Special Report - The Gospel Coalition

Consider the contrast of the winsome wisdom of John Piper here

https://sharperiron.org/filings/083017/33554

With the silliness of ACCC’s The Danger of Neo-Fundamentalism here:

https://accc4truth.org/2016/06/21/the-danger-of-neo-fundamentalism/

The neo-fundamentalist call to the convergence of fundamentalists and evangelicals rang loud and clear from the Zondervan publication Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), a book promoted by the managers of the Sharper Iron website. The neo-fundamentalist tolerance for men who neglect or repudiate separatist convictions has spread to the campuses of former citadels of fundamentalism, like Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary in Lansdale, PA (scheduled to cease academic operations at the end of the 2013-14 academic year) and Northland International University in Dunbar, WI. We are deeply grieved by these developments.

How inept they were to lose their old domain name which now serves as link to “these easy workouts …”

http://www.amcouncilcc.org/

Although the author is more separatist than I am, I liked this article as a whole. His statement: “These descendants of new evangelicalism are attempting to fix the problems of new evangelicalism using essentially the same principles of new evangelicalism” is quite the quotable quote, and an accurate summary of what he was saying.

I do think, though, that the author fails in a number of points. For example, belief in ongoing revelatory gifts does not necessarily compete with the authority of the Bible. Although I don’t necessarily appreciate many charismatics, I have known many who do not put supposed revelations on an infallible or authoritative level with the Bible.

Also, knowing the history of fundamentallsm, many early fundamentalists were not young earth creationists. To read this back into the past is not ethical, in my viewpoint. We can arge fairly without distoring or misrepresenting either what was or is. When we acknowledge facts that weaken our argument, we build our argument via integrity, IMO.

[Jim]

How inept they were to lose their old domain name which now serves as link to “these easy workouts …”

http://www.amcouncilcc.org/

TGC: “We repudiate the ACCC exercise program and their promotion of the same in the name of Christ”

Proof here: https://sharperiron.org/article/resolutions-fundamentalism-part-2

I remember sitting in a seminary class at BJU and discovering that the author of one of our texts (I think it was E.J. Young) held to the day/age position and understanding that that and the gap theory were acceptable positions. (BTW, I hold to neither, although I almost lost my job at a Christian school for publicly denying the gap theory.)

I also remember those days at BJU when they SS classes for students who were Assembly of God and Pentecostal and spoke in tongues, though not on campus.

When they acquired the new domain name, someone bought the old and thus the mess

––––-

Hi Jim,

When I became aware of this we asked one of our men to address that, and he has been at work on it. It is an old domain name and when the Council moved to the current one before I came on, the ownership of the old domain lapsed and was gobbled up by someone else, and the results of that are evident. It is embarrassing, but it is being addressed; hopefully folks won’t rush to judgment, but I understand human nature. Thank you for letting me know though! Trust you are well.

In Christ,

Dan Greenfield

In my opinion, there are some really good, solid men in the ACCC. The ones I know have a heart for God and a passion for the gospel. They are endeavoring to maintain the separatist testimony of the best representatives of historic fundamentalism. I admire their convictions, and wish them well. I count many of them as some of my dearest friends.

However, as some of the comments on this thread demonstrate, consistency in regard to separation is extremely difficult to maintain. It is all too easy to get backed into a corner where it becomes “us four and no more.” For my part, I am happy to give these brethren the liberty to believe and practice what their conscience dictates, and I trust they will be willing to do the same for me. As a matter of fact, I can declare from long experience that this is exactly the case. I have found the ACCC men I know to be warm and gracious, not hyper-critical. I love these men as dear brothers in Christ. We may differ on some of the details of applying the principles of separation, but we agree that completely abandoning this doctrine is Biblical unfaithfulness and a dangerous mistake.

We convergents are separating from everyone. Including each other. We’ll teach you the secret handshake that you’ll never use and send you on your way. Or something like that.

Seriously, this article is much better than the one of Pickering’s we’ve been debating or the one of Helgerson that KD linked. It names the theological concern they have—a strong view of separation—and names those that hold it and teach it, giving implicitly a way for people to either confirm or refute the allegations. It even gives a hint of TGC’s position on separation, which is ecclesiastical but not cultural; you can partner with Catholics to stop prenatal infanticide, but not on evangelism.

The trouble with this article is that it really does not adequately flesh out the consequences of an overly weak or nonexistent view of separation, and really does not adequately differentiate TGC from the early neo-evangelical movement, and there are significant differences. For starters, true neo-evangelicals cooperate ecclesiastically and not just culturally, and true neo-evangelicals tend to tweak inerrancy—TGC rejects both.

Lots of good critique on neo-evangelicals to be made, and lots of good critique to be made about TGC. I see ACCC as about 10% there…..well, counting their website, 5%. Nothing against kegel exercises, but simply not a Gospel issue.

Bert made two points that resonated with me. The first was this:

“It even gives a hint of TGC’s position on separation, which is ecclesiastical but not cultural; you can partner with Catholics to stop prenatal infanticide, but not on evangelism.”

Years ago when Christians first started making public statements about and demonstrating for right to life issues, it was understood in my branch of fundamentalism that we wouldn’t/couldn’t participate because we would be “helping the ungodly and loving those that hate the Lord” (II Chronicles 19:2). Even now I know of fundamentalists who check the associations of Christian pregnancy centers before helping them.

The second was:

“….true neo-evangelicals cooperate ecclesiastically and not just culturally, and true neo-evangelicals tend to tweak inerrancy—TGC rejects both.” And here’s the difference between NE’s and today’s CE’s.