This decision sets BJU apart from those men and institutions that are drifting sharply away from the timeless moorings of authentic biblical separation. While not everyone endorses all things BJU, fundamentalists will appreciate and ought to applaud this difficult decision.
LM
Suggested Reading:
Is NIU “Unchanged?” NIU Students RAP to Jesus Loves Me and It's Blasphemy!
Do we know why he will not be speaking? Is it because of the direction he is taking Northland?
ReplyDeleteLou,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this development. While I do not personally recommend BJU, for a number of reasons, it is encouraging to hear that even they are recognizing the wrong direction of Matt Olson and Northland toward the Conservative Evangelicals. Let's hope that there is an even clearer call to repentance going on behind the scene. BJU and Northland have had strong ties for many years. I pray that many institutions and churches will take spiritual inventory of who is teaching in the classroom and preaching in our pulpits. The direction of a whole generation of preachers is depending on clear leadership from men who are willing to pay the cost of Biblical separation in these days of "Unity" over purity.
R:
ReplyDeleteI did not ask for reason(s) why the decision was made. I simply sought verification of a rumor that had been circulating, which was confirmed as true.
LM
Brother Steve:
ReplyDeleteI am a fan of BJU, my oldest is a graduate. There were plenty of folks in fundamentalism who were very concerned that Olson was going to be a keynote speaker on campus, while it was a rumor, who are now very relieved that it did not come to pass. I think a great many appreciate BJU’s decision.
Speaking for myself, there is no reason to watch and wait any longer, to give benefit of the doubt over the direction Matt Olson is headed and new trajectory he has steered for NIU. At NIU the course is set and the die is cast. There will be many who are not going to hold NIU's hand and walk the new pathways with them.
LM
R,
ReplyDeletePerhaps you are right. Maybe we should wait to see if there is any kind of public stand made by BJU. I know good men that are BJU grads that would certainly be encouraged if their alma mater would publicly distance themselves from the direction that Olson is taking Northland. While I am encouraged with the un-inviting of Olson, certainly a Biblically-based repudiation of his direction would have more effect. Perhaps a strong positional chapel message on separation by the administration would be appropriate even if Olson was not named specifically. What comes to my mind is the content and delivery and clarity of Marc Monte's "The Separatist Impulse" preached at Ambassador Baptist College's Spring Bible Conference. I don't know if BJ is ready to be that clear or not. I pray God grants them whatever boldness is needed to take action for the sake of their students.
As far as a public statement on Northland goes, Dr. BJ III did a 4 part series on the "Faith of the Gospel" in which parts 3 & 4 clearly address those who say it is "only about the Gospel" which is Northland's hue and cry. I think he did a great job and it would stand for a very good expose of the wrong thinking at my alma mater (Northland).
ReplyDeleteI’ve heard about messages such as you mention above at BJU. Seen some of the notes as well. Dr. Bob III and some others on faculty have spoken to the preacher boys in particular about these new trends, what I am seeing as a paradigm shift away from separation for the sake of a pure church. We can be grateful that Bob III and select others are raising awareness and ringing an alarm to warn and caution their young people. If Matt Olson had been allowed to appear on the BJU platform that would have sent a message that would have carried with it serious IMO unintended implications for BJU.
ReplyDeleteBTW, the fellowship around the Gospel, the so-called “Gospel-Centric” fellowship is around the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel. LS is the rally point, the so-called “pure gospel” for certain men in FB circles and the evangelicals.
LM
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThat is great to hear that there has been some public address of the Gospel-Centric "separation" of those moving toward the CE position. When were those messages preached, and could you post a link to them? Thanks.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=39111439341
ReplyDeleteThis is part 3. Part 4 has a great opening paragraph (after the normal introductory stuff.)
Thanks for the link to...
ReplyDeleteDr. Bob Jones III in April, 2011, The Faith of the Gospel, Part 3. His text is Philippians 1:27. Here is a portion of the first few minutes of his message.
“Our behavior as citizens of Heaven is what Paul is dealing with here. Our personal behavior, our worship behavior, everything pertaining to the redeemed Christian life is at stake here in what Paul is saying. Let your behavior as citizens of the kingdom of Heaven be as it becomes the Gospel of Christ, the saving message of Christ. Are you washed in the blood of Christ, His death, His resurrection? The Gospel of Jesus Christ. First Corinthians 15:1-3, the nutshell of the Gospel, the saving Gospel. There is a difference between the saving Gospel, which starts it all and without which there is no faith in the Gospel. We love the saving message of the Gospel. It’s to be on our lips at all time and in all places wherever we go. But Paul is dealing here [Phil. 1:27] with the governing gospel. That which governs us, as members of the household of faith, citizens of Heaven, AFTER we have received and believed into the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
The crux of the LS controversy is not over post-conversion issues, sanctification, discipleship and following Christ. There is very little disagreement over what should be the results of a genuine conversion. The controversy is over the requirements for how to be born again, justification. Is a man born again by faith, believing in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-3) what he did to provide salvation or by faith, plus commitment of life to perform the “good works” expected of a born again disciple of Christ to become a born again Christian, which is the demand of Lordship Salvation?
In those opening remarks you have all you need to know that the saving message Dr. Bob Jones III preaches and the Lordship Salvation message of Dr. John MacArthur are not one and the same.
LM
From Steve Rogers:
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
That is great to hear that there has been some public address of the Gospel-Centric "separation" of those moving toward the CE position. When were those messages preached, and could you post a link to them? Thanks.
Pastor Rogers/All:
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to an article I posted which is an outline transcription of the sermon by Pastior Marc Monte you referenced above he gave at Ambassador earlier this year.
Preserving the Separatist Impulse
LM
Have you talked with Dr. Olson about this? That would be the biblical way of handling this! I'm sure he would beg ad to answer any questions you might have.
ReplyDeleteAnon:
ReplyDeleteOrdinarily I do not post comments w/o the writer's name.
On this article I did not speak to Dr. Olson prior to publication. The fact of his being uninvited had been circulated and confirmed by officials from NIU and BJU.
Based on certain first hand accounts I am quite certain Dr. Olson would not be very enthusiastic with being questioned on the particulars of his removal.
FWIW, with one of my major NIU articles I did have prior cordial communications with him before publishing. I let him read the article and asked him to identify any factual errors, he cited none. My invitation to him to identify any factual error in any of my NIU or related articles is still in effect. He has my contact details.
Kind regards,
LM
As far as BJU cancelling Olson I am not surprised. I'm not convinced, however, that it has anything to do with the LS debate as much as it might with NIU's move away from BJU's music standards. I attended NBBC (now NIU) when they had BJ'ers leading the music dept. Basically, all music was worldly if it didn't have BJ's stamp of approval. If you allowed anything else you were catagorized as being on the "slippery slope" toward New Evangelicallism. BJ is historically fundamentalist, which I appreciate. I just don't like the air they present as the rule by which all men and ministries are to be measured. Is NIU going in a wrong direction? I am not convinced they are. However, we must concede that any ministry, as illustrated in history, is suseptable to falling.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "I'm not convinced, however, that it has anything to do with the LS debate as much as it might with NIU's move away from BJU's music standards." I don't believe music was the only concern that lead to the invitation withdrawal.
DeleteLM
"Is NIU going in a wrong direction? I am not convinced they are."
ReplyDeleteNIU Students RAP to Jesus Loves Me and It's Blasphemy!
In light of what we know today (September 2012) have you now been convinced NIU has gone in a wrong direction?
LM
But they don't separate from Clarence Sexton who gave his whole hearted approval of that pervert Jack Schaap. Fundamentalism is hypocritical when it comes to what direction they decide to separate from.
ReplyDeleteWill (Dudding):
DeleteI don't know that Sexton has given any kind of approval to Schaap since news of and his conviction for perversion. If Sexton has then he ought to be rebuked for it. Having said that I want to ask your opinion of Matt Olson having Jason Janz on campus among the impressionable young people there. IMO, having Janz in is like having Schaap in. They have the same moral equivalency.
LM
I didn't know where to post this question or concern. Seeing how you are familiar with the FBFI, I am interested in your opinion on this current controversy concerning having SBC elders in IFB pulpits to preach.
ReplyDeletehttp://mpriley.com/2014/03/10/an-sbc-prof-walked-into-a-fundy-pulpit/
I find it all very confusing, and I would be interested in your thoughts if you ever have time to address it.
Thanks for your work here.
Although this is not the most appropriate thread to post your comment and question I have allowed it so that I can redirect you back to that discussion thread so that you may read what Dr. Mike Harding posted there. He gives, in two comments, (3/11 @ 10:53am & 5:59pm) what I consider the reaction that will be most helpful to you.
DeleteKind regards,
LM