The Gospel Coalition's Accommodation to Postmodernism in their Statements on Inerrancy

Tyler, for me the answer would be those areas are non-Fundamental to our faith, and that there are differences among good men. You can have healthy debate or honest disagreement with others in each of those issues. The areas I outlined regarding Biologos, Choong, or Enns, and having a working partnership and relationship with them regarding their heretical views on inerrancy is quite a bit different. I see the spectrum of Calvinism to Armininianism as being in the orbit of Biblical Christianity (we have both in our local church) as well as differing views on the KJV (we have differing views in our church) as well as differing views on the Rapture (we have Pre-wrath, post-trib, pre-trib and undecideds in our church). Those areas are all within the spectrum of Biblical Christianity.

Interesting links, Greg.

Yes, Jay, Tim Keller is a big issue for us in NYC.

There are sloppy relationships within the FBFI. Perhaps a few mirrors need to be mounted on the inside of the wall that separates us from them.

I have spent little time blogging over the years and even less time on web sites interacting with others and debating issues as I have done the past few days. You can tell I am sure that I am a novice as I have been challenged to be less sloppy and more loving, etc. I hope I can and will improve and grow. But I wonder if some of you have been so disillusioned by Fundamentalism or the FBFI (or both) and that you have conscientiously decided on another path. And if/when the leaders of your new path are critiqued, then some have a tendency to react first and accuse any critique as unloving or negative. I am well aware, by the way, that my writing is far less refined than Mohler, Keller, or Piper. But the issues are bigger than the messengers here, and I would only encourage you to have your eyes on the Lord and in the Word and not on man. In the meantime, we in the FBFI do look at ourselves, we do see our problems, and we seek to make corrections.

Since I was on deputation with in 1983, I have been encouraged by men in the FBFI. I can remember great meetings and hearing men like Singleton, Nelson, Jones, Bell, Collins Glenn, and others and being challenged, encouraged, and excited to do the work of the ministry. Obviously we are in a different day, and times have changed; not all the men in the FBFI have done right and even finished well, but many have. No doubt we have had our issues. But just to add my personal testimony, God has used the FBFI to provide for me what I view as balanced Biblical fellowship during confusing times, and I am presently thankful for the gracious leadership of Dr. Vaughn. That is my honest assessment and experience. If your experience was negative, I am sorry for that, and I pray God will bless you men in your ministries. So please pray for us in the FBFI, and I will be praying for you, at least in general, because I have really no idea who any of you really are. (Shaynus, I am not sure I could ever find you in Nashville, because I do not know your real name.) I have enjoyed the interaction and I thank you for your time.

Dear Matt,

I appreciate your ministry in NYC and have since its inception. In a day when churches are abandoning the cities in favor of the burbs, thanks for sticking by the stuff where it’s needed. I have a good friend who labors in the Gospel in your city as well. I think it would be nice if the two of you could get together. I think he’d be willing.

I am one of those who grew disillusioned with the FBFI after having been a member for many years. I grew disillusioned of always hearing what we were against. I remember the accusations against John MacArthur back in the 80’s. I had been blessed by JM’s writings (free books!!) so I wrote to him and asked about the matter. I got a nice response in return that clarified the situation and wished that the leadership of the FBFI had done the same.

I grew disillusioned of being in a fellowship where I had no voice. I’d go to meetings (and even spoke at some regional ones) and hear resolutions that had been crafted in a mysterious back room that were presented as what “we” believed. When I privately mentioned that I disagreed with the wording of a resolution, I was told that I could leave the fellowship anytime I wanted to.

I was disillusioned with the hierarchy that seemed to have little time for commoners. In those days there were the BIG churches and the men that you mentioned who seemed to have little time for those of us in small churches.

I grew disillusioned with having public problems dealt with privately. When the FBFI had a problem, I was told that it had been dealt with and that it was none of my business. I found out later that at least some of those problems were not dealt with and just not discussed.

I grew disillusioned with the admiration of men. I’ll be honest, some of the men you mentioned embarrassed me by their lack of humility. While JM graciously responded to my snail mail in the 1980’s, my correspondence with many of these men went unanswered. I’ve been around both groups enough to have interaction with notables in both and I’ve seen far more grace in the the non-fundamentalists. (I’ll agree that Driscoll is a jerk but he has his fundamentalist counterparts.)

I’m thankful for any man who exalts my Great Savior. I don’t expect perfection from any of them. And it doesn’t bother me if someone criticizes me or my friends. I was taught that criticism was good for everyone as it makes you think.

Thanks for letting me vent.

I don’t have much time, but let me mention that you are dealing with a lot of people who, for one reason or another, have moved on from the FBFI for one reason or another. There are multiple reasons for this, but if you peruse these three threads, I think you will be able to understand the frustration with that organization a little better.

“Report from FBFI Meeting” comments

”Your Thoughts on the FBFI”

”The Future of Fundamentalism: A Forum for Leaders”

The sense I get is a kind of weary frustration with the FBFI. I don’t think that anyone here - including myself, and I’ve been hard on the FBFI - is ‘out to get’ them. I think that a lot of people are seeing flaws that they would like to see addressed but don’t feel as though they have any kind of recourse to get it given the structure there. Mike Harding is probably the most high profile FBFI guy on SI, and he has taken it upon himself to try and address some of that, which I greatly appreciate.

Matt’s concern about formally affirming a biblical doctrine, especially a load-bearing one such as inerrancy, while practically or functionally denying its truthfulness is well taken, necessary and historically supported, even among the New Evangelicals themselves. I related a couple of incidents that caused controversy and its accompaniments the early 1980s. (Promise Unfulfilled, pp. 185-86). The issue was the use of redaction criticism that resulted in a denial of the truthfulness of the biblical record. J. Ramsey Michaels left the faculty of Gordon Conwell Seminary for asserting that John the Baptist did not see the Spirit descend on Christ at His baptism. In like manner Robert Gundry resigned his membership in the Evangelical Theological Society. Gundry redacted the story of the the shepherds at Jesus’ birth into the visit of the wise men from the east. Joe Bayly defended Gundry on the pietistic bases that his opponents were deficient in love, prayer and peace-making. While both Michaels and Gundry were recognized as able scholars, and no doubt were Christians in the normal, biblical sense, and were also sincere in affirming their allegiance to the inerrancy confession of their respective institutions, their scholarly conclusions nevertheless denied their affirmations.

Not as distant to us were those professing fundamentalists who adamantly and presumeably knowingly argued and agitated for the inspiration and inerrancy of the King James Version. These were rejected and disfellowshipped by a number of fundamentalists for denying the biblical doctrine of Scripture. They affirmed vehemently the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures, but functionally didn’t hold it at all. Certainly, most of them were totally sincere believers, led many to Christ, made many friends and would gladly take a round, be burned at the stake, or what have you for the Cause, but were seriously in error.

The point is that the doctrine of inerrancy (a perfectly good word theologically; a synonym, infallibility, is also acceptably definitive despite objections) must have its integrity maintained in the midst of all scholarly, hermeutical and “practical” applications. In that regard, I resonate with Matt and would not call his reasoning into question. This, and a host of others like it, is a wisdom issue, in my thinking. Matt is in near proximity to Keller and company and faces problems that would be unheard for a fundamentalist pastor in Chugwater, WY or Black Duck, MN. It does not require a one-size-fits-all answer or solution. Neither would it seem to need the kind of exhaustive analysis, questioning and comment that really gets in the way of moving forward.

Dr. McCune, that is so kind of you to to place your wisdom and weight to this discussion. You are so highly respected and well thought of by those you have taught through the years. I must say your work on Promise Unfulfilled is an amazing, helpful work that helps many of us try to work through these very difficult issues. May the Lord bless you. And yes, I wholeheartedly admit my total surprise that you would comment on this post, and I recognize your contribution with gratefulness. We are all thankful, I am sure.

Jay, thanks for the links, and I did find them fascinating. The Future of Fundamentalism Forum was interesting, and leaves me a bit torn.

On the one hand, one of the reasons I started this series is it seems to me that we and the FBFI in particular have been nearly silent on these issues and we have done relatively little to warn the young men or others of NCism. Also, schools that once took pretty vocal positions on things have been silent on these issues, and Northland once a strong voice with Dr. O as the President, is now not a voice for Fundamentalism. From my perspective, this is one of the biggest reasons so many young men are heading that way. (listening to how you respond to what I have attempted leaves me wondering my assessment on this for sure). We are losing schools and churches to the CE and NCism, and our silence seems deafening. A couple of years ago, there was an article in Frontline on T4G when we did a position statement on that, but the FBFI has not said much at at all on this, at least that is my impression.
Then, to hear the criticism of some of the guys on SI and to hear Dr. Bauder also in that Forum on Fundamentalism, it seems that many have this idea that the FBFI is nothing but negative and attacking. I understand what Dr. Bauder is saying and he calls himself “equal time” to speak positively about CE and sometimes points out the “warts” of the Fundamentalists. Dr. Bauder’s strategy seems to be that the way to keep young men more in our circles of Fundamentalism is to attack the negative aspects of Fundamentalism and to give credit where credit is due to the CE. And I can see that to a degree and I do not discount that he knows what a lot of these young preachers are saying and thinking since he is in a seminary environment, and that he understands this far more than me.

So, I am torn. I don’t want to write and just be the same old Fundamentalist so to speak and turn off guys. That is not my intention at all. As I said, I have not said anything like this in any sort of public forum, so it’s not like I am grinding my ax again, when I never really ground it before.
The bottom line with Mohler, Piper, TGC, and other CE and NC websites is they are so current, helpful, practical and vocal. They are out there on the cutting edge, and we (the FBFI) are so stagnant and silent, or so it seems.

This series of articles that I have done was a simple idea to compare tenets of NEism with the NCism as there seemed to me to be definite corollaries. My intention is not to turn guys off, but turn them to the truth, to the Word and the Gospel.

The bottom line with Mohler, Piper, TGC, and other CE and NC websites is they are so current, helpful, practical and vocal. They are out there on the cutting edge, and we (the FBFI) are so stagnant and silent, or so it seems.

I think that’s exactly the impression I have. If you want to turn that impression around, stop making everything about defending and make it more about proclaiming, helping, teaching, encouraging, engaging, etc. There is a way that persuasion works in the internet age that I don’t think the FBFI really gets (maybe that’s a good thing?)

If FBFI was out there in an internet presence actually creating positive, relevant, timely content and 5-10% of the time took some space to gently, appreciatively engage with differing brothers it would be a huge benefit to the FBFI with the younger guys. Emphasis really does matter. What you spend the majority of your time on in any teaching setting is what you emphasize.
Also Matt, the way these internet forum thingys work, you can click on names and get more information ;-) Happy to do coffee in Nashville or NYC.

I have to ask you all on this - have you ever looked at FrontLine? have you ever read articles on P&D other than the controversial ones that get linked here? Of course there are always lots of eyeballs on articles where we take people on. Everyone slows down to look at “wrecks” on the highway or the internet. (Not that I think our controversial articles are “wrecks”!!)

For example we are in the midst of publishing an abstract of John Mincy’s doctoral dissertation. His thesis is the biblical proof for Genesis 3. I personally think it is outstanding. Part 2 of three will show up this week, the whole thing will be available by a pdf download when we publish part 3. This is just one example, and I think there are many others.

Of course I have a bias, but I would invite you (challenge you?) to look at what we are producing with less of a jaundiced eye. I think we produce a lot of helpful material. Finally, just a note on FrontLine, the current issues are behind a subscriber wall, but many issues older than 12 months are available for everyone.

Ok, I’ll quit tooting my own horn now.

I will take a look Don thanks for the heads up.

Frontline magazine for say the last five or so years is not your father’s Frontline or the FBF Bulletin of the late G. Archer Wenigar’s era.

[Don Johnson]

I have to ask you all on this - have you ever looked at FrontLine? have you ever read articles on P&D other than the controversial ones that get linked here? Of course there are always lots of eyeballs on articles where we take people on. Everyone slows down to look at “wrecks” on the highway or the internet. (Not that I think our controversial articles are “wrecks”!!)

For example we are in the midst of publishing an abstract of John Mincy’s doctoral dissertation. His thesis is the biblical proof for Genesis 3. I personally think it is outstanding. Part 2 of three will show up this week, the whole thing will be available by a pdf download when we publish part 3. This is just one example, and I think there are many others.

Of course I have a bias, but I would invite you (challenge you?) to look at what we are producing with less of a jaundiced eye. I think we produce a lot of helpful material. Finally, just a note on FrontLine, the current issues are behind a subscriber wall, but many issues older than 12 months are available for everyone.

Ok, I’ll quit tooting my own horn now.

[mrecker]

On the one hand, one of the reasons I started this series is it seems to me that we and the FBFI in particular have been nearly silent on these issues and we have done relatively little to warn the young men or others of NCism.

I want to focus on just this one line, and I want to emphasize that this is an impression not an accusation. I don’t agree that the FBFI has been nearly silent regarding the return to prominence of Calvinism. However, it continues to seem like the FBFI simply lumps all present day Cavinists together as New Calvinists without any recognition of the differences between a MacArthur and Dever on one hand and a Keller on the other. I grew up in an FBF church under James Singleton. I was an FBF and latter FBFI member for a number of years. I dropped my membership a few years back for a couple of reasons. One major one was that it became increasingly evident that many in the FBFI were antagonistic to all things Cavinistic (i.e. Danny Sweatt) and the leadership seemed unwilling to denounce this divisiveness. At present, those of us who are Calvinists in our soteriology generally feel that the FBFI will only barely tolerate us inside the tent as long as we stay out of the way and keep quietly to ourselves. But we continue to receive public jabs just like the one Dr. Bauder reported last summer.

So, I am torn. I don’t want to write and just be the same old Fundamentalist so to speak and turn off guys. That is not my intention at all. As I said, I have not said anything like this in any sort of public forum, so it’s not like I am grinding my ax again, when I never really ground it before.

Pastor Recker -

Just being on this forum helps. Talking with us and responding to what we are saying is encouraging. You’ve done more by responding to the content of the posts in the thread to help them (and yourself) in our eyes simply because you’re interacting with us and our concerns. So keep plugging away here, and feel free to make use of the “Send PM” button as well - that way you can send a private message to someone who says something you would like to reply to privately.

In another vein, I have a couple of significant issues with the musicians at church. I haven’t said much to them about the issues, because I don’t know the members all that well. So I have to spend some time with them and building a relationship with them in order to be able to gently encourage them and push them in the direction they need to go. It’s a similar issue, and you’re building that bridge. Keep it up.

Like I said - I don’t think there’s anyone here who really hates the FBFI, but there are a lot of people who have concerns that ought to be considered by the FBFI.