Wednesday, October 3, 2012

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.

15 comments:

Lou Martuneac said...

Brian:

I appreciate that you have addressed that final from Matt Olson. In his entire What Matters Most series Matt was careful to NOT answer any of the legitimate questions or address the concerns that folks have about the changes he has made at NIU. So, who’s changing? Not the Lord, not His Word and not the NIU Articles of Faith. Nevertheless, Matt has acted in ways that contravene both the Word of God and the university’s Articles of Faith.

Tomorrow, at my blog, I open a new article with an intro and then link to this article with an excerpt. I trust the joint effort will further help awaken many to what has happened at and where Northland is headed (which clearly seems to southward) under the leading of Matt Olson with Les Ollila standing in support of or idly by for all of it


LM

KD said...

You are all walking on thin ice when you say there is more to the gospel than the gospel. Believing that one is justified in Christ alone for salvation through the righteousness of Christ alone without works is the essence of the gospel. A believer's life will reflect true conversion and regeneration in how he behaves and his fruit. No 2 people apply separation in the same way! CJ Mahaney may not be a cessationist but he is no heretic. Presbyterians and Reformed folk who believe in Covenant Theology and baptize infants are not heretics. In your zeal you are requiring more than the gospel requires for salvation. You are elevating your traditions and convictions higher than they should be. The apostle Paul himself would have none of this. Don't let your hatred of CT or someones lack of uniformity to a man made fundamentalist standard or tradition, obscure your vision and love for brothers and sisters in Christ.

Brian said...

KD, thanks for stopping by. I post your comments in the hopes that you will re-read the article and re-read your comment and help the rest of us to understand what you are referencing. You say this of me, “You are all walking on thin ice when you say there is more to the gospel than the gospel.” Please, where do I or anyone else who has posted in any of my articles say such? You state, “Believing that one is justified in Christ alone for salvation through the righteousness of Christ alone without works is the essence of the gospel.” True, I’ve not denied that nor have I stated anywhere that salvation is anything more or less.
Secondly, in regards to your comment about heretics, no one here is saying that CJ Mahaney or any other evangelical is a heretic. And yes, I and others who have commented at my blog have stated and noted that these men are brothers in Christ. It is for that very reason that these articles are written. These are brothers in Christ who have erred. You bring up cessationism. Either cessationism is the teaching of the Bible or non-cessationism (continuationism, if you please) is the teaching of the Bible. They both cannot be. One is right and the other is wrong or they are both wrong and the Bible teaches something else. It matters not how well educated one may be or how sincerely one may hold those beliefs, one is right and one is wrong or they both are wrong. Either infant baptism is right or believers baptism is right, they both cannot be right or again, they are both wrong and the Bible teaches something about baptism. I happen to believe rather firmly that Bible does indeed teach cessationism and believers baptism. It is indeed a bit ironic that you would say that Presbyterians, Reformed, CT who baptize infants are not heretics when it is their forefathers who considered my Baptist forefathers heretics for not baptizing their babies but instead held to believers baptism. But that is for another day’s discussion.
Please note, I do not hate those who espouse CT. I believe they are wrong in their understanding of the Scriptures on many points, but I do not hate them.
I do trust that should you wish to comment further that you will do so with what has actually been said by Matt Olson or by myself. You have brought up items that have no bearing on the issue at hand.

Steve Rogers said...

Pastor E,

Thanks for your thoughts. I think it important that we use Bible words the way they are given in the NT, not our presuppositions. As you noted, many do this with separation, thinking its only about the Gospel, but the Bible says separation is for both false teachers and brothers. Obviously, different approaches, the brother is not to be considered an enemy but the false teacher is, etc. Another word is heresy or heretic. What does the Bible say? Most use it today as a synonym for false teacher or lost man. Not true. There is a difference between damnable heresy and heresy. One embraced sends you to hell, the other is doctrinal departure, but can be embraced by a brother, who is saved. It is heresy nonetheless. Deliberate departure from Apostolic doctrine. Can a believer do that and still be saved, yep. Should he be separated from if he does, yep. Do all heretics go to hell, nope. Sorry about the English.

Brian said...

Pastor Rogers,
Thanks for stopping by and adding to this conversation. I chuckled with your addressing me as "Pastor E." This is what our children typically call me because of the difficulty pronouncing my last name. Many adults address me that way as well, so you are in good company.
Anyway, appreciate your thoughts here with terms that should be used and subsequent consequences should someone persist in their error. There is far too much levity given by so many as to what constitutes false teachers/teaching. Even a quick reading of the book on the four views of evangelicalism, one is confronted with the notion that neither John Stackhouse nor Roger Olson could find a false teacher/teaching within the broad tent that is called evangelicalism.
Too many today want their ears tickled instead of hearing the truth.

Brian said...

KD,
I have pulled your comment after going back over the article and comments. I remind you with what I closed with in response to your first post, address the issues at hand. I asked questions of you in reference to your first post as it pertains to the subject at hand and you choose to not respond. Let's deal with what is before us.

KD said...

Well I must confess I dont know what you are talking about. My comments were in direct response to what you and Lou were discussing with reference to NIU. It is your choice to post or not but please dont tell me they were not germaine to the conversation because they were.

Lou Martuneac said...

Brian:

You wrote, “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.

What we have here is Matt Olson taking the mantra, “It’s all about the gospel,” which is cover for the radical changes and compromises he has initiated at a once fine institution, and seeking to cover it with divine authority. He is trying force the Bible into conformity with and support of his own principles.

This is exactly how Rick Warren manipulates the Scriptures to legitimize his egregious errors.


LM

Brian said...

KD,
I do tell you that they were not germaine to the conversation. By way of example, you have tried to address here what Lou has posted on his blog. I have not referenced Dr. Bob Jones III's messages yet you have tried to speak in opposition to his statements here at this blog.
Again, address the specifics here in this article.

Steve Rogers said...

Pastor E (Easier to spell)

You said, "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 seems to me that evangelicals either reject separation should ever be practiced among brothers or they've never been taught it. Comments like KDs indicate they believe separation is only from unregenerate false teachers. This is surprising, considering they (evangelicals) pride themselves on exposition (I don't believe they practice expository preaching, just exposition).

The Bible is very clear in 2 Thess. 3:6-16, that brothers are to be separated from when they depart from Apostolic doctrine. Paul equally makes it clear that he deems them still saved, and thus the "count them as a brother" closing admonition. Paul does not tell the church at Thessalonica it's only about the Gospel.

Brian said...

I would agree with your thought on expository preaching/exposition. There is a definite difference. It is most interesting that those who decry separation are mute on our separation verses like you reference.

Brian said...

KD, I am not posting your comments which are sidelining this topic in order to respond to your false charges laid against those of us who are calling Matt Olson to answer some rather simple questions. His attendance at and endorsing of GBC in Philly goes against NIU stated position concerning charismatics. I and others are not holding him to our understanding of the Scriptures but to the university's stated beliefs of which he is the president.
Try taking the time to actually read what has been said on all sides of this without the tinted glasses. Follow the links and read the other blogs, go to Matt's blog and read his articles, go to NIU and read their statement of faith.
Follow any of the comments on my articles and you will see that I am not looking for a bunch of yes men to respond, but I expect everyone to actually address items in the article and subsequent comments.

Scott said...

A good article, but yourself and brother Rogers and many others keep stretching 2 Thess. 3:6-16 way out of context. It refers specifically to a man who is not working and spends much spare time meddling in other's affairs (being a busybody). To use it beyond that is inappropriate, although I believe it can be used along with many other verses to support a larger principle of separation. But it can't be used by itself to support it.

Scott Jonas

Brian said...

Scott, you would do well to study the II Thessalonians passage a bit better. Paul is addressing more than just idleness in the context of these verses, so no, we not taking out of context verses 6, 14, and 15. Paul states a broad command in verse 6 about walking disorderly and not after the tradition received. He then gives an example of conduct which he exemplified when he was with them concerning working with a specific command given about idleness in verse 12 (note the level of harshness is quite different from verse 6). Paul then broadens out again in verses 14, 15.
If you will re-read the article you will note that I do link this passage with Romans 16:17 as well for they do form the criteria for separation.

Steve Rogers said...

Scott,

I appreciate your zeal to protect context, but as Pastor Ernsberger noted, there are numerous passages telling us that we are to separate from a disboedient brother, and they, as in the case in Thessalonica that I sighted, demonstrate that such separation is about apostolic doctrine and practice, not simply the Gospel. Paul did not divide separation into tiers and dotted lines.

Getting back to the article and main idea, Matt Olson has said, “Let’s separate to Christ and enjoy the sweet fellowship with every believer walking with Him.”

As these articles document, although that sounds very good, it's not possible if we are to obey the scripture. John writes that God is light and in him is no darkness at all. He then says that our fellowship with God and others is based on walking in that light, not just the light of the Gospel. When we don't, there is a remedy given, confess and forsake and return to the light. That's what we are calling for at NIU, and whenever separation from a brother is necessary. A call back to the light. We cannot however, walk with someone in darkness and walk with God in the light.

Olson's statement is also not possible for him and NIU to practice if they obey their own doctrinal statement, which were based on these same separation concepts I just mentioned.