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

And while the statement does say the Bible is “without error” it intentionally omits using the word inerrant.

Inerrant means “free from error”

The analysis is pretty sloppy.

The author may be misrepresenting Schaeffer where he footnotes him on “all that it affirms.” Though I’d have to look it up.

The grain of truth is that both Chicago and TGC were/are meant to rally a pretty broad and diverse chunk of christendom. So to some, “all that it affirms” allowed them to sign on while holding to theistic evolution and the like. But the statement is about inerrancy not about creation. For what it is, I can’t really see what would improve it. There are no perfect human doctrinal formulations. And things just get messier if you try to freight a statement on inerrancy with assertions about creation and age of the earth. Better to deal with these topics separately.

It’s interesting that a guy who probably rejects the ancient creeds as authoritative in any way wants to fault TGC for basically saying that human doctrinal formulations are always imperfect and less authoritative than Scripture. That is precisely the author’s position, I’m pretty sure!

What he seems to fail to do with postmodernism—along with many others lately—is analyze it in its actual context: modernism. What TGC (no doubt imperfectly) and others have tried to do is counter both postmodernism and modernism as well. The latter rejected subjectivity, the former elevates it. The truth really is somewhere in between.
So what looks like accommodating postmodernism is often really an effort at appropriate distance from modernism.

Having grown up in a liberal Methodist church, and having interacted with a number of people of that kind of bent in the ELCA and other “liberal” denominations, I’ve got to note that the big problem is not in general the creedal or doctrinal statement. It is in general that those who want wiggle room will take wiggle room whether the clear meaning of the text (Bible text or doctrinal statement text) allows it or not.

I think this entire series has been pretty sloppy in general. He seems desperate to show that a Calvinist soteriology will result in all the mess we see in evangelicalism today. You’ll notice that the subtitle for his entire series is, “New Evangelicalism and New Calvinism - The Same Disaster.” He repeatedly refers to the “New Calvinists” and their methods. The author has not proven (in any of his articles) that a Calvinist soteriology is the root issue in evangelicalism. I suspect he has a problem with Calvinism in general, and is grasping at straws.

The author approvingly quotes a man who accuses the TGC’s doctrinal statement of implicitly catering to postmodernism:

“… the writers of TGC’s foundational documents, rather than offering a more Biblical approach to the understanding of truth, have instead simply embraced the spirit of this age and are articulating nothing more than a ‘Christianized’ version of postmodernism.”

This is so very amusing, because D.A. Carson (one of the authors of TGC’s doctrinal statement) wrote a monster book about the very dangers of post-modernism 17 years ago. Has this author read it? I have. Has he read this one? What about this one?

The thinking is sloppy. The arguments are sloppy.

• If the man has a problem with Calvinism, then I beg him to make his articles about soteriology.
• If he has a problem with evangelicalism in general, then make the articles about that.
• If he actually does believe that a Calvinist soteriology is the cause of the evangelical morass we see today, then prove it. All we’ve been given are anecdotal facts (e.g. “He’s a Calvinist, and just look at what he did …!”).

Thanks for reading my articles and for taking the time to comment. It sounds like you like the word sloppy!

Aaron, you entitled your post, “HASTY” then you said:

“The author may be misrepresenting Schaeffer where he footnotes him on “all that it affirms.” Though I’d have to look it up.”

Your first statement after calling my work sloppy is to make a somewhat hasty statement yourself, questioning even the accuracy of my referencing of Schaeffer. If you read The Great Evangelical Disaster, especially on the pages I footnoted in the article, pages 44-45, this matter of inerrancy was the all important issue to Schaeffer. He writes very clearly, “Evangelicals today are facing a watershed concerning the nature of biblical inspiration and authority. It is a watershed issue… Within evangelicalism there are a growing number who are modifying their views on inerrancy of the Bible so that the full authority of the Scripture is completely undercut.” (P.44,45) Then on page 56 he called the Luasanne Covenant of 1974 the “new loophole” and he most definitely speaks about evangelicals using all the right terms, “infallibility, inerrancy, and without error, but upon careful analysis they really mean something quite different from what these words have meant to the church historically.” I would definitely encourage you to read for yourself what Schaeffer wrote, but I was not sloppy in accurately portraying what he said.

The reality is that Keller promotes a social gospel and cultural renewal, approves and promotes Roman Catholic mysticism, views the Roman Catholic system as a true church (in Reason for God), is a theistic evolutionist, and that is just the beginning. So when he co-authors a statement in the Scripture, there is no doubt in my mind that these practices come out through his beliefs, and those beliefs are foundationally in Scripture.

I believe it is far more sloppy for Keller to call the RC system a true church or to promote RC mystics than what I have written. I find it interesting that you are so quick to critique what I write as sloppy and seem to have a knee jerk reaction to defend Keller.

Tyler, my problem is not with Calvinism in this series. In fact, I have read CH Spurgeon every week of my life for 30 years. (And I have read Gagging of God.) I am not a Calvinist, that is for sure, but I respect Calvinists, and we have various soteriological views in our church. The point of my series is not to prove that Calvinism leads to the accommodation and “the mess we see in evangelicalism today,” as you say. In fact Peter Masters of The Metropolitan Tabernacle has written very strongly against the worldliness and accommodation to the spirit of this world in the New Calvinism. The point of my series is to simply show that the original tenets of New Evangelicalism, which according to Schaeffer led to a great disaster, are being followed by the New Calvinists today. I believe there are definite parallels. If you don’t see it, then perhaps you don’t want to, but I have listed those tenets of New Evangelicalism and I have attempted, howbeit in a sloppy way, to show that some in the New Calvinism are following the same path to disaster. It’s ultimately not about Calvinism, it is about worldliness, accommodation, and a refusal to separate from apostasy and Romanism. And some of the New Calvinists have already shown the disaster, as evidenced by the recent abuse convictions relating to Sovereign Grace Ministries and as well as Driscoll’s sad unraveling.

My understanding about the idea of scripture being inerrant “in all that it affirms” has to do with the idea that scripture could quote Pharaoh, who then tells us to worship Rah. We would not be obligated to think Pharoah was either authoritative in what he says or that he was correct that Rah exists, because the Bible itself doesn’t affirm that idea.

Even the words of Satan are accurately described. I don’t know of anyone who advocates inerrancy meaning we should follow Satan’s words.

When you say that Scripture is inerrant in all that it affirms, you suggest that it could be errant in that which it merely reports, like the words of Satan, Pharoah, whoever. And some will say that Scripture doesn’t affirm a six day creation but reports it. And on it goes. To say that Scripture is inerrant in all that it affirms is to not say enough and leave room for error.

Hey Don, I agree that inerrancy would mean an accurate reporting of what Satan or Pharaoh said. I’m saying that what they said could turn out to be lies. In other words, because of the story, we shouldn’t trust these guys, and saying that the Bible is true in all it affirms is just stating the obvious to a postmodern culture which may not completely understand how truth works. What would you guys say about the Chicago Statement?
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html

[Don Johnson]

Even the words of Satan are accurately described. I don’t know of anyone who advocates inerrancy meaning we should follow Satan’s words.

When you say that Scripture is inerrant in all that it affirms, you suggest that it could be errant in that which it merely reports, like the words of Satan, Pharoah, whoever. And some will say that Scripture doesn’t affirm a six day creation but reports it. And on it goes. To say that Scripture is inerrant in all that it affirms is to not say enough and leave room for error.

Don,

I understand that Scripture is inerrant in all that it affirms but not all that we affirm about Scripture. The errant is us. It’s one thing to say Scripture affirms a six day creation. It’s another to affirm that Scripture affirms that the only valid scriptural affirmation is that creation was accomplished in six 24 days in the relatively recent past. That’s interpretation. It may be a valid view but disagreement is not an inerrancy issue (or is it for some?).

Steve

I have never heard that this “in all that it asserts” terminology was designed to weaken the scope of inerrancy. Like Shaynus, I thought it was intended to defend against charges that the Bible is in error when it uses, to quote the Chicago statement, “a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.”

So, later on, when in the exposition section, the Chicago statement says, “Similarly, ‘inerrant’ signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions”, I don’t see that they are trying to insert any wiggle room to limit or weaken the concept. Even in regard to creation, it specifically says, “We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.”

I have no doubt that we are seeing new and modern (as well as old) attacks on the concept of inerrancy, and I don’t have Schaeffer’s book, so I can’t read what he had to say, but if “in all that it asserts” is not good enough, then what would be better terminology that takes into account literary devices, reporting of falsehoods, and the like?

Andy

If you want to see a real attack on inerrancy by some elitist scholars, see this new book here. The author says that the “traditional, old guard” who formulated the Chicago Statement are literalistic and embarrasing:

On one side, we have what might be termed an “old guard” – authors like Geisler and Farnell, as well as major name popular preachers like John MacArthur and Paige Patterson, and ideological leaders like Albert Mohler and Robert Land. The frontline of this guard states that inerrancy is closest in spirit to an idea that the text is to be read “as it stands,” (Kindle Locations 135-138).

The author says he stands in the “new wave” of conservative scholarship on the other side:

“But according to those like myself on this side of the equation, the perception of “inerrancy” offered by the old guard is dangerous, misleading, and obscurantist in that it will result in a view of the Bible that is not defensible or respectable, leading us down a path of endless epicycles of explanation, artificialities, and illogic. The end result will be to bring down scorn on the Christian faith and contributing to its demise in the Western world,” (Kindle Location 145).

The author therefore believes that “traditionalists” are embarrassingly literal, and are not sensitive to cultural context of the day. He believes that “[t] he social and cultural values of the Biblical world were such that a literary production could act as a sort of coded message to report an entirely different truth than what one would get if a text were read as historical narrative,” (Kindle Locations 224-225). It is hard to escape the conclusion that the author is, in effect, creating a new magisterium of sorts - how can mere mortals like us decipher these literary clues? We must look to the elitist scholars like him.

He is indeed elitist. For example, he systematically castigates men who are “traditionalists,” saying they don’t have the training to critique this more refined view of inerrancy:

• ​MacArthur “is ill qualified to moderate this debate. His highest degree is a Masters’ in Divinity, and his educational background includes a stint at the academically suspect Bob Jones University,” (Kindle Locations 343-344).
• Mohler “is no more in possession of training relevant to this debate than the others. His degree is in historical and systematic theology, not something like New Testament studies or interpretation,” (Kindle Locations 359-360).
• Paige Patterson “apparently did some good in the past, but in more recent years has become a figure of questionable moral dealings … Other than that, Patterson adds nothing new. His credentials are irrelevant as well: He has a doctorate, but it is in theology,” (Kindle Locations 362-366).
• F. David Farnell: “In the end, the only remotely qualified person enlisted by Geisler for this work is his co-author, David Farnell. His doctorate is in New Testament, which is at least somewhat relevant; however, his record of publication is almost wholly limited to The Master’s Seminary Journal, which is John MacArthur’s periodical… not the sort of publication record to be expected from a serious scholar devoted to research,” (Kindle Locations 371-374).

This entire small book is a blatant assault on inerrancy. The arrogance and contempt for the “old guard” is quite clear. This kind of arrogant, NT scholarship magisterium is a far more serious threat than speculative readings of TGC’s doctrinal statement.

That is interesting Tyler and of course I would agree that the attack against those like MacArthur or Mohler who do have a solid view on inerrancy, because they do not have credentials or the right education, comes straight out of the original attack against the apostles, accused of being unlearned and ignorant men. But getting back to my original point, it is sure that Schaeffer saw that inerrancy was surrendered in the New Evangelicalism. That was one of the foundational points of his book, The Great Evangelical Disaster. I believe that the same possibility is bubbling in some areas of the New Calvinism.

Don’t you think that it is possible that statements like Keller’s on TGC foundational documents are appeasing those very same elitist scholars who castigate the more “traditional view?” Keller’s ability to nuance and assuage both sides keep those who write this book from lumping Keller in with Mohler and MacArthur, or so it seems. Don’t you think there is at least a remote possibility that Keller can speak in such a way to please those elitists as well as evangelicals?

mrecker:

I see TGC doctrinal statement as solid. It is intentionally worded so as to please a diverse group of conservative men, but it nevertheless solid. This is the nature of politics when dealing with a parachurch organization with many constituents. For example, we find this in an FBFI resolution from 2004:

“We must continue to study, know, and defend the essentials and to agree to disagree, if necessary, on those which are not (such as philosophy of youth work, pastoral authority, political involvement, versions, certain aspects of Calvinism, dating, divorce, evangelism/discipleship methodology, etc.). As Baptists we certainly wish to practice the doctrine of individual soul liberty and allow others to do so, but we need to pursue unity in every biblical way that we can, especially in a day when there is much division over things not essential,” (Resolution 04-07).

Should I interpret this as evidence that the FBFI as a whole is headed towards outright synergism and Pelagianism? Not at all - that would be without merit and slanderous. The FBFI is a diverse group of men who have very different views on certain aspects of Calvinism. This resolution was, it seems, meant to reassure a broad group of people that the organization had room for them. The TGC’s statement is likewise nuanced on purpose. The above discussion is a testimony of how detailed the definition of “inerrancy” can get.

In other words, I don’t think TGC is pandering to elitists or otherwise capitulating. I think it recognizes that there is a discussion in the rarified circles of actual conservative scholarship on what “inerrancy” means. I also think the fact that D.A. Carson was an author is why the statement is so nuanced. He’s not an ivory-tower guy per se (he’s written some very practical books), but a guy who was “only” a well-educated Pastor wouldn’t have seen fit to be so nuanced. I’m not so sure it was even necessary. I wouldn’t have done it.

I basically think there’s plenty else to criticize about the so-called “New Calvinism” than TGC’s doctrinal statement.

mrecker:

Here is my basic question:

• Out of all the theological minefields out there in the world, why do you see the New Calvinists, in particular, as a threat we need to warn people against?
  • Why is it more pressing than Matthew Vines’ book?
  • Why is it more pressing than religious liberty?
  • Why is it more pressing than challenging a post-modern way of thinking?
• Why is it more important than other issues facing fundamentalism?

One of my more pressing concerns about fundamentalism, to be very honest, is that I think we have tunnel vision about the “New Evangelicalism.” Fundamentalism, as a movement, came about in opposition to theological liberalism. Yet, much of what fundamentalists write on is mired in the milieu of the “New Evangelical” controversy from the 1950s.

We’re known for being militant about not being evangelicals. We’re not noted for being militant about theological orthodoxy. That’s a problem. We play perpetual defense.

One of the reasons I’m cobbling together a group of men to respond, chapter by chapter, to Matthew Vines’ book on SI is because fundamentalists ought to be out there defending the faith against liberalism, not just battling “new evangelicals.” We need to do more in that arena.

…and the Doctrinal Statement committee chose not to use the specific term “inerrant,” but spelled out “without error.”

Scriptures: The sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments were originally written without error.[i] The Spirit moved the Scripture writers[ii] to produce the inspired text[iii] using the words that God intended in every topic addressed. [iv] The Bible remains the final authority on all matters of faith and practice.[v]

[i] Proverbs 30:5-6; John 17:17; Romans 3:4

[ii] 2 Peter 1:21; Hebrews 1:1; 1 Peter 1:10-12

[iii] 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 14:37

[iv] 1 Corinthians 2:13; Matthew 5:18; Deuteronomy 8:3

[v] John 10:31-38; 12:48; Hebrews 4:12

They were tasked with creating a brief statement in language that would be readily understood. I think they did a fine job. But perhaps we need to prepare ourselves for a critique like Pastor Recker’s… [insert wry grin]

I think this installment was better than previous entries, because it did begin with a concession that there are things CEs get right (the citation of the T4G statement). But it does seem to me that in the series overall, Recker begins with an assumption and seeks to prove it, rather than drawing a conclusion based on gathered facts. Even in this thread, Pastor Recker argues for the legitimacy of his case in this way:

And some of the New Calvinists have already shown the disaster, as evidenced by the recent abuse convictions relating to Sovereign Grace Ministries and as well as Driscoll’s sad unraveling.

But how would “we” respond if someone tried to make a case against separatist fundamentalism, let’s say, and they would make a statement pointing to the Ernie Willis case, or Donn Ketcham and ABWE as an illustrative of the flaws of core Fundamentalist principles? The fact that there are excesses and scandals in their circles of influence does not necessarily make them more right or wrong, any more than the example of an exemplary LDS family unit legitimizes their errant theology. The fact is, we in Fundamentalism haven’t been free from our own issues and concerns (J. Frank Norris, BJU inter-racial dating ban, Jack Hyles, etc etc…). We would think it terribly inappropriate for someone to begin a refutation of secondary separation by pointing at some of these problems as the “fruit” of the disaster that such erroneous, isolationist conclusions produces. If there is a point to be made, it begins with the Scripture text and interacting with specific teachings, not “guilt by association” over scandals.