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

Steve,

First, thanks for the kind words. Our friendship is still in tact. I re-read your article. My take on your example is that this man’s sub-conscious mind operated during his sleep and brought to him various thoughts about the gospel. In other words, assuming that he is not lying or delusional, he had a real dream. I do not assert or believe that it was a revelatory dream. Of course, I realize “that the man with the experience is not at the mercy of the man with the doctrine,” to quote Hobart Freeman who left Grace Seminary after converting to charismaticism.

Regarding Matt’s personal integrity, no one has accused him of lying. Nor do we consider visiting a church and appreciating the good things he saw as an unqualified endorsement. That would be unfair. My opinion is that Matt overlooks certain issues because he does not think they are very important. He does not see the seriousness of those issues. Does this concern me? Yes. I have students at that school. I have Northland grads in my church. I have sent many young people to that camp. I have had numerous groups from the school minister in our church. I wonder, “What are they being taught and what is being neglected?”

Steve, you have been very clear as to your change of direction. I don’t think it is a radical change, but it is according to your own statements a change. You and I handled that change as Christian gentlemen. To be candid, I am somewhat saddened by it and you are probably disappointed that I have remained in “IFBdom” as you call it; however, I know you love God, the Gospel, the Bible, the church. The same could be said of Matt. I know you are sacrificing in many ways to plant a new church that is consistent with your values, beliefs, and philosophy. The difference between you and Matt is that Matt is overseeing an IFB Bible college that agreed with us on music, dispensationalism, Baptist distinctives, ecclesiastical and personal separation and a host of other issues. We sent them students, money, public support. It appears to me (and I say “appears” because I am an optimist and sincerely pray for the best) that the positions of the school as led by Matt are changing even as some of your positions have changed. Based on what you have written, I am fairly confident that you also have noticed these changes and that you are in whole-hearted agreement with them. I understand what you are saying and why.

If I were a Bible college president, I would be very concerned about what my Bible professors believed in regard to the cessationist/continuationist debate. If my Bible professor was an active member of a SGM church, I would have to let him go. The issue of continuationism is far too serious to confuse my students with that level of ambiguity or confusion, particularly in light of my school’s documents, policies, history, and constituency. Even conservative evangelicals like John MacArthur would be doctrinally militant on this issue. I have known Matt as long as you have and have many fond memories of our friendship and mutual involvement in ministry. Friendship is important. Truth is more important. On this issue of continuationism truth is on the line as I stated in my previous post. Truth trumps ecclesiastical fellowship on something like this.

Pastor Mike Harding

[Don Johnson]

Susan, I think you are making two mistakes. First, extrapolating from your experience to let that stand for the whole of Fundamentalism. Second, confusing the leading of the Spirit, which no one denies, with the gifts of the Spirit, see my post to Joel above.

Emphasis added.

Don, you have said this twice now. Many of us actually do disagree with any intimation that the Holy Spirit somehow moves us. He convicts of sin; He illuminates scripture. I, and many others, find no scriptural evidence that He directs our decision making on an individual, extra-biblical basis.

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

[James K]

Alex, if you consider what I actually said, you will not see where I said anything negative about his doctrine. Saying that some have used his works to justify bad behavior/theology isn’t a criticism necessarily.

It is certainly that it is within the realm of possibility that Olson does not see charismaticism in the SGM as the same thing that the statement of faith was arguing against. So while as charitable as you are toward Torrey, you are very much not toward Olson. You are simply debating the terms used.

James,

You were not charitable toward me with Torrey, you were matter-of-factly wrong (but you are a charitable person in my experience). Torrey categorically rejected Pentecostalism and its properties. It illustrated nothing in the way of parallels.

Torrey knew precisely what Pentecostalism believed and practiced and did not want any association with them in ministry.

Now, if you actually believe the argument that Matt Olson is so deficient in his theological, professional and educational development that he does not understand that SGM is a category or form of charismaticism then that is your right but I would submit that such an argument is one that disparages Olson’s fitness and places him in the light of one unprepared to lead at that level seeing he cannot determine clear distinctions. I believe otherwise and that he knows precisely what SGM is and if he does not, that is even worse.

My charity toward Olson is plenty and one should expect exceptional theology and practice from him. To me a sophomore knows the distinctions here. And because of my charity toward Olson which influences my opinion and expectations of him I am confident that he is that aware, that developed and that careful to inform himself on such matters before taking the coalescing action he has. So, like others, one asks the questions based on observed lack of integral consistency of policy and practice and hopes for answers.

[Chip Van Emmerik] Many of us actually do disagree with any intimation that the Holy Spirit somehow moves us. He convicts of sin; He illuminates scripture. I, and many others, find no scriptural evidence that He directs our decision making on an individual, extra-biblical basis.

Here:

Psalm 143:10 Teach me to do Your will, For You are my God; Let Your good Spirit lead me on level ground.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I hope none of Dr. O2’s remote employees go to Don’s church or there’ll be another article somewhere shortly!

:D :P X?

So Mike,

That was a complete answer on your defending cessationism from other views. I actually really enjoyed your thinking and smiled at how please Dr. McCune must be to see his thinking spilled out so effectively by your pen! I really did enjoy your post and in the main agree with most of your thinking. The only place I really get off your bus is where you emphasize a total disconnect with others who see some kind of “continuism.” (?)

(Side note - I hope that’s a real word! - would hate to loose my dear brothers and sisters - whose conscience or constitution is rather weak when it comes to reading botched spelling/grammar/vocab/syntax/etc… - my apologies to my dear SI colleagues who are sensitive - I promise to be more aware to your needs there - if it brings a little peace to your souls - my wife is also a “library type” (which is the name I give to those who are sensitive to spelling - I hope that’s not considered “name calling” - if it is I’ll come up with a different “tag” - at any rate - back to my wife who is a “library type” - you’ll be happy to know she’s actually been tempted on several occasions of just cutting my fingers off in my sleep - just so I won’t botch the spelling as often as I do - You are all loved - I will continue to work to improve in this area! - my apologies to the mod’s if any of this is out of place - trying hard to be a good guy! - ah but I digress)

So Here’s a follow up question to Mike - if you have time. We have had what we would call today “evangelicals” who have believed in what I’m calling here “continuism” for close to 2000 years. Would you say Mike that in the main - for the length of those 2000 years the more “separatistic” evangelicals - or Puritans - or Protestants - or even Proto-Protestants - do we have a clear record of these “pre-fundamentalists” (if you will let me call them that) actively separating from these believers who believed in some kind of continuation of a miraculous gift - or would you say this act of separating from those who do not believe/practice a strict cessationism - is that something that is primarily young and new with the fundamentalist movement primarily practiced in North America…..say just in the last 50 years?

Not a trick question - straight forward question.

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;

1632. At Watertown [MA not WI, don’t try to tar MBBC with this] there was (in the view of divers witnesses) a great combat between a mouse and a snake; and after a long fight, the mouse prevailed and killed the snake. The pastor of Boston, Mr. Wilson, a very sincere, holy man, hearing of it, gave this interpretation: That the snake was the devil; the mouse was a poor contemptible people, which God had brought hither, which should overcome Satan here, and dispossess him of his Kingdom.

Joel, what evidence do you have that the position of evangelicals for 2000 years was continuationism? My view is that up until 1906 the church believed the miraculous gifts had ceased or at least operated in a far different way than in the NT. (Notice I did not say miracles had ceased, but rather the miraculous gifts.)

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[Mike Harding]

…Even conservative evangelicals like John MacArthur would be doctrinally militant on this issue…

That is absolutely true. Just read Charismatic Chaos. Or go to http://teampyro.blogspot.com (the blog which used to be led by MacArthur’s right-hand man, Phil Johnson) and search for articles with the tag “da gifts” and you will see just how militant they are on this issue. In fact Dan Phillips recently posted on James MacDonald’s strange taxonomy on “words from God” here: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-can-christians-hear-word-from-…

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Greg,

Forgive me for not being clear. You are right - the majority did not believe those gifts were open prior to 1906 - however, some did believe a view that would be a kin to soft-cessationism. I have several books that catalog those groups. One book was entitled, “Power-Lines.” Can’t remember the names of the other works - will do some digging. My question to Mike is not were there some of them prior to 1906 but was separation from these types a consistent practice - prior to 1906 (or even beyond)?

A side note - have appreciated Mac’s work you cite. Actually my position on this is the same as John’s - we are cessationist but could have some connection with some who hold a different view. John does not hang with “Big C” charismatics and neither would I.

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;

The last time I was in a private meeting with John MacArthur chatting about, of all things, “Purpose Driven”, he excused himself to go have lunch with…………….

……………Chuck Smith.

Yes….THAT Chuck Smith.

:-)

Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com

Greg,

What is surprising is the number of leaders and groups before and after 1906 that on the one hand don’t believe in tongues, actually do believe in an on-going non-revelatory gift/function of “prophet.” While there most certainly can be problems with the “I heard from God” approach to ministry - those that say that are not all equally ‘damaging” - (in my view/experience). About three years ago I was reading a historical account on some of the early fundamentalists i the 1920 and 30’s. Some of them were on record believing in a kind of “prophecy” for today. This is on top of my head and so I might have this wrong - One of the early champions of fundamentalism actually for a while supported this gal who claimed to be something of a prophetess. Again I can’t remember which guy that was (my guess is someone reading this knows the story). So….I do agree with Mike on most of what he wrote. I agree with him that a damaging result is the eroding of confidence in the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. What I don’t believe is that these different views warrant the “tag” disobedient believer and the cold shoulder of separation. Especially in cases where leaders and groups are open to the teaching of Scripture. I actually was invited in Jamaica to teach a group of Pentecostal-leaning, non-denominational believers the difference between Spirit Baptism, Spirit Filling and Spirit Indwelling. After the presentation the pastor stood up and said “our brother from America has given us some important Bible teaching that we cannot ignore.” Afterwards he told me no one with my belief had ever spoken for him on this topic and he was very grateful that we had ministered with his people. You see if I believe like some of the guys here, I couldn’t have gone and taught those dear believers doctrine that they desperately needed. After a careful study in the Scriptures, especially the NT, I believe that many of us shove other believers out of our “sphere” more quickly than we should - but I’ve already said that. As a side-note, I’d love to hear how you can believe in on-going miracles but not miraculous gifts. That will be fun to hear you on that.

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;

[Dan Burrell]

The last time I was in a private meeting with John MacArthur chatting about, of all things, “Purpose Driven”, he excused himself to go have lunch with…………….

……………Chuck Smith.

Yes….THAT Chuck Smith.

:-)

And our Lord ate with prostitutes and other sinners. The point of your anecdote is?

[Don Johnson]

[Chip Van Emmerik] Many of us actually do disagree with any intimation that the Holy Spirit somehow moves us. He convicts of sin; He illuminates scripture. I, and many others, find no scriptural evidence that He directs our decision making on an individual, extra-biblical basis.

Here:

Psalm 143:10 Teach me to do Your will, For You are my God; Let Your good Spirit lead me on level ground.

Don,

With all due respect, that verse is no closer to teaching individual, personal revelation in decision making than the verses used by the KJVonly crowd to prove their position. That verse is equally supportive of the position I briefly described in the post you quoted. It says nothing about how the Spirit is going to do His leading. You may certainly apply it in the way you describe, but it doesn’t provide enough evidence to support that assertion on its own.

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

[Joel Tetreau] I actually was invited in Jamaica to teach a group of Pentecostal-leaning, non-denominational believers the difference between Spirit Baptism, Spirit Filling and Spirit Indwelling. After the presentation the pastor stood up and said “our brother from America has given us some important Bible teaching that we cannot ignore.” Afterwards he told me no one with my belief had ever spoken for him on this topic and he was very grateful that we had ministered with his people. You see if I believe like some of the guys here, I couldn’t have gone and taught those dear believers doctrine that they desperately needed.

Joel,

I have said this to you personally when you have used the Jamaica anecdote in similar discussions, and I will repeat it here. The anecdote you give is in a completely different sphere than the discussion going on here. If SGM/Mahaney were interested in being taught further on the subject with the open possibility of changing their minds, I can’t imagine anyone here would say “don’t converse.” There is no evidence they are considering the possibility they might be wrong, and, even if they were open to change, there is no evidence evidence that is what the remote NIU employee is there to do. He is joining in their work within their doctrinal framework, not trying to change/correct their positions.

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