Matt Olson: "to draw dividing lines that He has not drawn grieves Him, hurts the body of Christ"

http://matthewrolson.com/what-matters-most-how-we-draw-the-lines/

Are those the only options Alex? TGC or what NIU used to be? I both applaud and lament their changes. Ignoring baptism as a clear NT teaching worth dividing over is problematic.

James,

Almost everyone divides over baptism. Presbyterians mostly don’t join Baptist churches, nor visa versa. That’s one level of division: not joining another church out of a particularly important teaching in how churches operate. Institutions like schools can be more broad than churches because schools don’t baptize (hopefully?). At BJU I was taught by a good number of Presbyterians. Is that wrong of BJU? I think Matt’s point is only separate as much as you need to.

[Ron Bean]

http://matthewrolson.com/what-matters-most-how-we-draw-the-lines/

The filing is part 3! :)

My error. I forgot to take my ginko.

I read this post early this morning before any comments were posted. I thought then that it might be good to make some popcorn. Lots of fireworks over perceived spilled beans, I predict.

I completely agree with what Dr. Olson wrote!

Although I’m not sure it answers the question. SGM’s web site clearly states:

One of the primary connections among Sovereign Grace churches is our commitment to a common Statement of Faith, which we summarize as evangelical, Reformed, and charismatic.

At the core of our doctrine is the gospel of Jesus Christ—the glorious truth that Jesus Christ died and was raised so that sinners would be reconciled to God. The gospel is our primary passion and the driving influence in our churches’ preaching, worship, small groups, and outreach.

Surrounding this core is an emphasis on sound doctrine. We are committed to a Reformed doctrine of salvation (the doctrines historically known as TULIP), justification by faith alone, and the belief that Scripture is the sole infallible source of doctrine and authority.

Beyond this agreement on the general tenets of Reformed theology, there are areas in which we differ from many Reformed traditions, such as infant baptism, cessationism (the belief that some miraculous spiritual gifts have ceased), and some traditionally Reformed types of church government.

Finally, we want all these convictions to inspire a passion for the local church. We believe that local churches are to be the primary means of advancing the Great Commission, in addition to being the context where all believers are to grow in holiness, be equipped for service, and bear witness to the saving grace of God. (http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/about-us/what-we-believe.aspx)

This would seem to be contrary to NIU’s Statement of Faith, and so I think the question about the relationship between the NIU employee and an SGM church is a valid one. And yet it’s not really keeping me up at night. I don’t run in NIU or SGM circles.

After standing up for Olson in principle on the other thread, let me clarify here. (I am not necessarily disagreeing with Olson, as I do not have time to offer a full critique of his writing, and I do not presume that this article is his complete teaching on the matter. On the surface, however, some of his statements do appear to be simplistic.)

I do not believe that the matter of separation/fellowship is an either/or, all-or-nothing situation, as many fundamentalists have made it.

I was taught this at FBTS by Dr. Myron Houghton, who has a lecture on the levels of fellowship that is very helpful.

Dr. John Whitcomb has developed a similar concept that he calls “God’s Truth Circles,” which he is actually teaching on the radio right now. You can hear the first installment here: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=831122029441

Steve, I absolutely agree with you. I am fully aware of the difference between SGM’s small-c charismaticism and big-C Charismaticism. I have no personal issue with what Olson did. I’m simply saying that in light of NIU’s doctrinal statement, Don’s question is a legitimate one because SGM believes all the gifts are valid today.

And if Olson gave an answer like you suggested, I would be satisfied. But I’m not sure Don would be. :)

So - How about a taxonomy of the Charismatic Movement

Maybe we’ll call it, “Three Doves in the Air!”

Just kidding!

Straight Ahead! :)

jt

[Greg Long]

Steve, I absolutely agree with you. I am fully aware of the difference between SGM’s small-c charismaticism and big-C Charismaticism. I have no personal issue with what Olson did. I’m simply saying that in light of NIU’s doctrinal statement, Don’s question is a legitimate one because SGM believes all the gifts are valid today.

And if Olson gave an answer like you suggested, I would be satisfied. But I’m not sure Don would be. :)

Dave,

The Bible itself teaches us that some doctrines are more important than others. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15 that the Gospel is of “first importance.” Obviously that means there are other teachings that are not of first importance. If everything is of first importance than nothing is. This is the problem with contemporary fundamentalism—everything is held out to be of equal importance and if you don’t agree with me exactly on every issue than I must separate from you.

Historically “fundamentalists” were those who held to the “fundamentals of the faith” such as the deity of Christ, virgin birth, etc. None of the things Dr. Olson mentions were considered to be the fundamentals of the faith.

Maybe it’s the unspeakable elephant in the room, but it seems that between the named issues of baptismal mode, eschatological timing, or nature of spiritual gifts, the least defensible/controversial issue is that of single-version Onlyism (whether it’s the King James, Septuagint, or the Vulgate). As we have witnessed in Fundamentalism over recent decades, not separating from an unbiblical Onlyism has only damaging consequences on the unity of the brethren. More than the other factors, it “grieves Him, hurts the body of Christ”