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

What Matters Most: How We Draw the Lines

I can visit a church on Sunday morning, fellowship with believers, love what I am seeing, encourage fellow believers in what they are doing—and still choose not to join that particular local assembly. When we start separating over every belief and opinion we soon find ourselves standing all alone, criticizing the rest of body of Christ. I don’t think that is what God intended

Discussion

I do believe that there are some charismatics who are more responsible than others, and that there are some who really should not be called charismatics at all but who theoretically are not convinced from Scripture that tongues have ceased, etc.
I also know that there is actually a fair amount of cooperation between strict cessationists and responsible charismatics in many areas of ministry – which is one reason I think we should not overreact against Olson’s commendation of this church. I believe this kind of thing is a regular occurrence in the sphere of parachurch ministry, such as NIU operates.
But to divide between some charismatics and the Charismatic Movement is, I think, a distinction without a difference. I don’t think that can be the basis of a legitimate argument backing NIU in this matter.

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

I would second Greg’s previous post. A non-cessationist does not a Charismatic make. I don’t think Matt Olson is inconsistent in principle with Northand’s view of the Charismatic movement, because SGM simply isn’t in what I think of as the Charismatic movement.

In reality, there are charismatic movements. There’s the old-line Pentecostal groups, the charismatic renewal groups, seed-faith groups, third wave groups, etc. SGM sees itself as having some continuity with the charismatic renewal, though it’s definitely an offshoot that’s been reformed (in more ways than one).

I agree that being a non-cessationist doesn’t necessarily make one a charismatic in any of these varieties (cf. Martin Lloyd-Jones; and, for what’s it worth, this was my position for a while many years ago). But a non-cessationist who claims to practice charismata would likely see himself in some kind of continuity with the movements above.

M. Scott Bashoor Happy Slave of Christ

As I read the responses to what Matt did and said and as I have seen and heard these discussions before I am amazed. What amazes me is what some in Fundamentalism are willing to separate or at least limit interaction with over. Not to bore with a reminder history lesson but when Fundamentalism began as a movement, IMO, with the writing of The Fundamentals, it was much broader and inclusive then today. Writers who were included and viewed by Fundamentalists as Fundamentalists held to some of the things that Matt lists as being not fundamentals of the faith and gets blasted for. For example, James Orr and to a lesser extent B.B. Warfield were at the very least open to the possibility of theistic evolution. (I think they’re wrong) There were men who were Anglican(Ryle, Gray), and Presbyterian (Erdman, Warfield, Pierson), which would all imply that mode of baptism was not a Fundamental (I am not saying it is not important or immersion is not right but men who disagreed were still considered Fundamentalists). In fact, Lyman Stewart who came up with the idea to come up with The Fundamentals was a Presbyterian layman. All of this is to say that Fundamentalism was much bigger than what it has become and things that are now considered of upmost importance once were not. We would do well to remember that Fundamentalism was much bigger and more inclusive than just people who all agreed on everything or most things. They agreed on what was most important and outlined it. IMO, today, while we may disagree with others on certain things, we would do well if we would remember where we have come from.

Not that anyone really cares but as an alumni of Northland of both undergrad and grad I am thrilled for and with Matt, his following the Lord’s leading, and Northland in general.

Both historical fundamentalism and immediate fundamentalism has rejected apostolicism, both the extension of the office and it’s gifts. Clearly SGM is embarrassed by its history and is trying to change is the view of the apostolic office continuing. However that did not come from CJ it came by way of being forced upon them to C J’s rehabilitation with Mark Dever.

That being as it may SGM still holds to the apostolic era sign gifts existing today and operating. That is both counter fundamentalist and counter conservative evangelical.

Continuationism in any form is a rejection of historical fundamentalist and conservative evangelical ecclesiology (and eschatology some might say). Yes continuationist of all forms light, heavy, moderate, or theorists give lip service often to fundamentalist and conservative evangelicals ecclesiology but in their additional doctrines for theorists and practice or a ceptance as legitimste practice they are denying it.

If Olson demonstrates the integrity to chameleon either action or policy so that they match, it is still let to determine what kind of school it is.

If it keeps the SGM partnership and keeps with Olson’s blending or genericism of doctrine it will rightly be called either an Evangelical or Neo-Evangelical school.

I was in the ministry in the 1970’s when the Charismatic Movement came to prominenence and was added to the Fundamentalists”s Enemy List, joining the New Evangelicals and Pseudo-Fundamentalists.

SGM is not the PTL Club and CJ Mahaney is not Jim Bakker.

BTW, until the rise of the Charismatic Movement, BJU had Sunday School classes for a fair number of its students who were Pentecostal and Assembly of God.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

R A Torrey’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit argued for a 2nd work of the Holy Spirit post conversion. His views have been used by Charismatics to justify their theology. While I doubt he would align himself with Charismatics today, nor SGM (he wasn’t a calvinist), he had fundy street cred and academic cred. Alex, you have been overstating your case that fundies have always been anticharismatic.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

[Alex Guggenheim] Post #2 …Matt, have the integrity to change NIU’s policies… Post #20 …But hey, if he is trying to practice biblical Christianity, here is a start. How about making NIU’s policy reflect their new practice. Honesty and integrity in ministry is quite biblical… Post #22 …It is clear Matt Olson is redrawing lines for NIU but he needs to demonstrate some integrity and formally change their policy… Post #37 …it is about a first level issue (integrity) and maintaining it. The policy is explicit about Charismaticism and Olson is violating it without explanation. That is an integral failure which cannot exist in any group in order to succeed. Post #54 …If Olson demonstrates the integrity

Brother Alex,

You have repeatedly alluded to a deficit of integrity on brother Olson’s part. Integrity is commonly defined as:

  • the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness: he is known to be a man of integrity

Therefore, a charge of lack of integrity would be equivalent to an accusation of dishonesty and lack of strong moral principles. At the very least, please refrain from further attacks on his motives.

If Matt said something like that I do not think it would make any difference for those who have been hammering Matt for a lack of integrity and accusing him of violating NIU’s statement on separation. Those who oppose NIU’s direction will continue to confound and conflate the SGM with the CM. As I said earlier I am a friend of the church in question. I have significant enough differences with SGM that I would not join a SGM church but it’s not because they are part of the Charismatic Movement. They are not. But if I or anyone else says that repeatedly others will continue to cry foul that NIU is violating its position on the CM. For some there is no room for nuance. Frankly I am glad I am not part of whatever movement, fellowship, or mindset to which they belong.

Dr. Davis is right - some of this ‘fundamentalist wildfire’ seems to be driven by people who are more interested in being ‘anti-NIU’ or ‘Anti-SGM’ than they are interested in anything else. That’s sad, because no matter what happens or what Dr. Olson says, it will always be about bashing the opponent of choice more than it ever really was about this church in Philly or the NIU employee. This is separation gone berserk, and it’s the kind of thing that Phil Johnson was talking about eight years ago (see pg. 16 - “A Lack of Due Process”) although so many people pilloried him for saying so. Phil said (and I quote):

Here, in my view, is one of the main reasons so many of the best men and brightest young minds have left the fundamentalist movement. The way second-degree separation has been implemented by fundamentalists is
unseemly, ungracious, and unbiblical. The machinery of fundamentalist separatism has in effect established a form of excommunication without any due process. All someone has to do to ruin your ministry in fundamentalist
circles is publish a negative story about you in one of the fundamentalist gossip rags, and if it gets enough circulation, you will be branded for life as a neoevangelical; and anyone who has any kind of public fellowship with you will also then be tainted…

…But what is my duty to a fellow believer, someone who is fundamentally sound in his own doctrine, but who does not practice separation? What about an evangelical Anglican, who preaches the gospel himself, but is a member of a denomination that has ordained practicing homosexuals as bishops? Am I free to associate with him? Am I obliged to break fellowship with him?

If I do break fellowship with him, that’s second-degree separation. Now, it may surprise some of you to hear me say this, but there are times when I think second-degree separation is perfectly appropriate. There are some who have tried to argue that there’s no warrant in Scripture to separate from other Christians, so that in effect, if I believe a guy is a true believer, I should not separate from him ever, even if he holds a conference and turns the pulpit over to the Pope. But I think that’s quite wrong. Second Thessalonians 3:14–15 says: “If anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not
keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”

So there clearly are times when it is appropriate to refuse to keep company with someone who is a believer—especially if that person is deliberately and incorrigibly disobedient to the clear instruction of Scripture. But notice that we’re explicitly instructed to admonish such a person as a brother. Separation from a brother should never be quick and easy.

What I object to in the way American fundamentalists have practiced separation is this: they are often rash and impulsive in the way they separate from other brethren without any kind of admonishment and without due
process.
Furthermore, they try to enforce separation to the third, fourth, fifth, and fifteenth degree…

…And you can be branded and condemned and excommunicated by the fundamentalists without due process and without any hope of remedy. That is exactly what happened to John MacArthur. Almost twenty years ago, Bob Jones Jr. ran an article in a Bob Jones University-sponsored magazine accusing John MacArthur of teaching heresy. The article accused John MacArthur of denying the efficacy and the necessity of Christ’s blood.

It seemed to me that Bob Jones had misunderstood John MacArthur and misconstrued some quotations, so I personally wrote to Bob Jones Jr. for an explanation of the University’s position. He refused to answer my questions and in a curt way told me it was useless to try to correspond with him.

Five years later, after the controversy had already swept through the fundamentalist movement, Bob Jones III finally wrote privately to John MacArthur and in essence said MacArthur’s explanations of his position had satisfied BJU that MacArthur was not a heretic. But they never published any retraction. Thousands of their constituents to this day think John MacArthur is a heretic who denies the blood of Christ.

I’m concerned about this too, but I am not ready to jump to the ‘Fire Matt Olson, Fire the NIU Employee, and install a new Board at NIU level’ that some seem angling for. Let’s see how this plays out, and in the meantime, ignore those who really are just out for their 15 minutes of fame.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Greg,

Thank you for clarifying the distinctions between soft-cessationism and hard-cessationism. I have read Grudem’s work on this. I don’t comprehend how one can have non-authoritative revelatory gifts. Whether it be the gift of revelatory knowledge, revelatory tongues, revelatory interpretation, prophecy, or revelatory offices such as prophet and apostle. The implications of all this on the canon are more than serious. Either its revelatory or its not. No middle ground here, unless one believes in white blackbirds.

Pastor Mike Harding

[ADThompson]

[Alex Guggenheim] Post #2 …Matt, have the integrity to change NIU’s policies… Post #20 …But hey, if he is trying to practice biblical Christianity, here is a start. How about making NIU’s policy reflect their new practice. Honesty and integrity in ministry is quite biblical… Post #22 …It is clear Matt Olson is redrawing lines for NIU but he needs to demonstrate some integrity and formally change their policy… Post #37 …it is about a first level issue (integrity) and maintaining it. The policy is explicit about Charismaticism and Olson is violating it without explanation. That is an integral failure which cannot exist in any group in order to succeed. Post #54 …If Olson demonstrates the integrity

Brother Alex,

You have repeatedly alluded to a deficit of integrity on brother Olson’s part. Integrity is commonly defined as:

  • the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness: he is known to be a man of integrity

Therefore, a charge of lack of integrity would be equivalent to an accusation of dishonesty and lack of strong moral principles. At the very least, please refrain from further attacks on his motives.

When practice conflicts with policy questions of integrity rightly arise. The problem with your complaint is that to ask questions and oiunt out integral inconsistencies is not an attack but questions with citations. Those questioning are waiting for answers and until practice and policy match then the citation(s) and question(s) remain as the are, certain and special interrogatives.

Brother Alex,

I believe you are perfectly capable of legitimately pointing out inconsistencies without questioning a brother’s integrity. Please do not seek refuge in nuance and assume responsibility for your words.

I will speak no further.

Here-

SGM “charismaticism” is not much different from what I experienced in Bible-based fundamentalism growing up. (Which is also precisely why so many young fundamentalists can easily make the transition to SG churches—they do not really have to embrace anything distinctly different about how the Spirit works, only the extent to which He plays a role in everyday life.) Let’s not forget our own holiness/revivalist roots.

And here-

Why can’t associations and organizations admit that they’ve tolerated this error for far too long in their own camps, that it is possible this has contributed in some way to some (not all) of this doctrinal confusion../

Fundies have been soft cessationists for years, they just haven’t ever come out of the closet to admit it. I have not, in 40 years of being in IFBism, seen a hard line drawn on special revelation/knowledge. Doctrinal criticism has been focused on speaking in nonsensical tongues and claiming the gift of miraculous healing.

I don’t think much credence is being given to how pervasive soft cessationism is in IFBdom. I didn’t even realize it myself until one day a pastor came out and said that he received knowledge from God as our shepherd that we were not kin to because we were his sheep. He expected the congregation to ask his permission about major life decisions and purchases. It was an epiphany to hear it so boldly stated.

So since that line is not so clear or intuitive, perhaps it needs to be redrawn before we get upset at someone for crossing over it?

I”m trying so hard not to come back - Have to come back for two quick issues:

1. Susan - great point! A point I tried to make earlier.

2. Mike - Straight forward question here. Is part of your hesitation with so-called, “non-revelatory prophecy (per se)” is connected to your view of there being no “super-natural” work in this dispensation outside of regeneration?

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;

I think I can explain with a quick illustration how many of these guys defend the notion of soft-cessationism. Many of us would say, “God called us to our present ministry.” So…how do you know that? Many of us would say, “I know it was God’s will to marry the gal I’m married to. How do you know that? Paul says in Timothy, “if a man desires the work of the office of bishop he desires a good thing.” A fairly common interpretation with that passage from most fundamentalists and evangelicals (including many cessationist’s) would be that the word “desire” has with it a heightened reality that this is more than a “wow - that would be cool to pastor!” Connected with this word desire is the idea of “conviction.” I am “convicted” I must preach. So where did that come from? Many of us would say - that in order for that to be a legit deal the Scriptures teach that others will see it, we will have a character that is blameless, etc…..but if those are there, and there is this conviction that I must “shepherd” is that not a kind of internal, subjective (and objective) work of the Holy Spirit? Is this a non-revelatory work?

So most of these guys would say that this kind of non-revelatory prophecy while not being similar to the Holy Spirit’s moving on John to write Revelation, would be similar to our knowing we’ve been called into ministry, or I’ve been called to lead here at Southeast Valley, or that it was right to marry my lovely wife! :) So where I think some of us have gone to far - is that some of us disavow the Holy Spirit’s real internal and subjective ministry of comfort and “peace” and direction. I don’t believe that works apart from God’s word directly or indirectly. I’ve been saying this for some time. As I study the Scriptures there seems to be 5 different parts of God’s directing His children:

1. God’s Word gives direction.

2. Prayer gives clarity.

3. Careful counsel gives wisdom.

4. God providentially opens doors of opportunity.

5. The Holy Spirit gives a sense of comfort and peace.

I think I have Scripture for each one of these - and I think these are universally held by God’s children all over the world. I just wonder if we aren’t talking about the dynamic behind the continued ministry of personal and active and real encouragement that the Holy Spirit gives to each believer.

A quick thought,

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;