Does Dr. Matt Olson really get “What matters most”?

For the past couple of years now Dr. Matt Olson has presented a change in practice for Northland International University (formerly Northland Baptist Bible College). Rick Holland from MacArthur’s ministry and the man behind the Resolved Conferences for young people spoke in chapel, Wayne Simien, former NBA star, came and spoke in chapel shortly thereafter as well, highlighting his sports camp in Kansas. Dr. Bruce Ware of Southern Seminary and progressive dispensationalism fame was brought in for a graduate Ministry course. All this is noted in a previous article, here.

Recently, Dr. Matt Olson embarked upon a multi-part series entitled, What Matters Most, at his blog site. What has created concern is his initial article where he relates a then recent visit to Philadelphia. He attended the services of a church that is tied to Sovereign Grace Ministries. Sovereign Grace Ministries is a family of churches identifying themselves as; “We are evangelical, Reformed, and charismatic” (taken from the SGM website). At this church are several NIU alumni, one of which, Greg Dietrich, is retained as an NIU staff member while residing in Philadelphia and attending this church. Dr. Olson praised these alumni as, “they get what matters most.”

This has raised questions (which can be found here and here). At the IDOGTG (In Defense Of The Gospel) blog you will find a series of articles that Lou Martuneac has written on this subject of Matt Olson’s multi-part series. I will not reiterate what these men at their blog sites have said but I do wish to add to the conversation.

Matt Olson’s opening words in part one are;

We all believe in certain things, but not all of those things carry equal weight. This is especially true when it comes to our theology. There is a big difference between what you believe about the resurrection, and what you believe about the timing of the rapture, or how the polity is going to be structured in your church. Many things may be important, but not equally so. When we value everything we believe equally, we soon find ourselves dividing over secondary issues and neglecting matters of much greater importance.

This is why Paul said in I Corinthians 15:3, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance….”

We have an example of a poor translation driving one’s theology (or is it the theology of the translators driving their translating?). Matt Olson quotes I Cor. 15:3 from the NIV which translates the Greek word protos as “first importance.” Giving then the idea that this gospel is of the highest importance, all else is lesser. Pastor Steve Rogers had a good comment on this at IDOTG’s response to Matt Olson’s first article,

“Many fundamentalists are adapting the evangelical argument that the Gospel holds primacy over other inspired, doctrinal teaching. A current catchy trend is to take I Cor. 15:1-4 and say, see Paul says first, which means primacy. Not first, chronologically in NT Christianity, but primacy, the Gospel is the primary doctrine. In reality, Paul is not saying the Gospel is the premier doctrine to the exclusion of other doctrines, but that it is the first doctrine to be preached, and then other doctrines come after, not in importance, but in chronology in Christianity.”

You see, the Greek word protos has a broader meaning than just primacy. This is where context plays an important part in understanding the individual words. As Pastor Rogers has noted, when coming to a city Paul preached the Gospel first, just like that which was done to Paul. He too, first received the Gospel. Sure it is important, no one is denying that, but it must come “first” because all other doctrine stands upon the Gospel. What good does it do to preach on justification, sanctification, glorification, our eternal state, etc., etc., if first the foundation has not been laid which is the Gospel; the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? It is foolish and dangerous to proclaim the other “fundamentals of the faith” before first laying the foundation. This idea of the primacy of the Gospel over the other major tenets of the faith has opened up the flood gate of ecumenical evangelism, particularly since the days of Billy Graham’s compromise in the 50’s. One wonders if this push of primacy is not tied to Covenant Theology’s faulty understanding of God’s primary purpose on earth being redemptive rather than doxological. But then, Matt Olson has relegated CT and Dispensationalism to the second tier of importance.

In his part three article, Matt asks and then answers the question, “What do we separate over.” He answers with these three responses, “1) The Christian should expose and separate from a false Gospel (Galatians 1:8,9). 2) The Christian should expose and separate from another Christian who continues to walk in disobedience (after following a biblical process for restoration, I Corinthians 5:9-13). And 3) The Christian should separate from the world (This is another discussion that I would like to take up in the future because I find many people have a wrong view of ”the world” I John 2:15-17).” Question, where does the false teacher figure into this? Does he figure into point one? If so, then is a false teacher only one who presents a false Gospel? Paul has made the case rather clear in Romans 16:17 and II Thess. 3:6, 14 that we are to “mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” and “withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” and “if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” Now if Paul meant separation to be only in regards to a false teacher giving a false Gospel wouldn’t he have said so in these epistles as he did in the Galatian epistle? Instead, he clearly is looking at a broader understanding when he uses these words “the doctrine,” “the tradition,” and “our word by this epistle.”  Continuing in part three, he states, “Let’s separate to Christ and enjoy the sweet fellowship with every believer walking with Him.” Clearly from the verses I have quoted, I can’t “fellowship with every believer walking with Him.”

Now, why does this all matter? For the main reason, that Northland is an institution of higher learning that churches look to for assistance in preparing future believers for the work God has called them to do. Sure we can disagree, as we do, but I have a high and holy responsibility to see to it that my flock is properly instructed. What we have seen and continue to see expressed at Northland is not assisting me in my ministry. How can I send them to an institution where the president has no problem disregarding the institution’s clearly stated beliefs in reference to the charismatic movement?

In Matt’s series of article he has sought to lay out a justification for his attending and endorsing the SGM church in Philadelphia by deftly relegating cessationism/non-cessationism to a lesser level of importance, practically speaking. He has expressed in this series of articles that while Biblical teaching on baptism (he says “mode of baptism” yet that is, practically speaking a non-issue; it’s not the “mode” [sprinkling, pouring or immersing] that is at issue but the “candidate” i.e. pedobaptism or believers baptism), church polity, eschatology, spiritual gifts, etc., are at some level important, they are not separation issues just church/institution “functional” distinctives. I humbly disagree. As to eschatology, please note Paul’s words to Timothy in II Timothy 2:16-18. Evidently there is something within the doctrine of eschatology which causes us to “shun” those with false teachings on the subject. My lack of fellowship with those who are truly brothers in Christ who hold to such differing doctrinal beliefs does not deny their salvation. It does not deny the reality that one day when we are all in God’s presence that there will be true “unity” in Christ at that point. It is an unreality to think that somehow that “unity” is possible while still on this earth, especially by lowering that unity to a “Gospel only” criterion.