FBFI: Questions for Matt Olson and Northland International University

10927 reads

There are 61 Comments

Joel Tetreau's picture

Don't you love just minding your own business! The older I get - and I'm not really old yet - but the older I get I would much rather just sit around agreeing with everyone. I had a great evening! ASU whipped up on NAU for our first home game....and then I see Don's post. For the record, I hate getting in the middle of these discussions. I used to love getting in the middle of these "chats." Now at 44, I really don't like speaking up.......but once in a while you have to say something. Oh brother - Here we go again:

OK - I am not Matt - and he's a big guy and can answer for himself. Don, this is a perfect example of what I mean when I say Type A's are "all or nothing." Either you are a fundamentalist to the degree you are - or you are a new-evangelical - or even worse - a "Charismatic-leaning and/or a Charismatic loving new-evangelical!" To equate CJ's group with the "C" word (charismatic) is misleading at best. They are not charismatic in the sense of the typical "wacko-theology" of the Charismatic movement that is found "in the main" of the Charismatic Movement (such as represented by what you typically see on TBN). As a matter of fact - CJ's approach to an active Pneumatology would fit right at home with many of the Type A evangelists and other ministries, I've heard over the years from within the main of fundamentalism - i.e. "the Holy Spirit told me to stop my car - I went to the door and led 3 people to Christ." If I remember correctly we had a whole wing of the Type A fundamentalist movement that believed the Holy Spirit had some kind of an active, dynamic (dare I say "charismatic") kind of a ministry today by empowering for "Soul Winning" - the term this group would use). We have another Type A fundamentalist "wing" that sees the Holy Spirit come alongside the "deeper-life'd" believer for "victory" through a "fresh oil" kind of anointment for those who "let go and let God!". Yeah - I don't like everything CJ and his group does - including his view of a present apostle - my guess is Matt doesn't either. However, I'd actually take a CJ'ish kind of a church that honor's the Bible, protects the gospel and believes in the ongoing power of the Holy Spirit than a Type A fundamentalist church that believes in a performance-based, man-made/ legalistically-leaning false sanctification devoid of any "dynamics" from the Spirit of God. Of course Don, I'm not sure why you Type A guys are upset at CJ's belief their are ongoing apostles - I've meet several Type A's that act like they are apostles! To be honest, its' hard to trust you guys here. I get the sense that you FBFI boys don't like the fact that Matt has expanded his "orb" which is a bit broader than the FBFI (which unfortunately isn't very hard to do). As a result of this you are "ticked off" by it and so with your best "gnat radar detection equipment" you have Matt and NIU under your microscope. You're just waiting for them to make the next non-fundamentalist move so you can blow your trumpets and point your fingers. On behalf of at least myself and the two other people that view this like I do, what would be far better use of your time is for you FBFI guys to police your own leaders and the ecclesiastical sphere of their ministry! So maybe if I was Matt, I'd agree to answer your question right after various FBFI leaders explain why they hang out with that Baptist cult of Hammond, Indiana. Oh - and for the record - I'd take a CJ Church over a Hyles Church in a New York Second!

But that's just me. I'm sure Matt will speak for himself......or maybe he won't.

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;

Matthew Richards's picture

An SGM or PCA church would stand head and shoulders above the cultic FBCHammond and typical Type A churches.  Its been over 5 years now since Ron Hamilton, Frank Garlock, and Jim Binney began cooperating with First Baptist Church of Hammond.  When it all started everyone was quick to say that we needed to give things time--they were going to change FBCH for the better.  Maybe I am just missing it, but did P&D run any articles decrying these good historic fundies on their associations with apostates?  I could be wrong but I have searched the site and found nothing yet.

What about Chuck Phelps?  Any good articles discussing his hatchet job on the Tina Anderson situation? Any public rebuke of the obvious problems there?  I have searched the blog for that topic and only come up with articles that Chuck has written.  It appears that P&D is dropping the ball in more areas than just one.

Oh well, nothing new here.  Let's strain at gnats and continue to be a laughingstock to thinking people.  

I love Joel's thoughts--straight ahead buddy!

Matthew Richards

 

Steve Newman's picture

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.

ChrisS's picture

Joel Tetreau wrote:

However, I'd actually take a CJ'ish kind of a church that honor's the Bible, protects the Gospel and believes in the ongoing power of the Holy Spirit than a Type A fundamentalist church that believes in a legalistic, non-Holy Spirit, man-made legalistically-leaning false sanctification devoid of any "dynamics" from the Spirit of God. 

I've not been to Don's church.  My hope and prayer is that it is not as you describe and/or imply here.

 

Joel Tetreau wrote:

you Type A guys

you guys here

you FBFI boys don't like the fact that Matt has expanded his "orb" which is a bit broader than the FBFI (which unfortunately isn't very hard to do). 

...you FBF guys to police your own leaders and the ecclesiastical sphere of their ministry! So maybe if I was Matt, I'd agree to answer your question right after various FBFI leaders explain why they hang out with that Baptist cult of Hammond, Indiana.

I'll admit I am likely a bit newer to Fundamentalism than most people on here.  I can honestly say I don't personally know who "you guys" and "you boys" are, but you make them seem like scary people to be avoided.  Don does not strike me as such, but I do not know him personally.  Perhaps you do.

It seems that your response to Don's article crossed over to the personal.  Tell me if I am sticking my nose in where it does not belong.  I read his article, and it came across as fair and not full of debate fallacies.  If there were ad hominem attacks, or appeals to emotion, or others, I missed them, and will go back and re-read.  The initial response I have seen to Don is not as fair.  No doubt you two are mature Christians, and can figure out repentance and forgiveness where necessary.

I applaud you for being blunt, no doubt how you feel on this topic and article.  It is healthy to read passionate beliefs on various sides of issues.  I also enjoyed your defense of SGM's positions, how they might be applied, it was edifying to me.  I learned something, which is good.  And then in the midst of all the teaching are the attacks, which again, leads me to think maybe there is something personal beneath the surface that I do not know of, have no need to know of, and would best stay out of.  As I do not know Don, I do not know you, either, and can only go by what I read, a limited medium at best.  Could be that you two are long-time friends and have had this discussion for years, for all I know.

In essence, maybe it's just me; the positions and decisions seem like they can be debated without getting personal, and I thought Don succeeded in doing that, compared to some others who will tend to be more vitriolic toward NIU.  

If Don is actively linked to the church in Hammond, that would be disappointing.  If he is not, I would prayerfully considering telling him you are sorry for the potential mis-characterization.  Like Matt, Don is a big boy and can speak for himself, so I'll stop now.

Personally, with a teen considering colleges, he and I are interested to follow NIU's take on this, see what both sides say about these and other issues, and then we'll take time to "think well", as my son puts it.  People can and should read all sides and be discerning, if they will simply take the time and effort to do so, IMHO.

CS

1 Cor. 1:18

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

There are several pitfalls to avoid in our relationships with our own or near neighbors:

  1. being preoccupied which fundamentalist might have a hair out of place 
  2. addressing real problems in a such a sloppy way that the actual problem is lost in the bluster 
  3. letting real problems that are truly of concern to fundamentalists in general go unaddressed

I'm sure several others could be listed. They're all pitfalls and one is not much better than another.

An irony worthy of note: folks often complain that the FBFI fundamentalists always defend themselves by pointing out that the evangelicals are worse. But here we've got some folks defending NIU by pointing out how bad Hammond is. Hmmm. See #2 pitfall in the list above.

Pastor Joe Roof's picture

If I follow the logic of this article then Dr. Bob Jones Jr. and the III were compromising with forms of pentecostalism for speaking for Dr. O Talmage Spence and having Spence speak at BJU.

 

This type of stuff is just getting old for too many of us.

Lee's picture

Pastor Joe Roof wrote:

If I follow the logic of this article then Dr. Bob Jones Jr. and the III were compromising with forms of pentecostalism for speaking for Dr. O Talmage Spence and having Spence speak at BJU.

 

This type of stuff is just getting old for too many of us.

Non-sequitur

Lee

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Are we to look for a modified statement of faith from Northland International University that removes the doctrine of separation from the Charismatic Movement?
Are we to expect any change in the teaching in the classrooms of NIU concerning the Charismatic movement and separation from it? Will cooperation with the Charismatic movement be encouraged or at least tolerated by the administration and faculty of NIU?
In the event that no change is to be made to the NIU statements of faith and policy, or in the classroom instruction, are we to look for the dismissal of the current NIU staffer when he joins the Charismatic Grace Bible Church of Philadelphia?

I would also ask if "word from the Lord" type language is going to be stricken from the Fundamentalist Lexicon. In my experience, various claims of special revelation abound from IFB pulpits, such as "God told me", the language of the altar call (I can feel that someone in this room needs the Lord"... duh) and expecting church members to ask permission about personal decisions, claiming that they have God-given special knowledge about the lives and futures of their congregants, especially about 'callings' to the ministry (this is usually used in conjunction with "God told me").

At least the SG folks seem to be honest about their beliefs. I'm much more suspicious of those who shoot arrows from behind a doctrinal standard that they themselves do not uphold. 

I believe that the doctrinal inconsistencies tolerated because of IFB cronyism has given rise and root to many erroneous views. Let's take responsibility for how we may have contributed to this doctrinal confusion first. The way I see it, modern Fundies greased the plank for folks like SGers to slide on down. In that sense, why shouldn't Mr. Olson hold hands with them? 

Disclaimer- having read Bro. Johnson's blog and posts on SI, I want to clarify that this post is not aimed at him.

Don Johnson's picture

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.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Jim's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

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.

 

Valid questions

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Don Johnson wrote:

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.

Hence my post- this is nothing new. Fundamentalism doesn't shy away from not doing as they say (or publish) that they do. Many an IFB church and institution claim to be cessationist while still practicing 'word from the Lord' type pronouncements. I guess the answer is "Be that as it may..."

Perhaps calling out the more obvious doctrinal wanderings of IFBdom 'leadership', such as Mr. Olson's, will result in some trickle down?

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Let's see...one person wants to talk about a novel but consistently inadequate Fundie taxonomy and Don Johnson himself (ad hominem shoot the messenger), others want to talk about Fundamentalist in general and still others want to make lists about how or how not to deal with the issue but no one wants to approach the issue(s) itself? Not addressing issues does not lend itself to good ministry.

Should an institution calling itself a fundamentalist institution give formal transfers of trust to non fundamentalist charismatic institutions? No. It's a no brainer.

This goes beyond acknowledging charismatic brothers in the Lord this is a transfer of trust and a partnership. 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.

Paul J. Scharf's picture

1) I would not join the SG movement and do not commend the church for doing so.

2) Nowhere (correct me if I am wrong) do we see that Olson was aware of the church's relationship with SG -- much less that he was speaking to that point when he commended them.

3) I do not appreciate the tone of the article. It reads like a prosecutor building a case against a defendant. It also seems, quite frankly, to be blowing this situation completely out of proportion. 

4) I think the reason many of us are weary of this type of approach is seen in the comments above. Fundamentalists have too often been quick to go to such great lengths to pick at a problem that requires a long list of logical connections to explain, while at the same time seeming unwilling to address their own serious shortcomings through thoughtful self-examination. When errors are discovered, change is often implemented in terms of a PR strategy -- not in terms of humble repentance and renewal. 

5) The only possible reason I see for this situation to be remotely relevant is that "a(n) NIU staffer will continue to be on the staff of Northland while moving to Philadelphia and becoming part of this church." This sounds quite unusual, so I don't know what this means or what level of responsibility this person has at either institution. Until we know that, the statement is rather meaningless.

6) I appreciate and applaud NIU's new openness to Biblicist people who are slightly outside of the traditional IFB movement. I believe it is part of a healthy trend and I urge its continuance.

Church Ministries Representative for the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Alex Guggenheim's picture

If Matt Olson was unaware of the relationship of the church with S G then he has demonstrated that his competence is to be called into question because he should know that before making such a decision. But we know better than to question Matt Olson's competence because he is a very bright man so you can't have it both ways. In my estimation the article assumes map Olson's competence and perspicacity that's why it addresses things the way it does.

SBashoor's picture

One common root that much of Fundamentalism and Pentecostalism/Chasimaticism share is revivalism. Their theologies differ on important points, but I think there are some theological and ecclesio-cultural commonalities between them. (Various pockets of Evangelicalism share this root, too.)

Wayne Grudem argues that some charismatics and non-charismatics share common pneumatical experiences but label and understand them differently (e.g., "God spoke to me" type situations). I don't endorse Grudem's pneumatology, but I think he may be right at least in some respects about charismatics and non-charismatics "experiencing" the same things. The scripturalness of those experiences is another matter.

Interestingly, I've heard anecdotal reports that in the early days of BJU, the student body was populated with a notable percentage of Pentecostals, Nazarenes, Weslyans, Baptists, and others; and that the no-tongue speaking rule was intended to prevent flash-points between them. Somewhere along the line, the University became more exclusionary toward Pentecostals. But along the way, there were exceptions made for people and groups like O Talmage Spence.

I know all of this is an aside, but I couldn't help but think of these larger picture connections.

 

M. Scott Bashoor Happy Slave of Christ

DavidO's picture

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.

 

 

C. D. Cauthorne Jr.'s picture

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.

Pastor Joe Roof's picture

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.

 

 

Mike Harding's picture

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.

 

 

Pastor Mike Harding

Shaynus's picture

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. 

ADThompson's picture

Mike Harding wrote:

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?

Shaynus's picture

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

Steve Davis's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

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 Smile

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. 

 

 

 

 

WilliamD's picture

Steve Newman wrote:

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. 

WilliamD's picture

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
 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? 

 

Joel Tetreau's picture

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

 

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;

gadietrich's picture

WilliamD wrote:

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.

Jim's picture

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

Don Johnson's picture

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.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

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?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Pages