Pensees: Bible College Scholarship and One More Reason Why They Are Losing Influence in a Fading Movement

Great analysis. Let’s get straight what a “Hyper-Calvinist” is. He is one that goes beyond Calvinism in that he will not give a gospel invitation to an unbeliever and urge him to believe. Evangelizing the non-elect is being “promiscuous” with the gospel. Is there really anyone who identifies himself as a fundamentalist who believes such a thing today?

I expect I would share your general position on Calvinism, Bob. That being said, I don’t think it’s completely accurate to say that schools like this who make statements like this are “target(ing) as broad a constituency as possible.” There are plenty of issues where the school in question (and similar institutions) are targeting a fairly narrow constituency. For that matter, making a statement like this alienates them from some people (including, it would seem, you at least to some degree).

And, while their constituency may be divided on the issue at hand, I would daresay that many if not the majority of the churches from which they draw their students would handle the matter in a similar fashion. Making a “decisive” statement on the issue one way or the other would likely not just cost them students, but I would not be surprised if it divided the administration and faculty as well, who (I imagine, anyway) have been able to co-labor alongside each other in no small part because they have room to differ on the specifics.

I am not saying that if I founded or presided over an institution that I would articulate it as the man you are commenting on did. However, I am convinced that the man was not articulating a philosophy only because he thought it is what his constituency would want to hear. I expect that he articulated the ambiguity because he essentially would hold to an ambiguity, and is persuaded that a position on the issue is not enough in itself to divide and separate over.

Greg (and Bob, if you want),

Which would be a greater concern to you: 1) If this Bible college president really believed that Calvinistic theology isn’t worth talking about and that not talking about it is taking the “high road,” or 2) if this president is just pandering to a constituency?

Would it be wrong to say that one is theological indifferentism, and the other is disingenuous manipulation?

Bob,

I hope I don’t hurt your constituency by saying that I agreed with what you wrote above. I care about these people, the Bible college people, and the president to whom you refer, but thought something very similar to what you wrote. Of course, if I had written it, people would say it was because I use the KJV, another deep analysis.

If I disagreed with you at all, which I didn’t in main, it was over three points. First, I don’t think I know he said what he said for constituency. I really do think that many think that they are defining Scriptural unity when they talk about doctrine like he did. Scriptural unity today reduces doctrine down to a manageable number. He excused it with saying that all doctrine is important. But some important doctrines, in his system of unity, aren’t worth “fighting” about. I think he really believes this. He isn’t the only one. Many evangelicals also believe this. Now I see some of them rethinking what’s important with the rise of the emergent movement.

Second, I’ve already intimated to you. Evangelicals often say these same things. With little research, I could point them out all over.

Third, I think I have a slightly different view of grace than you indicate above. I do believe you are correct that they have twisted a scriptural understanding of grace. However, I don’t exactly see your view of grace either. That is a big subject, however, that I’m not going to get into right here and now and mess with the thread, although I think grace is one of those “big” subjects that you mentioned in italics above.

Bob,

I listened to this address a couple of days ago and I just listened again to the section where the quote about “no-point Calvinists” came from but I do not remember where the “high road” comment came in? Was it in reference to all the comments he made, to another comment, or to this specific issue of “Calvinism”?

Bob,

I listened to this address a couple of days ago and I just listened again to the section where the quote about “no-point Calvinists” came from but I do not remember where the “high road” comment came in? Was it in reference to all the comments he made, to another comment, or to this specific issue of “Calvinism”?

Ben,

I am not sure if you could interpret that what this man said could be taken as complete indifference, or that it would never be worth talking about. I think the position he is articulating is that it doesn’t matter if you draw the same conclusions- he is just putting it in language that the students and constituency will understand, if you will.

As I have shared elsewhere (and Kent mentioned), it is readily observable that similar things are said and done in other, non-fundamentalist places. I know from personal conversation that there are Calvinists (and non) in the Christian Missionary Alliance, for example. The SBC would be a prominent example of a fellowship and associated organizations that had similar variety in their positions (take Paige Patterson speaking at CHBC- http://www.chbcaudio.org/audio/2000/05-28-00.mp3).

The “high road” comment was not directly in the context of his section on Calvinism, but something he said later which I took to be the general explanation of all his stated positions in the particular address.

Bob,

What’s with the cloak of anonymity for “Bible College President”? I thought you were against anonymity.

Since everyone here knows who you are talking about, what is the point? Since the speaker’s message is publicly available with his name on it, what gives?

FWIW, I was a bit worried about the adulatory comments Matt was getting elsewhere, but now that you’re agin’ it, I’m feeling a bit better. Especially about the Calvinism bit. Who needs the zealotry? Keep your systematics to yourself.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Bob,
I apologize if I was not clear. I do place great value on theology and discussing systems like Calvinism. It is part of education and growth in the life of any believer. By burden for students is when it becomes a point of pride and arrogance and when a system becomes the standard over the Word of God - and hero worship. I have seen this kind of thing become very divisive and derail good men from what I feel is supremely important: The glory of God, the work of the Great Commission, being conformed to the likeness of Christ. My comments on “taking a higher road” were not to mean that our way is better but really deferring to others in such a way that I do not needlessly offend. Maybe a better way would be to say “take the low road” - being selfless and servant minded. I am not offended by your comments that my words were “cute but stupid” - but maybe a little puzzled in why you chose those. Again, I am learning and apologize if there was a lack of clarity. Anyway, just a few thoughts. For me, Theology IS supreme
Your friend,
MO

Just a quick note. The last paragraph of my comment above was much too caustic. My apologies.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don,

Apology accepted. I didn’t name the institution because I think that most of my readers actually would not have known who I was talking about or cared. It is the world wide web, after all, and many of my friends are completely outside the orb of fundamentalism, including most people within my church. The other reason is, believe it or not, I decided I didn’t want some innocent bystander to google search the institution and find this kind of criticism. Thus, the reason for not naming the institution.

As to anonymity, it wasn’t. Everybody knows who owns this blog.

Thanks for your apology, though. No offense taken.

Bob

Greg,

There’s a difference between agreeing not to divide over a theological disagreement and saying that it’s not worth talking about. As I remember, Patterson and Dever did discuss the issue a bit in that interview. And I’m certain that Patterson and Mohler had a very public dialogue at the Pastors’ Conference before the SBC annual meeting a couple years ago.

Matt,

Let’s call a spade a spade: We’re not friends. You and I barely know each other. You and your institution have been anything but friendly to me or my church in the past seven years and numerous invitations from us have been consistently ignored. Other fundamentalist institutions have sought friendship with our church, but yours has not, even though a significant percentage of our church are graduates from your institution.

If you want to fix that, wonderful. Consider this a public invitation: You have a standing invitation to come speak at my church any Sunday that is convenient for you as long as we don’t have a guest speaker already scheduled. I am a five-point Calvinist that is quite open to non-Calvinists speaking from our pulpit (;-)!) insofar as they love God, earnestly contend for the truth, and will preach so as to encourage us to greater love for God. I have heard from trusted friends that you would and could do all of the above.

As to my remark “cute but stupid”: It was a bit harsh, I know. I apologize. I feel a tinge of compunction for having said it that way although it is exactly what I felt and still feel. I don’t think it helps the crumbling credibility of the bible college movement. I obviously did not care if you or anyone from your institution read it, but I did make an effort to not put your names in the article so that google searchers would not find it. I realize that doesn’t mitigate the offense you might feel, but alas! Perhaps if the institution actually cared about friendship with churches like ours there might be more inclination to round off the edges, but I speak completely as an outsider that has no interest whatsoever in perpetuating a paradigm of Christian ministry that I think is fatally flawed.

I also know that at your institution are people who are Calvinists, one at least who is a five-point Calvinist. I know some who are very passionately opposed to Calvinism. To deal with it as you did by appearing to blow it off as a non-discussion struck me as simplistic and trite and realistically impossible. Your explanation helps: you were speaking to young students. But the address has been publicized as an announcement of your position on various issues and I think, frankly, it was insufficient.

Having said that, if you’re broad-minded enough to visit a Calvinist church that has a pastor who is a dissident friend of the fundamentalist establishment, I am open-minded enough (and eager) to have an opportunity to actually get to know you. Perhaps we’ll understand each other better after worshiping together. Perhaps, though distinctly different and committed to our convictions, we’ll forge a friendship.

Sincerely,

Bob

Bob,

It seems to me we have two issues here - Theology and a Relationship. Both are important to me.

In regard to Theology, I felt that I put my comments in a particular context and if I missed that mark I accept the responsibility and apologize for it. Though I do not hold to a limited atonement, I am not against Calvinism. The longer I am saved the more I marvel at the doctrines of grace and the more I love to study Theology. I believe Theology is supremely important. When I use the term “Hyper - Calvinism” I do not mean 5 point Calvinism. I know it is a loaded term, but I use it in referring to a few concerns: When college students wear it on their sleeve and it becomes an issue of pride, division, or excuse for not responding to the great commission. None of those concerns would be characteristic of a healthy Calvinism. Historically we have so many examples of humble, gracious men, who have been firmly committed to the Great Commission - who are also 5 point Calvinists. I could have sweet fellowship with such… and I do! We teach doctrine here and love it. Our students will have at least 4 semesters of Systematic Theology and we try to cover all of these things. My problem is not with the system of Theology but with pride - and it seems that Satan loves to use this as an occasion to bring men down. Certainly we discuss it - Calvinism! I do with our students all the time, but what I do not want is proud arguments that tear down young people. I have a responsibility to protect that and so do you as a pastor.

In regard to relationship. It seems to me that there is history with you and Northland that I do not know much about… a hurt or offense that has not been resolved. Now, I may be part of that. I think the best way to resolve that part would be to get together face to face and talk it through. You and your family have an invitation to be our guests on campus anytime and if I am down your way I will give you a call and try to set something up. I think the sooner the better.

I would feel completely free to preach in your church or to have you preach here in chapel - Theologically. Relationally I think we need to work through some things. I am eager to do that and looking forward to building a bridge to friendship.

MO

Hey, Bob, if you (or someone else) could email me the name of the institution and the link to the address I would appreciate it. I haven’t been able to find anything by googling. Thanks.

pastorstevebradley@juno.com

I listened to the message last week. It struck me that Matt began with saying something to the effect of, “Let’s talk about these things. Facebook or email me. I love to talk about these things.” Then, he switched to an attitude of (and these are my words expressing what I inferred) “It grieves me that we have to talk about these things.” Some of the issues he raised he did so with expressions that seemed to indicate that he found the whole issue to be absurd.

Here, on this blog he writes, “Certainly we discuss it - Calvinism! I do with our students all the time . . .” But, in the message he stated that he likes the philosophy of Les Ollila who said, “There’s no point in talking about it.”

Well, I’m wondering “which is it?” Do these things matter or not? If they do, then there should be serious thinking and serious conclusions about the issues. Northland should determine their position and stand there. If they don’t matter, then why not just say that they don’t matter and preach on the heart or something? (yes, mild kidding intended)

All in all, I find it hard to take seriously any message that is to be a position statement on the issues of translations, dress, music, calvinism, and fundamentalism in about 30 minutes!

I do tend to agree with you, Bob, that “constituency” has a lot to do with this. I don’t know that for a fact, but that is my opinion based on observing para-church ministries in fundamentalism for years and years.

This is one more example to point to that backs up the fact that the local NT church should be the training center for ministry. The Bible colleges are failing because they were/are not God’s plan.

Out for now.

I appreciate the points you are making, Bob. I also appreciate Matt’s response. Long live the spirit of genuine humility and desire for real reconciliation. THAT reflects the gospel in a way that little else we say can.

People, people! I certainly hope that no unbelievers come along reading this post or thread of comments, for it would certainly be a shame to our faith. Pastor Bixby, reading your posts reminds me more of arch-fundamentalist J. Frank Norris’s polemics than a gracious defender of Reformed theology (which I hold equally dear)! Though I stepped out of the blogosphere myself a few years ago due to conflicting demands, I greatly appreciate much of what you write when I step back into the stream on occasion. It grieves me to read you, a man whom I respect, writing in this way — your post and comments have about as much grace as a bucket of nails in a bed of coals. You may disagree strongly with M.O., but he is still your Christian brother (you would have him in your pulpit even!). Disagree and debate (the apostles did — Acts 15:7) but do it in a spirit of Christian humility. Maybe the school has wronged you in some way (I have no idea), but even still I think Jesus had something to say about that (Matt. 5:38-41).

The common argument that we should not have disagreements publicly because of lost folks looking in does not stand the test of Scripture. Jesus publicly disagreed with His disciples at times. The Apostles wrote letters in which they disagreed with the statements and behaviour of some in the NT churches. The “mixed multitude” in the churches heard these letters read.

M.O. preached a message and decided to put it on the WORLD WIDE web. Bob Bixby has responded using the same outlet. Why should public messages be answered only in private?

I appreciate reading this article and the comments. BTW, the “as much grace as a bucket of nails in a bed of coals” is much more akin to the style that Norris employed than what Bob has written here.

Scott,

Unbelievers would see a great testimony. They would see that I think that a college president said something dumb. They would also see that I did not name said president or college because I wanted to make a point about why I think bible colleges are dying and and liberal arts colleges are not. They would see that I was commenting on a very public statement that I thought in the main was lame.

They would also gather that the president in question came on to defend himself. They’d see his gracious response and my sincere response to him that if he wanted to speak in my church and make an effort to reach out to us I would be open to it. They’d figure out real quick that though I am a man of many sins one of them is not not meaning exactly what I say. They’d also note that in the entire history of this blog the author has never deleted any charge against him for being proud and arrogant and whatever. So despite his presumed arrogance he continues to let people freely charge him with whatever they wish.

They’d see two men talk plainly with one another and they could reasonably assume that the men will actually talk, forge a relationship, and probably carry on their business just fine.

They’d see other commenters wringing their hands and hoping that they (those bad unbelievers) don’t see the conversation because it might mar our reputation as cozy campfire cuddle-bugs. And they’d laugh.

In the real world people would think it amazing that I would be gracious enough to invite someone that I thought made a lame presentation come to my church with the full intention of having a wonderful time despite the fact that we clearly have some doctrinal differences. In the real world people would think it amazing that a person who had been told he said something stupid would even tease out the notion of accepting an invitation to the critic’s church. In the real world they’d read this thing and be impressed by the grace of God.

In the real world they’d think your angst was silly, brother.

Bobby: My post was not in response to the debate (in fact, I provided Scripture pointing out that the apostles debated!); it was in response to the tone. I am not a stranger to controversial dialogue: there are 20 pages of comments on SharperIron over an article of mine published there a few years ago. Before I stepped out due to lack of time, I ran a blog that regularly commented on what was then popular to call “young fundamentalism” — often receiving strong responses. I have had personal encounters with fundamentalist leaders (one being president of another major institution) over being involved with public dialogue over public issues. I say all that to prove that I have no issue with public debate. As far as my comment about nails and coals, I must express mea culpa — in an effort to be vivid, I fell prey to precisely what concerned me. For that I apologize.

Pastor Bixby: Perhaps it is the impersonality of Internet communication (with which I have had my own problems in the past), but your invitation to reestablish a relationship did not seem entirely genuine but rather sarcastic. I could illustrate my reasons for seeing that, but I think it would come across more like splitting straws than anything else. In contrast, M.O.’s replies do consistently seem gracious, and I believe they would be a testimony to an unbeliever. Part of my frustration with the thread is that I want to “cheer you on” in the discussion, as I agree with your soteriology; however, I feel I cannot do so because of your manner of speech.

I will not deny your statements about how most unbelievers would view this thread: you have more ministry experience being a pastor than I do being a seminary student. However, understand that my comments are not a sheltered, sentimental, gut-level reaction. Most of my ministry experience has been on the secular college campus, and I have met more than a few students who are disenchanted with Christianity because of the less-than-charitable manners of the Christians they know. If we as Christians leaders are to be “above reproach” than I think we must be tremendously cautious in not only what we say, but how we say it. Furthermore, one of our generation’s contentions with mid-20th century “establishment fundamentalism” has been the acridity of their polemics. Lest we eat our words, we must be all the more careful to avoid their failures. We can never be condemned for being too full of peace, patience, kindness, and gentleness (Gal 5:22-23).

I have explained my encouragement (1 Tim. 5:1): I doubt I will post here again. I pray the Lord will continue to use you. Soli deo gloria.

Bob,

You’re not gonna let Scott steal your Mea Culpa line on your own blog, are you? C’mon, it’s time to set some boundaries!

Sorry, I didn’t realize that it was his line. Mea culpa! ;-)

Scott and the rest of you,

This will be longer than the average post. My apology. I leave for surgery in about 20 minutes, so this will have a spelling error or two in it. And I will not be able to respond further for a day or so probably. Thank for your prayers. I re-ripped my Achilles tendon. I have surgery in a few short hours. I’ll be “down” for 6 weeks or so recovering. I’ll continue to preach from a chair on the pulpit.

A little background will help some of you with this discussion.

I claim to be one of Bob’s best friends. It is a pleasure beyond description. Bob and I have much in common. Both of us have been privileged to have family in significant roles of leadership and responsibility within ministry and within Type A - “movement fundamentalism.” Both of us have been “concerned” about certain elements within “Type A fundamentalist-institutionalism.” Both of us have told “them” that while we love them (and we actually do!) and while we have benefited much from there halls (In Bob’s case Northland, in my case 4 schools)and while we would like to continue to have a relationship with them at some level, that we (and numbers of other pastors who grew up in the movement watching some of the negative aspects of power-wielding institutionalism) have reservations with fundamentalist-institutionalism. By the way, NBBC has helped in these discussions. Dr. O and Doug did much in the 1990’s to work against the type of “abuses” Bob and I and others have responded against. Doug’s book highlighted much of the “angst.” (just as aside…by the way don’t blame Doug for the things you don’t like about Bob or me or anyone else).

Scott, this my shock you…..not everyone has been “cool” with that. So, I say all that to give you “context.” This latest back and forth is just the latest “interaction” between guys like Bixby and myself with “the brethriem!”

It’s OK. Frankly life would be easier for guys like Bixby and Tetreau and others to say, “Pox on your house!” and just move one. We both want to continue to have a relationship with them, because we love the men (even though we have differences with them), the ministries and churches and especially the students within the ranks of these schools.

We especially love the students. Here’s the deal - Many of these students are going to end up as what I call “Type B fundamentalists” (like Bob, myself and a few others) and they will need men a bit older to love them, encourage them, think with them, etc….that’s where Bob and I come in. When their own schools will reject them….and unfortunately that will happen to many of these guys (because much of fundamentalist institutionalism can’t handle “rogue alumni” without trying to torpedo their ministry/reputation/etc….). So when that happens, or when those institutions undermine certain local churches because of whatever, Bob and I want to be there for them!

I myself am going through a similar challenge with an institution that takes a similar approach to that of Northland. Just like Bob and Matt, these brothers and I love each other in the Lord…that’s a fact. But just like Bob and Matt, They and I have tried and continue to work at our relationship. It’s not an easy deal.
A couple of things to remember:

1. Bob Bixby is exactly who you see. He very seldom (if ever) is publicly (or privately) purposefully or knowingly disingenuous. If he says he wants a renewed relationship with Matt and our friends at Dunbar, he means it.

2. If Bob says he thinks Matt’s comments were stupid, he’s not saying Matt is stupid. He just thought the specific comments were not well, “thought out.” Bob has already apologized to Matt for how that came off. I’m one of Bob’s best friends….He would (and has) tell me that a certain idea is “nuts!” That’s Bob! Yes, we all want a gentler and nicer Bob….and I’m working on that, with some success. I used to have to re-write his public spots at least twice a month. Why it’s been like a year or more since I’ve had to run to his rescue. So he’s getting better!

3. By the way, and this is just an aside. You notice many times when these sorts of disagreements happen, leaders will give an accusation, but then don’t take the time to explain why such a challenge was issued. You will find that Bob here explains exactly why he says what he says.

4. You guys need to let this thing “play out.” Matt and Bob I’m, sure will get together. Matt, I hope you take Bob up on his offer. Every so often Allegiant Air fly’s from the new Phx-Mesa Gateway Airport to Rockford. I’ll be happy to fly to Rockford and back to be a part of whatever meeting you guys think is needed. Nothing like brethren working together so that they can dwell together in unity.

Straight Ahead!
Phil 3:12-14

jt

ps - Matt, you need to understand that I have explained to Bob I was please with much of what you said. I believe that you are sharing in good faith the direction of your ministry. I believe you say what you mean and mean what you say. I also believe you and Bob are far more closer in reality, in values, etc….than either of you would guess. I’m confident God will grace you with a good conclusion on this.

Joel: Thank you for your further perspective. Just so you understand, nothing you said would shock me at all. Because of my current position I have to be purposefully vague, but I would classify myself in your system as a B- fundamentalist. You may not remember who I am since I’ve been out of the orbit for a while, but both you and Bob have read my position before:

http://neofundamentalist.com/?p=296
http://weblog.wordcentered.org/archives/2005/07/20/random_thoughts_about_si.php

I would say and emphasize some things differently now, but my basic posture has not changed.

Scott,

I remember you! Hey, zip me a private note - pastorjoel@sevbc.org

Thanks for the interaction.

To the rest of you. surgery went well. I have very little pain compared to past surgeries on my tendons. PTL for his mercy.

Blessings and Straight Ahead!

jt

I have not commented much on this thread, but have found it fascinating and not to jump on the bandwagon . . . but I find myself in the exact same place as Bob and Joel.

I sincerely value and respect the men that invested in my life and the habits that I acquired as an active member of Type A fundamentalism. He may not remember, but I have interacted with Dr. Olson on a number of occasions, always positively. However, the IFB movement has become so entrenched in tradition sometimes that we are afraid to say what we actually believe. Let me give an example - I am firmly convinced of the doctrines of grace as explained by Calvin - yet I have been told on more than one occasion to shut up about what I believe that Scripture says for fear of offending a “constituency”. I realize that many times I needed to temper my communication with grace. I am still learning this lesson, but I am more upset with pastors and leaders of institutions who are afraid to clearly and publicly hold to the truths of Scripture for fear of offending a particular group of people who may disagree (in this case, our Arminian-leaning brethren).

I think what I long for is a leader who says, “_____ the torpedoes, full speed ahead.(pardon my french) We are not going to change our presentation of truth in order to please a constituency.” He says it with grace and humility, but no softening of doctrine to please revivalists or KJV onlies or anyone else who happens to hold a different view. He is happy to interact with those that disagree, but will not compromise truth.

We all know leaders who will admit behind closed doors that “Scripture doesn’t really say alot about music” and “I think that the Bible does not prohibit women from wearing pants” and “John MacArthur is not a heretic” and “progressive sanctification is true” and “God is sovereign in salvation” and “topical sermons with lots of stories are weak” and “my church has no right to tell another local body how to run itself” and “my college has no right to tell a church how to worship” and . . . you fill in the blank.

but they refuse to hold these positions publically and continue to propagate these types of thinking because of “the people”. Therefore, (hypothetically speaking), Dr. Olson may be completely convinced of the doctrines of grace, yet he cannot say it publically. (I am not saying this as being the case, just continuing the example).

I don’t mean to paint with too broad a brush here. I think that Dr. Olson has done a lot of good in many of these areas - and taken heat for it, but I implore him and others to Do more! Press on! Your students be more likely to remain true to God’s Word if you can model unswerving committment to the truth, regardless of the consequences.

A generation of believers is wrestling with fundamentalism. Many have completely forsaken the truth of the gospel itself because of hypocrisy and poor theology within the movement. Others still have a relationship with Christ, but have completely compromised theology. Still others, myself, and I believe Bob and Joel, are desperately trying to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The original principles of fundamentalism are sound, but the application and traditions have weakened the message over time.

I respect the decision to leave the President and institution anonymous but am wondering who the article is referring to. Could someone email me at kingdomseeker@hotmail.com to let me know? Thanks.

Many have completely forsaken the truth of the gospel itself because of hypocrisy and poor theology within the movement.

Coach C, that is just baloney. Or do you actually believe people can lose their salvation?

Bitter lost people blame the “hypocrisy” of Christians for all sorts of decisions they make. Whether the alleged Christians are hypocritical or not, their wrong decisions come from one place only, their unbelieving heart.

That, of course, is not an excuse for any Christian to be hypocritical or have poor theology. But your statement is a little over the top, don’t you think?

The fact is that fundamentalism is plagued with a problem. The problem is the people who are fundamentalists - ALL of them. They won’t stop sinning. So they unfortunately bring shame to the Lord they say they want to glorify.

And then along come some other sinners who “are desperately trying to not throw the baby out with the bathwater” who apparently expect perfection out of other sinners. It is quite an amazingly naive point of view!

While I do think we need to try to improve fundamentalism and fundamentalists, I think the critics from within probably need to be a little more committed to the essential cause if they really want to stay in. Otherwise how can those whom they criticise really take their “constructive criticism” credibly?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don, your criticism of that point is warranted. It was poorly worded. In re-reading it, I thought about saying something, but the thread seemed dead,so I did not make the effort.

Maybe I can explain it a little. I said: Many have completely forsaken the truth of the gospel itself because of hypocrisy and poor theology within the movement.

I certainly belief that once saved, always saved, however, my comment had in mind the young people who grow up in fundamentalism. Many of them have learned to outwardly “walk the walk”, some even participate in soul-winning and all the ministries of the church - yet they end up rejecting Christ later in life. I would surmize that these individuals were never believers in the first place. I believe that weak theology has contributed to their never being confronted with the truth of their standing before God.

Paul and Christ both mention the idea of a “stumbling block”. That was the idea that I was getting at. I think that many young people within fundamentalism have been discouraged in their faith because of “theological hypocrisy”.

I recently had a young man in my office who is now a self-professed agnostic. He grew up in fundamentalism, but he could never reconcile biblical theology with the practices that he observed within his church and family. His rejection of the faith is not justified, but theological hypocrisy became a distraction to him.

Poor theology is a stumbling block. Poor theology relating to sanctification was a huge problem for me all through high school and some college. Fortunately, I had a father who modeled progressive sanctification in front of me - in spite of what my pastor was preaching and what the revivalists taught me about looking for my dedication moment.

I had an influential preacher within the fundamental movement once tell me that the “KJV has some translation errors, but you can’t tell people that”. I believe that many young people would benefit from a modern translation, yet they are sheltered from the strongest possible impact of God’s Word in their own language.

To summarize, fundamentalism has taught our children from the youngest ages that “drinking, smoking, chewing, dancing, listening to rock music, stealing, and going to movies ” are among the worst sins possible. These children grow up without doing anything on “the list” and sometime around jr high, they start to trust in their works as a means to salvation. They completely miss the idea of having a relationship with Christ or daily sacrifice or growing in the fruit of the Spirit. Furthermore, because they don’t do anything on the list, they are never confronted and discipled in a biblical way. They learn that gluttony is not a sin, that meekness is great for everyone but the head pastor, that love is not really that important and that holiness just includes the things on the list.

It is true that people are responsible for their own spiritual choices, but sound truth can’t hurt. This is why men of my age are bolting away from fundamentalism - because the first time that they were exposed to the theological meat of the Word - it was by reading Piper, MacArthur, or another man who the pastor always called a “new evangelical” or “liberal”. Then they start to think, “well maybe the liberals have it right after all” . . . For me, some of the best theologies that I have read were written by Presbyterians. I am a fully convinced Baptist, but when I struggle to find deep of theology in my own faith tradition, why wouldn’t I look elsewhere?

Coach C, both of your statements are very well put. I think you have accurately expressed what many people in the shadows of the fundamentalist movement really think.

Coach C, we are probably diverging from the thread a good deal in this discussion. I am going to copy your last post and write a response that I will post on my own blog later today.

Just two quick points:

1. People depart from the faith because of unbelief. They have a million excuses.

2. I agree that we must do everything we can to eradicate stumbling blocks and rigorously examine everything we say and do. I am FOR militant Christianity on the personal, local church, and wider ecclesiastical levels.

Enough for now. I’ll post a longer reply later at www.oxgoad.ca

BTW, the reason I read Bob is that he does exhibit militant Christianity, even though I often disagree with his conclusions. I appreciate his boldness.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Thanks, guys. Don, I think we are going the same direction and I look forward to your post.

To bring this full circle and back to context, the fundamental issue is that sometimes we avoid dealing with strong doctrinal issues because of the strife it may cause, but in avoiding the issue, we make things worse. If I can bore you with one example, I once taught a Sunday School class on hermeneutics. As part of a lesson, I wanted to point out some theological problems that were present in two hymns in that particular church’s hymnbook. I ran the idea by my pastor and he asked that I not present something so controversial . . .

The president in the aforementioned interview is trying not to publicly take a position on behalf of his institution on the issue of soteriology for fear of alienating a portion of his constituency. I say, (maybe because I am young and dumb) Take your position, be approachable, be gracious, but for goodness sake, proclaim the truth and let the chips fall where they may. And maybe, just maybe your institution will become a place where young preachers reject pragmatism, are fully convinced of their theology and will go forward to make disciples.

Frankly, I happen to believe that a strong proclamation of the truths of Romans 8,9,10 and Ephesians 1 will go a long way toward fixing the problems of fundamentalism, making our faith God-centered rather than man-centered. The longer that our leaders soften the sovereignty of God, the longer we will have to put up with unbiblical thinking in almost every area.

The president in the aforementioned interview is trying not to publicly take a position on behalf of his institution on the issue of soteriology for fear of alienating a portion of his constituency. I say, … Take your position

Two points:

1. Are you sure that he is doing what he is doing because he doesn’t want to alienate his constituency? There could well be other reasons.

2. What if he just has taken his position?

If it were me (many people are thankful that it is NOT me), I would take this position: Soteriological distinctions are a matter of individual conscience and as such we encourage our students to arrive at their own conclusions. I wouldn’t actually want to hire faculty that were exclusively one way or the other on this view. It isn’t a matter for separation, differing views are not departures from the gospel here. So let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. And let every man not be belligerent about it. In other words, if you start causing friction over it, it will mean demerits and ultimately expulsion. So discussion and in-class learning OK to a point, but no wrangling and proselytizing over it - that would not be OK.

That actually used to be the basic position at BJU, don’t know if it has changed any.

So as I said, what if he has taken his position? He is certainly taking his lumps for it here and elsewhere, isn’t he?

Remember, just because some have been convinced that Calvinism is the only way to fly, not every believer on the planet agrees. To some extent, we should be able to work together in spite of those differences.

Ok, enough on that. I’ll be posting my thoughts on some of these other things shortly. Gotta get my bulletin printed out and then I’ll re-read what I wrote and post it.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don,

I feel I need to reiterate this. I was not — not — saying that Matt Olson had to be Calvinistic. In fact, I said this in my original post:

If he had said, “On our campus we have differing opinions on this critical and complex discussion that has consumed the thoughts of God’s people for centuries and as an institution we choose to allow for variance of opinions and convictions while encouraging an attitude of tolerance toward opposing views, but here is precisely the core that we adhere to……” we could be encouraged. To challenge the students to earnestly study the complex doctrine of soteriology while patiently listening to the views of others would have been good advice.

It’s very similar to what you just proffered as something Matt might have potentially said. My complaint was that he seemed to be dismissing the subject as altogether insignificant. I merely pointed out what many others found problematic. The ambiguity that I objected to was that there seemed to be no position taken at all. I would have been happier with something similar to what you suggested just now because it would have

1. recognized the seriousness of the discussion

2. clearly indicated how/why the institution was approaching the subject the way they did.

I think you are missing my point if you think I’m upset that NBBC is not Calvnistic enough. I know for a fact that there are some people there who are plenty Calvinistic enough for me!

Matt,

I don’t know if you are still following this thread, but the young man that suggested that I sounded sarcastic when I invited you is someone that doesn’t know me. I’m plain. And I’m sincere. Everyone in my church who reads my blog knows that I would be more than happy to have you spend time here and preach here and we are waiting for your office to set something up with us.

I’m currently a student at the institution in question, so I won’t comment on…almost anything.
There are both practical and ethical considerations for me.

As a “Type B” (actually, that’s an unrealistically conservative way of referencing myself) with the current, “inside scoop,” I could probably lay to rest many of the straw-men being erected here.
However, the institution has chosen to represent itself somewhat ambiguously (BTW, there are potentially redemptive reasons for considering constituency), and it isn’t my place to clarify its positions or atmosphere from my perspective.
So, I’ll reduce my response to an irreducible minimum:
The institution of 10 years ago, against which you are reacting, is not the institution of today.

Anyways, I would like to respond to just one comment. Joel Tetreau said,

Here’s the deal - Many of these students are going to end up as what I call “Type B fundamentalists” (like Bob, myself and a few others) and they will need men a bit older to love them, encourage them, think with them, etc….that’s where Bob and I come in. When their own schools will reject them….and unfortunately that will happen to many of these guys (because much of fundamentalist institutionalism can’t handle “rogue alumni” without trying to torpedo their ministry/reputation/etc….). So when that happens, or when those institutions undermine certain local churches because of whatever, Bob and I want to be there for them!

Thanks Joel, but I don’t expect to be disowned.
When a guy says, “I think I’m going to join the SBC,” you might be surprised at who would respond, “Ok, just make sure you’re an historic fundamentalist in the SBC!”
And when a guy says, “I’m not wasting my time on the FBF!” you might be surprised at who would respond, “Well, I’m not so sure that I’d want you to!”
And when a guy says, “We can’t listen to Sovereign Grace in the dorms,” you might be surprised at who would respond, “Really? I didn’t know that. That’s a problem!”

I’m currently a student at the institution in question, so I won’t comment on…almost anything.
There are both practical and ethical considerations for me.

As a “Type B” (actually, that’s an unrealistically conservative way of referencing myself) with the current, “inside scoop,” I could probably lay to rest many of the straw-men being erected here.
However, the institution has chosen to represent itself somewhat ambiguously (BTW, there are potentially redemptive reasons for considering constituency), and it isn’t my place to clarify its positions or atmosphere from my perspective.
So, I’ll reduce my response to an irreducible minimum:
The institution of 10 years ago, against which you are reacting, is not the institution of today.

Anyways, I would like to respond to just one comment. Joel Tetreau said,

Here’s the deal - Many of these students are going to end up as what I call “Type B fundamentalists” (like Bob, myself and a few others) and they will need men a bit older to love them, encourage them, think with them, etc….that’s where Bob and I come in. When their own schools will reject them….and unfortunately that will happen to many of these guys (because much of fundamentalist institutionalism can’t handle “rogue alumni” without trying to torpedo their ministry/reputation/etc….). So when that happens, or when those institutions undermine certain local churches because of whatever, Bob and I want to be there for them!

Thanks Joel, but I don’t expect to be disowned.
When a guy says, “I think I’m going to join the SBC,” you might be surprised at who would respond, “Ok, just make sure you’re an historic fundamentalist in the SBC!”
And when a guy says, “I’m not wasting my time on the FBF!” you might be surprised at who would respond, “Well, I’m not so sure that I’d want you to!”
And when a guy says, “We can’t listen to Sovereign Grace in the dorms,” you might be surprised at who would respond, “Really? I didn’t know that. That’s a problem!”

Scott, you said:

The institution of 10 years ago, against which you are reacting, is not the institution of today.

But Matt said emphatically that the culture is not changing, we are not changing, we have not changed, etc. etc.

Which is it?

I, for one, certainly found no encouragement in the words that the culture has not changed. I find a lot of encouragement in what you are saying.

You and I both know that, as far as the average Type A is concerned, facial hair today means ECT tomorrow.

These folks need reassurance along the way. If they get it, they may be led along toward—oh, I don’t know—thinking (see my above comment about considering constituency redemptively).

I don’t feel that I can comment much further. Suffice it to say, I stand by my original post and you can be encouraged.

Feel free to contact me privately.

Hi Bob…

… hey, we are in thread drift. Can you feel the free fall? To clarify my last post, I was responding to Coach C, not your original post.

Doesn’t all this blogging just drive you crazy?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

While we’re at it—

You also might be surprised at who, from a certain Liberal Arts school that you seem to be enamored with, would come to a certain Bible College that you seem to be disenchanted with, and say publicly (much to the chagrin of students AND faculty/admin), “You cannot be in the SBC and be godly!”

There may be levels on which your perceptions of both schools should trade places.

This is interesting. I am a senior at Northland and I am a five-point Calvinist. I was there when Dr. Olson gave his talk. While I was disenchanted with the way it was handled, and I had the same concerns as Bob mentions I still stand behind Dr. Olson. By the way….I’m one of the guys headed to Southern Seminary. Anyway, while I think I may agree more “systematically” with Bob and the other Calvinists I have once again watched Dr. Olson respond with grace and humility. One thing Dr. Olson harps on constantly is humility and prayer! Bob and I may agree on limited atonement, fundamentalism…whatever…but you are still not a qualified minister of the word to speak with arrogance as many on this thread have. This was actually eye-opening for me to read this. The reason Dr. Olson said what he said was because of people like this who waist their lives being sweet guys on the blogs while men like Dr. Olson are on their knees accepting your criticism and seeking God’s face over it. Let his response be a lesson to you. You may be 5-pointers…yeah for you and I… but God will reward those who love His appearing? When you see Jesus will you ask Him if he would have been a five-pointer….I doubt it….learn grace brothers…please.

Anthony, after reading your post, I want to be clear that I am not criticizing Dr. Olson specifically. I used his comment to make broad comments. I have seen abuses resulting from Armenian theology, but it was not my point to stand on the Calvinist soapbox.

I think Don has stated it well - we are most concerned with the impression that the subject was being dismissed as being unimportant, not necessarily that Dr. Olson needed to take a stand on a particular theological system.

Anthony, may I submit that you should be careful about who you accuse of “unqualified” and “arrogant”. Bob and I might be, but most here are godly men who desperately desire to promote truth. Blogging is a good way to interact with ideas and sharpen each other. My current job allows for very little theological interaction and blogs are a great chance for me to learn and work out my theology.

Anthony,

Let me simply say, as a member of Morning Star Baptist, that Bob is qualified to be a minister of the Word.

This is one reason I’m excited for Matt to visit our church to worship with us. There are many in the blogosphere who don’t really know Bob or know his ministry to his people. Joel knows him. I know him. His church knows him.

As for praying on your knees: I will assume that you have seen with your own two eyes Olson on his knees praying for people like Bob by name—since you say so. As for Bob…

I have witnessed with my own two eyes Bob praying for individuals and ministries that we may not necessarily agree with. Every single Sunday he asks God to bless specific ministries by name (including some pretty far-right fundamentalist churches) as they are proclaiming the gospel — they are after all part of the church of Jesus Christ and many in those churches are our brothers. Bob prays for them physically on his knees before the congregation.

I have also seen Bob on his knees in a hotel room praying beside his bed as he was preparing to write a post on his blog.

I look forward to asking Matt some questions when he comes to visit.