory gifts (prophecy, tongues, interp. of tongues) Revelatory gifts do continue.
Possibility that God can miraculously heal today, but no gift of healing. The gift of healing is in operation today.
Storms spends a great deal of time arguing for the “normalcy” of miraculous phenomena in the OT and also in the NT. But this is not the same as accounting for the gift of miracles being granted to individuals today. God can sovereignly and directly produce a miracle, but does he grant the gift to human beings to perform miracles today? Storms argues in the affirmative on the basis that since other (non-miraculous) gifts are granted (such as mercy, edification, etc.), then miraculous gifts must be granted also. Storms also argues that miraculous gifts (signs and wonders) were not exclusively or uniquely apostolic, and therefore should not be limited to the apostolic age. But, again, the question is not the legitimacy of signs and wonders, but whether God grants the gift to individuals to perform them as he did the Apostles. Yet, the assumption by Storms is that the reason that sign gifts were less prevalent in some periods of history is because of unbelief. Storms summarizes his reasons for support of continuation of miraculous gifts:
a. The Bible gives no evidence indicating they are not valid.
b. The ultimate purpose of each gift is to build up the body of Christ.
c. Three texts in the NT support the duration of spiritual sing gifts: 1 Cor 1:4–9; Eph 4:11-113; and 1 Cor 13:8–13.
d. These gifts have been designed by God to characterize the life of the church today.
e. The Holy Spirit would not simply inaugurate these gifts and then disappear.
Storm’s thorough discussion reflects the common arguments in support of continuationism and may be found in “A Third Wave View,” Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views, ed. Gundry and Grudem Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, pp. 156–223.
Other advocates of Third Wave continuationism are Stanley Gundry, Wayne Grudem, Jack W. Hayford, Gordon Fee, and C. J. Mahaney.
II. Cessationist Response.
Two major considerations in terms of the purposes of sign gifts: authentication and revelation. Continuationists have these two BIG questions to answer: if miraculous gifts are current, what do they authenticate? If sign gifts are in any sense revelatory, then how can we say that the Bible is a closed canon and that is a sufficient revelation?
Major problems.
1. Continuationists believe that miraculous signs are given today for various purposes, such as God expressing His compassion. However, it appears clear from the NT that miracles were performed for the primary purpose of confirming or authenticating the ministry of Christ and the Apostles. If He and they are no longer present, why would miraculous signs need to be permanent?
2. Continuationists say that the church of today has the same needs as the NT church, and therefore the same activity must continue as well. In the NT the signs confirmed the apostolic ministry; today, they confirm the Scripture. However, there is a major difference: new revelation was progressively being given by Christ and the Apostles. The Scriptures need no complimentary witness for authentication; they are self-affirming and self-authenticating.
3. Continuationists argue that since all gifts were for the edification of the church, and the church still needs edification, then all gifts must still be present, not just some of them. However,
most would agree that at least one gift has ceased—that of the Apostle. Therefore, not all gifts continue. Likewise, circumstances have changed since the end of the apostolic era and the closing of the NT canon. These two factors alone indicate that the Spirit’s ministry is essentially different than during the NT era.
4. Continuationists insist that there is no NT passage stating that sign gifts would cease. However, the NT does not teach that they would continue either. Possibly one reason for the silence on this matter is the early expectation of the Lord’s Second Coming.
5. Continuationists’ explanation for the reason that miraculous gifts have not been the continuous experience of the Christian church is lack of spirituality or ignorance of biblical truth in various periods of history. Yet it is often during the times and places of biblical ignorance and superstition that reports of miraculous signs have been most notable (e.g., the Middle Ages).
6. Continuationists (such as Storms) define the gift of prophecy as “the human report of a divine revelation” (Are Miraculous Gifts for Today, p. 207). And they admit that the report of the prophecy can and often does include human error. Yet prophecy in the Bible (especially the OT) does not make such a distinction; the report is the prophecy, and is expected to be infallible and inerrant. Storms and other continuationists want to separate the divine revelation (which is infallible) from its reception (which may be fallible). However, how is revelation communicated and received? It is by word. Otherwise, one is given to existentialist impressions, which can never be trusted. It is clear from Scripture that the prophet’s words are God’s word (or revelation) and are not simply a human report, and carry the weight of divine inerrancy (2 Sam 23:2; 1 Kings 17:1; 18:1; Jer 1:7, 9; 1 Cor 2:13). Continuationists use Agabus in Acts 21:11 as an example of an erroneous prophecy. However, if we explain the prophecy as Paul having already been handed over to the Romans before he left Jerusalem, we have no discrepancy. The Jews were the cause of Paul’s arrest by the Romans. “Paul’s statement and the prophecy of Agabus are thus to be understood as a condensed statement of the event that ‘the Jews were responsible for his being in the hands of the Romans’” (Robert Saucy in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today, p. 231).
7. Continuationists use James 5 as an example of the miracle of healing being granted in connection with the prayer of faith. However, there is no indication in this passage that anyone was given the gift to heal, but that they all prayed in faith. This passage is greater support for God using prayer as His means of healing rather than giving that gift to someone else. To cite Jesus’s compassionate healing ministry as a guarantee that the same gift is available today is to completely overlook the significance of Jesus’s miracles as a mean of authenticating His messiahship (John 20:30–31; Acts 2:22). This idea of connecting God’s compassion with the healing miracles is to suggest that God is less compassionate when He doesn’t heal, even after fervent entreaties by His most godly saints.
8. Continuationists justify the gift of tongues as a means of private edification to improve the devotional life. Storms speaks for most charismatics when he writes, that the tongues bring “peace and joy,” are “profoundly helpful…in [our] prayer life,” “deepen [our] intimacy with the Lord Jesus Christ,” and increase our zeal in worship (Are Miraculous Gifts for Today, pp. 215, 216, 222). However, two points must be raised in opposition to this: (1) if such is the case, then why aren’t all Christians experiencing the gift of tongues? but (2) Scripture indicates that this gift was not given to everyone but that it, along with other gifts, was for the mutual edification of saints (1 Cor 12:30).
9. Continuationists say that speaking in tongues and modern day prophecy are forms of revelation. If so, then this is inspired speech from God and implies that the inspired canon of the NT is somehow incomplete and therefore insufficient. This undermines the doctrine of the absolute authority of Scripture. It also opens the issue of apostolic witness, which was unquestionably connected to divine authority. Does this “witness” continue? The general consensus of Christians has been yes, but not seen in the same way. Note:
Roman Catholicism — apostolic witness continues with the apostolic office (i.e., the papacy)
Pentecostalism — apostolic witness continues with apostolic miracles (i.e., miracle workers)
Biblical Protestantism — apostolic witness continues with apostolic doctrine (i.e., NT truth)
The first two are extra-biblical authorities which practically make Scripture insufficient; the third position affirms the absolute sufficiency of Scripture for faith and practice. Question: if the apostolic office is connected to signs and wonders, how can you account for the continuation of the one (signs and wonders) without the continuation of the other (the office)? As Gaffin writes,
If prophecy today…is of divine inspiration, in effect Scripture has been added to…. In view is additional immediate revelation that functions, especially where guidance is concerned, beyond Scripture and so unavoidably implies a certain insufficiency in Scripture that needs to be compensated for. The tendency of this view, no matter how carefully it is qualified, is to divert attention from Scripture, particularly in practical and pressing life issues (Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? pp. 47, 52).
10. Continuationists maintain that extra-biblical prophecy is subordinate revelation and not on the same level as Scripture. And yet they say that “true prophecy is the very utterance of God” (Richard B. Gaffin Jr., citing J. R. Williams’s Renewal Theology [2:382, 386] in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? p. 46). However, if the prophecy is erroneously given, this impugns the very nature of revelation, which is infallible, and therefore of God Himself. Also, if prophecy is uttered which has no relevance to Scripture (such as a dreams, visions, etc.) how can it be verified as authentic, since it cannot be tested by Scripture?
11. Continuationists, in their passion for the personal, experiential, mystical approach to Christianity play into the hands of the postmodernist rejection of Enlightenment rationalism. The modern charismatic movement, emphasizing “the nonrational and intuitive aspect of human spirituality—is now being taken into account more adequately in contemporary philosophy” (Gaffin, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?, p. 27, citing postmodernist Henry Lederle). But what Enlightenment modern rationalism and postmodern experientialism have in come is human autonomy. What is basic to both is ultimate authority’s location—the human mind.
12. Continuationists make the Pentecost experience not only normative for contemporary Christians, but include it in their ordo salutis as a second work of grace subsequent to salvation, and as part of (even essential to) sanctification. Yet the Book of Acts relates salvation history, not necessarily salvation order. Sign gifts confirm and authenticate gospel salvation and are means (i.e., tongues) of conveying the salvation message to unbelievers. They are not designed primarily for sanctification, but confirmation of salvation.
D. Summary: The foundational nature of the apostolate is evidence for the cessation of miraculous gifts. Note Samuel E. Waldron’s “cascade argument” in To Be Continued: Are The Miraculous Gifts for Today? (Merrick, NY: Calvary Press, 2005):
1. Apostolic foundation for the church: Eph 2:20; Matt 16:18; Rev 21:14.
2. The apostolate has ceased since no one can fulfill the qualifications of an Apostle.
3. The Prophetic office has ceased since the very nature of prophecy is revelatory and divine revelation implies infallibility. OT and NT prophecy must be held to the standard of Deut 18:15–22. “There is not a single passage in the New Testament where the biblical terminology related to prophecy or prophesying refers to anything but the inspired reception and utterance of direct revelation” (To Be Continued, p. 69).
4. Since the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets (Eph 2:20), and the office of apostle has ceased, so must the office of prophet have ceased. The prophet referred to is in the NT period. The prophetic utterances are revelational even as those of the OT prophet.
5. If prophecy continues then revelation continues; if revelation continues, then we do not have a closed canon.
6. Tongues-speaking and interpreting are forms of prophetic utterance. But if the office of prophet has ceased, then there can be no extra-biblical prophetic or revelatory utterance.
7. Miracles are supernatural signs attesting divine revelation. They are means of direct revelation. Again, if they continue, then revelation continues, and therefore we do not have a closed canon.
If we need something revelatory outside of Scripture to authenticate it, then the authenticator becomes the means of testing the veracity of the Bible. But just the opposite is true. The Bible determines the authenticity of everything else. Let God be true, and every man a liar! Then what authenticates the Bible? The Bible itself; it is self-authenticating. If we can see, we do not need anyone to tell us, when we look up into the sky, that the sun is shining. See Luke 16:31; Matt 12:39.
E. Apostasy.
If, in the “latter times” (i.e., the Church Age) apostasy will increase, in what ways may we observe it? The Scripture gives several identifiers of apostasy, which, ironically, have been identified as characteristics of spiritual blessing or the outpouring of the Holy Spirit: spirituality (yet without the Spirit), seeking after a sign, counterfeit signs and wonders, women prophesying and preaching, greater self-esteem (private praying in tongues), financial prosperity (health and wealth gospel). Now the advocates of continuation of miraculous gifts will all say that these simply involve misapplication or misuse of that which is perfectly legitimate and beneficial. But they all focus on the experiential and mystical, and suggest the insufficiency of Scriptural revelation for the Christian life. They will say, “But these are used in Scripture for great benefit and are still available today for the same reason.” However, we must ask of what benefit can prophesying or speaking in tongues grant today beyond the edification of what God has finally revealed in the Scripture? If I need something else, then I need more than what God has promised. He never promised that I could make a lame man walk, nor speak miraculously in a strange tongue, nor prophesy some great truth that would supposedly compliment biblical revelation. But he did promise me spiritual growth on the basis of obedience to specific commands which do continue and will enable the faithful Christian to persevere and progress. Can I possibly persevere in the faith without miraculous gifts? Or put another way, do I have all that I need to persevere without them? Does the church of Jesus Christ have all that she needs to grow in grace apart from them? I would say yes, since they are nowhere in Scripture made a requirement for the successful Christian life. Then how can they be needful now, or even normative? But let someone have an experience, it becomes not only regulative of his/her life, but must be normative if not necessary for everyone else as well. And if not shared, then it must be indicative of a spiritual deficiency. So wherein is the power? In miraculous sign gifts? No, the Antichrist can perform these. The real power is in the gospel of God to transform lives and make them conformable to His dear Son.
Pastor Mike Harding
Mike,
Thanks for the epistle! This is excellent organization of the material in question. I think I’m in agreement with the majority of what I see. #12 may be unfair - I don’t think all of these guys would see it as a second work of grace or as your notes here read. I think a chunk of them believe it’s a continuation from the first work of grace. I might actually ask a Sovereign Grace guy I’ll see tomorrow at the area NANC meeting I’m headed to. As a matter of fact your list makes some pretty bold universal statements like “Continuationists believe such in such.” I’m not sure all contiuationists believe everything your notes here list. You might be right - perhaps all continuationalist believe #1 - #12. Again I’ll ask my SG buddy tomorrow. He’s a great guy. Very honest. He’ll tell me where your list represents his understanding or when it doesn’t. Of course if I find out - we’ll call him “Trey” - If I find out Trey is a continuationist yet doesn’t agree with everything on the list - you might only have to change the statement from “Continuationists believe…..” to “Many contiuationist believe……” or “Some continuationist believe……..” or maybe even “Most continuationist believe X, Y and Z.
As good as all of this is here (and this is very good!) - I do think a “crux issue” is the very question left unanswered. Hey - I know life and ministry is busy. When you get a chance I’d love to see you answer (or you could barrow an answer from someone who knows) the question not dealt with here. How long have “cessationist evangelicals” been practicing total separation from “continuationist evangelicals?” Have evangelicals or protestants or puritans or baptists or proto-fundamentalists - have “we” been practicing consistently “total separation” from the “continuationist evangelicals” for the bulk of the church age ….. or is this a relatively new practice the last 50 years? Of course in fairness to you Mike we probably have to ask another question before that one - like where there any “continuationist evangelicals” to speak of prior to Azusa Street? Does anyone know that? Wow - my head hurts again!
I wonder if Spurgeon would have any fellowship with “continuationist evangelicals?” I know he took a hard stand in the downgrade controversy so obviously he’s willing to practice separation. I wonder if Spurgeon would separate from CJ? I think that’s a great question. I’m pretty sure CJ wouldn’t separate from Spurgeon - of course that’s not usually how separation goes.
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
Steve Davis: “In any case the employee would be hard pressed to find an IFB church in that area of Philadelphia or in all of Philadelphia. There may be some but I don’t know of any solid IBF churches in Philadelphia.”
Heretofore I have spent very little time with SI, but friends emailed me the above statement and I feel compelled to set the record straight on the subject of IFB churches in Philadelphia.
One need only open the Philadelphia Yellow Pages to “Independent Baptist Churches,” to find a number of churches listed, most of which would label themselves as Fundamental, as well as Independent and Baptist. Likewise, for the newer generation, one can use the internet with a similar search and find a number of Philadelphia churches on various church and community directories that would identify themselves as IBF. Our church (Crescentville Baptist Church www.cbaptist.com) has been on the internet now for 17 years. AS to how “solid” we are, I will leave that to the witness of others who have known our ministry over the years and can testify that our faithfulness to the Word remains unchanged.
Crescentville Baptist Church has been in the city of Philadelphia, at the same location in northeast Philadelphia, for 77 years. Throughout those years, we have consistently preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ and practiced Baptist polity and distinctives. When others took “white flight” to the suburbs, back in the early 60’s, we chose to continue our ministry where we are. Our presence, and that of other IBF churches in the city, should have been known and recognized by Steve Davis and the others who have come to Philadelphia in more recent years. It also paints a incorrect picture of faithful IBF ministries, to our brethren who do not know the City of Philadelphia.
It is also absurd to suggest one must travel as far as Haddon Heights NJ, to find an IFB church. IFB churches can be found from South Philadelphia through the far northeast and mostly East of Broad Street in between. As much as I try to keep up with new efforts coming to Philadelphia, many continue to come and go, and there may be others West of Broad Street unfamiliar to me.
If you expand your considerations beyond the city limits, you will find even more IFB churches, in Boothwyn, Upper Darby, West Chester, Chester, Bensalem, Elkins Park, just to name a few.
I seriously doubt that anyone, in any part of Philadelphia would need to travel more than 10-15 miles to reach an IFB church, in, or outside of the city. Our brethren in the suburbs and rural sections think nothing of driving 20 or more miles to church.
[Jim] Hey JayYou said: “I would be hesitant, however, to say that the NIU grad MUST attend a certain church”
But if I understand the issue correctly (and perhaps I don’t) .. it isn’t just any Grad .. he directs the online ministry as an employee.
And Matt O didn’t really answer that question at all or even attempt to. If NIU has a stated doctrinal position (and they do) … it would seem logical that employees should agree with that position. Perhaps he does. But if he does … does he disagree with his church’s position?
Help me out if I am wrong about this.
Thanks
Hey Jim-
Been super swamped lately, so I’m a little late on this. Yes, the employee is directing the online ministry and yes, the concerns you noted are valid, as I have said elsewhere.
My points were this:
1. Directing the online ministry is a little different from being a professor and teaching full time - someone said that he was a professor, and there’s a difference there. One makes his living teaching. One makes his living doing admin work and wouldn’t seem to have the time to do a lot of teaching.
2. Yes, Olson didn’t seem to address the actual question - it would be nice if he would do so and ‘put some of this issue to bed’, so to speak. I’m really surprised that he hasn’t addressed this directly at this point. Something run on the FBFI Blog should not be ignored or put out of mind unless he’s been in touch with Don or others directly and they’re talking ‘behind the curtain’. If so, the FBFI or someone should say that NIU is talking with them about these concerns, IMHO.
3. I’m not sure what’s going or how this employee can hold to both statements, but I don’t see the massive difference between the two doctrinal statements (although I should probably go back and review). I don’t seriously think that Northland would promote any kind of tongues speaking, health and wealth gospel, or any of the kind of things that the typical Charismatic movements would promote; I know that they would argue that the Biblical canon is closed.
Finally, chkdear, I noted that the only church that I knew of (other than my home church) is in Franklinville and that I grew up in New Jersey. Pardon my ignorance of what the churchgoing scene in Philadelphia - roughly an hour away - looks like. ;)
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[chkdear]Steve Davis: “In any case the employee would be hard pressed to find an IFB church in that area of Philadelphia or in all of Philadelphia. There may be some but I don’t know of any solid IBF churches in Philadelphia.”
Heretofore I have spent very little time with SI, but friends emailed me the above statement and I feel compelled to set the record straight on the subject of IFB churches in Philadelphia.
One need only open the Philadelphia Yellow Pages to “Independent Baptist Churches,” to find a number of churches listed, most of which would label themselves as Fundamental, as well as Independent and Baptist. Likewise, for the newer generation, one can use the internet with a similar search and find a number of Philadelphia churches on various church and community directories that would identify themselves as IBF. Our church (Crescentville Baptist Church www.cbaptist.com) has been on the internet now for 17 years. AS to how “solid” we are, I will leave that to the witness of others who have known our ministry over the years and can testify that our faithfulness to the Word remains unchanged.
Crescentville Baptist Church has been in the city of Philadelphia, at the same location in northeast Philadelphia, for 77 years. Throughout those years, we have consistently preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ and practiced Baptist polity and distinctives. When others took “white flight” to the suburbs, back in the early 60’s, we chose to continue our ministry where we are. Our presence, and that of other IBF churches in the city, should have been known and recognized by Steve Davis and the others who have come to Philadelphia in more recent years. It also paints a incorrect picture of faithful IBF ministries, to our brethren who do not know the City of Philadelphia.
It is also absurd to suggest one must travel as far as Haddon Heights NJ, to find an IFB church. IFB churches can be found from South Philadelphia through the far northeast and mostly East of Broad Street in between. As much as I try to keep up with new efforts coming to Philadelphia, many continue to come and go, and there may be others West of Broad Street unfamiliar to me.
If you expand your considerations beyond the city limits, you will find even more IFB churches, in Boothwyn, Upper Darby, West Chester, Chester, Bensalem, Elkins Park, just to name a few.
I seriously doubt that anyone, in any part of Philadelphia would need to travel more than 10-15 miles to reach an IFB church, in, or outside of the city. Our brethren in the suburbs and rural sections think nothing of driving 20 or more miles to church.
As I said there may be some. I had googled IFB churches in Philadelphia. I know of three or four that all proclaim their allegiance to the KJV. I would not recommend them or consider them solid. I did not see Crescentville Baptist Church in the Yellow Pages (might’ve missed it). It is in NE Philly not far from our second church plant in North Philly. However, these are different worlds and for city people to might travel 10-15 miles to find an IFB church is absurd. Of course that’s assuming that “anyone” has a car. Whatever our suburban and rural brethren might do, it’s comparing apples to oranges and misunderstands the nature of city ministry. In any case there is a paucity of IFB churches in Philly and I have not found any that I would recommend apart from Crescentville :-). There is also Burholme BC in NE Philly which may be GARBC but I did not find web site for them. There may be others but for a city the size of Philadelphia the IBF influence is insignificant. To add churches from the suburbs is besides the point. Most people will not leave the city to go to a suburban church (and why should they?)
Discussion