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

[TylerR]

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.

Dallas Seminary’s Dan Wallace has endorsed Holding and Peter’s book contra Geisler and Farnell. I have been looking into this and have interacted on Wallace’s blog and with Nick Peters over the past several months. Dan Wallace is a specialist in this area of textual studies and of what the bible affirms about itself.

Previously this issue has been simmering for quite some time with Geisler actively lobbying seminary presidents not to hire Mike Licona (Nick Peters’ father in law and mentor). The antics of Geisler are really outrageous when carefully and thoughtfully examined. I invite anyone to see the well-argued defense of Mike Licona: “Chicago’s Muddy Waters”.

The Master’s Seminary Journal from last spring has been a platform for Geisler and Farnell. It sounds good if one only looks at one side of the argument. I would invite hearing both sides before a determination is reached on who is correct as Proverbs instructs: “the first to state his case seems right…”

As Christians we are explicitly commanded to examine everything carefully and not just respond with a knee-jerk reaction of what is assumed to be “orthodox.” “Orthodoxy” is an illusion (there is a book with this title that explains this better than I can). The issues and antics are fairly complex but not totally insurmountable to discern if studied and weighed carefully. Some things to note:

a.) Dan Wallace does not agree totally with Mike Licona or at least doesn’t think so but Geisler’s antics of politicizing and recruiting “names” to sign on to the CSBI constitute an ‘authority grab’: setting up a universal church council-like corralling of a doctrine of a narrow defining of the text of the scriptures. There are many issues involved which are not apparent by looking at the issues superficially.

b.) The personal responses by Holding on Amazon’s review forum toward some posters has saddened me. This may have been reviewers of other works. We should not get lost in our passions and forget being faithful to The Lord, waiting on Him, and doing the right thing. Sometimes it seems that people operate in the flesh and try to do the Lord’s work. This is what the Crusades resembled. However, just because someone acts badly does not mean they are wrong.

c.) Geisler is an Old Earth proponent (not that this is necessarily wrong) but sets up some interesting bed-fellow snuggling with Fundamentalists and the YEC crowd. Overall My position on other doctrinal issues is closer to Geisler than the other side but greater core-issues are at play where careful discernment needs to happen. To illustrate this point: Jesus was very Pharisee-like in doctrine and ministry early on in His ministry (the Pharisees were mostly correct in their overall formulations), however at crucial junctures they had fatal flaws such as self righteousness, disenfranchisement of certain others who were undeserving of it, and false religion to name a few. Ultimately they were the serpent’s seed despite being better in orthodoxy than some others. Christ, in His Person, redeemed sinners who were not immediately correct on all points (some points up for debate). I think we all can agree that it is better to be a redeemed unorthodox sinner than an orthodox snake.

d.)This seems to me over-defining position which sets one up for despair by painting themselves in a corner when certain textual issues are given by the unbelieving crowd. Its a subtle trap, I would contend.

Does this article mean to intimate that TGC is embracing past-modernism and/or denying inerrancy?

Tyler I am all for what you propose, so go for defending Biblical Christianity against liberalism. I have never said that exposing the dangers of the New Calvinism is more important or more pressing than the things you referenced. I believe we should contend for the faith. I felt a burden to show a valid comparison between the New Evangelicalism and the New Calvinism. I go back to my thesis. Schaeffer said New Evangelicalism was a GREAT DISASTER. I believe he was right. And I believe the same errors are being made by the New Calvinism. So I am not getting bogged down in the past, but showing how the past is being repeated presently. That has happened once or twice in history, has it not? A lot of young men are being led in the wrong direction by the New Calvinism. If you think that what has happened and is happening at Northland is a good thing, then we won’t agree, but I definitely do not want our church or other churches and ministries that have been established with Baptistic and separatist convictions to go in that direction.

Ron, I am saying that TGC statement accommodates post modern thinking and it can open the door for the denial of inerrancy. It is a muddled statement, and I shared two illustrations from history, the Luasanne Covenant and the Downgrade controversy where doctrinal statements can take on a double meanings. I sought to show also, for example, that the Scripture does much more than “convey truth.” It is truth. I simply believe people should be warned of the danger to come. Again, as I pointed out in the article, it took 30 years for the bad fruit of New Evangelicalism’s re-statements of Biblical inerrancy to occur.

Perhaps Holding and Peter’s book, Defining Inerrancy, which Tyler has indicated does attack those who hold to inerrancy, will be embraced by some of the TGC men. TGC statement is confusing enough to probably go either way. And as Alex points out, some in evangelical circles are already taking Holdings view vs. Geisler. Sounds like Battle for the Bible all over again. I wonder which side Keller would fall down on?

I have Geisler’s book, which prompted Nick Peter’s book. I also read the Master’s Seminary Journal issue you mentioned, which was essentially a platform for Geisler (as you said). I also understand that MacArthur will be having a major conference dedicated to inerrancy in the near future.

A few questions:

• Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to call your article series, “Conservative Evangelicalism and the New Evangelicalism: The Same Disaster,” then?
• Why single out Calvinists? Do you feel the “new Calvinist” movement poses a threat to fundamentalists? Wouldn’t it be better to say that an looser, evangelical philosophy to ministry in general, characterized by a de-emphasis on separation and militancy, is the reason why young men are being led astray?
• What, exactly, is a “New Calvinist?”
• I’m a fundamentalist. I’m a dispensationalist. I’m also Calvinistic. I’ve never listened to or read Piper, Mahaney or Driscoll. I listen to The Briefing and have two of Dever’s books. Am I a “New Calvinist?”

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.

Yes, this is exactly the problem, and why I think that a lot of Fundamental(ist) ministries lead towards bashing Evangelicals. It’s a lot easier to point out other people’s problems than it is to deal with your own.
I’d be FAR more inclined to read P&D if they actually, you know, dealt with issues in the Fundy world instead of promoting yet another critique of those and the “terrible horrible no good very bad” evangelicals (to borrow the title of that famous kid’s book). If you want to discuss issues that are actually occuring in the Fundy world, you have to go to this site, the FFF, SFL, or dissidens’ websites. And there are a LOT of people that think that this site in particular suppresses a lot of stories that should be wider dissemination. As someone who worked behind the curtain for a few years here, that charge is ludicrous.
Tyler, I suspect that most people aren’t interacting with “Defining Inerrancy” for two reasons. One, our position on inerrancy is firmly settled. As the SI Doctrinal Statement says, [We believe in] “[t] he plenary Divine inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the Word of God, the supreme and final authority in faith and life.” Secondly, I don’t think that most people who could interact with Holding and Peters would want to. For whatever reason, but probably mainly the first.

1. Tyler, take your pick. Why didn’t I call my very white dog “Blondy” rather than “Vanilla”? (Well, my daughter named him first) The reality is CE and NC are somewhat synonymous terms as I understand it. New Calvinism is more well known and perhaps more accurate as there is a strong emphasis upon Calvinism. I have heard it said, and I would agree, that “Together for the Gospel” is really Together for the Five Points of Calvinism Gospel; “The Gospel Coalition” is really The Five Points of Calvinism Coalition.

2. I have not singled out Calvinists one time in this series. I have said nothing negative about Calvinism, not one time in this series. (Nor have I even mentioned the word, “music” in my series.) In part three of this series on “Why Dispensationalism is Important,” I said:

“Obviously not all historic Fundamentalists agree on the timing of Christ’s coming and not all Biblicists are Dispensationalists… I do not believe that if a person rejects a Dispensational theology for Calvinism worldliness always results.”

3. I would encourage you to read E.S. Williams book, The New Calvinists: Changing the Gospel and features chapters on Tim Keller, John Piper, and Mark Driscoll. Williams, a member of Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, England, is a medical doctor. He has an interesting web site and on this home page he gives some of the overarching points of the New Calvinism: www.newcalvinist.com.

I would add that this New Calvinism is drastically different from traditional Calvinism or the Reformed Baptists I have known, in the history I have read, and here in the Northeast. Specifically, New Calvinists hold to a continuationist position on tongues, elevate elements of a social gospel (by some), and practice a contemporary Christian music philosophy, which is a cause in the worldliness of the movement.

I am not picking on Mark Driscoll, but I discovered this on their web site in the bio of one of their pastors, Tim Smith, who has been at Mars Hill Church for a long time. Remember that Driscoll was welcomed by Piper, Mahaney, and Keller and many of the New Calvinists for many years, until recently. Here is what it says:

“Pastor Tim is the lead pastor of Mars Hill Portland. He came to Mars Hill in the summer of 1999, having never owned an electric guitar, been in a band, or written a song. Somehow, by God’s grace, he became the worship pastor and has been able to hang on and give shape to a movement of well over 30 worship bands leading many local churches. Tim is the husband of Beth and the father of three daughters. He enjoys good food and whiskey.” (http://marshill.com/pastors/tim-smith)

WHISKEY? On their web site? They have one paragraph to tell about one of their pastors and they boast he likes WHISKEY! That is an example of the worldliness of the New Calvinism. Mind-boggling.

The New Calvinism is obviously has had a strong influence in Fundamentalism and many have drifted to that movement for many reasons I am sure. It has influenced my family and my friends. Obviously that is a concern to me as I believe in the position of Biblical separatism.

4. Why do you ask? I am not your judge but if I had to evaluate based on what you said, obviously no! I don’t see how you could be based on what you said!

May the Lord great bless you my brother. Thank you for your service to the Lord Jesus Christ and have a great weekend preaching Christ, His Word and the power of the Gospel!

I’ve been out all day, so here are a few summary thoughts and observations about the discussion.

First of all, it seems that this debate has attempted to defend TGC from Matt’s charges by pointing to a suggested weakness in his argument over the word “all that it affirms.” This language is not the language of TGC, but of Lausanne, at least as far as the quotations we have in Matt’s paper. According to what Matt writes, no less than Francis Schaeffer picked up on this language and found it problematic. I think I have his book somewhere, but I can’t put my hands on it just now (still packed away, 3 years and counting…), thus I can’t look it up.

If you think about what Matt is saying, the weakness Schaeffer picked up at Lausanne is replicated in the TGC documents with other slight shifts in language that give room for similar errors. That’s his point. The New Calvinists (as illustrated by TGC) are replicating New Evangelical errors.

So in all this debate here on SI, some are attempting to deflect criticism of TGC by seizing on an illustration from Schaeffer about Lausanne. You aren’t really dealing with Matt’s argument at all. (Which is typical of these sorts of debates - find some perceived flaw, no matter how minor, and constantly beat the author into submission over that one point.)

As for the Chicago Statement, it has been awhile since I read it, but as I recall I think that it is a pretty good document. But TGC’s documents are not the same thing as the Chicago statement.

And on the statement that the Bible is inerrant in all that it affirms, that has long been a fairly weak way to define inerrancy in my opinion. The T4G statement Matt also cited is much better.

Finally, I think the point of comparison, i.e. that New Evanglicalism shares significant points with New Calvinism is a valid point. I appreciate Matt raising the issue.

mrecker wrote:

“The reality is CE and NC are somewhat synonymous terms as I understand it.”

Pastor Recker, I’m sorry but you don’t understand it if that’s what you think. There are loads (millions) of Conservative Evangelical Southern Baptists who are not only not Calvinists but are agin’ it and make a ruckus at the Convention every year about it. That’s just one example of non-Calvinists who are clearly conservative evangelicals. There are many others.

“I have heard it said, and I would agree, that “Together for the Gospel” is really Together for the Five Points of Calvinism Gospel; “The Gospel Coalition” is really The Five Points of Calvinism Coalition.”

This is either slanderous or highly uncharitable, and I’m disappointed.

Tyler, you sound quite sensitive to the term, New Calvinism. The fact is, I did not invent the term and Piper himself gladly embraces it. Piper writes in this post that is entitled, “The New Calvinism and the New Community:”

“I am part of the New Calvinism and feel a sense of fatherly responsibility to continually speak into it dimensions of biblical truth that I think it needs to hear.” Here is the link: http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/the-new-calvinism-and-the-new-com….

Hmmm. Why did Piper not use the term “Conservative Evangelical?” So I am only using their terminology that they prefer.

Shaynus, as you wrote “There are loads (millions) of Conservative Evangelical Southern Baptists who are not only not Calvinists but are agin’ it and make a ruckus at the Convention every year about it. That’s just one example of non-Calvinists who are clearly conservative evangelicals. There are many others.”

Thanks for that, but I am not uncharitable or slanderous of anyone. It seems to me that the speakers and leaders of two of the leading New Calvinist groups are Calvinists. This is what Piper said as he laid out points of the New Calvinism:

“First, the lecture is called “on Theology, Culture, and Mission.” In my title, the Doctrines of Grace (or the five points, or soteriological Calvinism) correspond to theology. The meaning of race corresponds to culture. And the call to pursue a new ethnically diverse community corresponds to mission.

Second, the Doctrines of Grace are biblical and true and beautiful; the sovereignty of God is glorious beyond words; and the gracious, governing hand of God in all the details of our lives is precious and sweet. And since I love to talk about what is biblical and true and beautiful and glorious and precious and sweet, this is my theme.”

Many of these men, like Piper, are unabashadly Calvinist. How am I slandering them by noting they are Calvinists and even New Calvinists because that is what they are calling themselves.

Plus my focus in this series IS NOT ON CALVINISM, but on a NEW CALVINISM that is replicating the NEW EVANGELICALISM in many ways. Can you not give that any credence? I have sought to take one point of the New Evangelicalism at a time and show a comparison to the New Calvinism. Can you not see any compromise in Keller? Does he not follow in the same path of New Evangelicals of old by elevating the Social Gospel and compromise by calling the Roman Catholic Church a true church? Or in Piper that his church was in the General Baptist Convention, now Converge Worldwide, which is a part of the National Association of Evangelicals? The NAE is mainline New Evangelicalism, is it not? Can you not see that it is dangerous for Piper to speak with say, Carl Lentz (Hillsong NYC) at a Passion Conference? Or to partake in a Lectio Divina with Roman Catholic sympathizer Beth Moore?

Come on now, my brothers. You can attack me all you want, but can you not see any errors in the New Calvinism?

There is only one gospel correct? To say they are for the “Five Points of Calvinism” Gospel is to divide the gospel into different types. It also implies that they sit around in a room plotting Calvinism’s takeover of the world. That’s how I took the statement. To me, intended or not, it’s offensive to these men to use terminology in this way. I should have been more clear about how I took it.

I love you Matt, but the assertion that Conservative Evangelicals was synonymous with New Calvinism struck me as a clear example of Aaron’s impression that your thinking here was sloppy. You clearly have a lot that you’re concerned about in this area, and the issues are complex, but I don’t think you’re connecting the dots very clearly. Here’s an example: you wrote “Or in Piper that his church was in the General Baptist Convention, now Converge Worldwide, which is a part of the National Association of Evangelicals? The NAE is mainline New Evangelicalism, is it not?” Frankly that’s logic a conspiracy theorist might use, but it doesn’t really mean much.

I was a member of Capitol Hill Baptist for a few years. Mark Dever and Thabiti Anyabwhile were my pastors. I’ve heard Dever be quite critical of New Evangelicalism. Having lived in the New Calvinist world for about 10 years (though I wouldn’t take the title myself) the comparison to New Evangelicalism doesn’t make any sense to me.

Matt have you ever heard this talk? I think you’d enjoy it. Dever (PhD in History from Cambridge focusing on Puritanism) goes over the main historical reasons for the rise of Calvinism.

Written summary

http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/where-did-all-these-calvinists-co…

Audio

http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/audio/2013/10/where-did-all-these-cal…

[Shaynus]

mrecker wrote:

“The reality is CE and NC are somewhat synonymous terms as I understand it.”

Pastor Recker, I’m sorry but you don’t understand it if that’s what you think. There are loads (millions) of Conservative Evangelical Southern Baptists who are not only not Calvinists but are agin’ it and make a ruckus at the Convention every year about it. That’s just one example of non-Calvinists who are clearly conservative evangelicals. There are many others.

“I have heard it said, and I would agree, that “Together for the Gospel” is really Together for the Five Points of Calvinism Gospel; “The Gospel Coalition” is really The Five Points of Calvinism Coalition.”

This is either slanderous or highly uncharitable, and I’m disappointed.

I also think a timeline is important to consider in the discussion. I think it is safe to say that NC has taken on a movement form that has a definable trajectory. While some of us may have been more open to the NC idea when it first began to take hold, say 5-10 years ago, we may no longer be as comfortable with the trajectory and movement that it has become. So, some quotes may be affected by time. Personally, I was encouraged when the young, reformed and restless crowd first began gaining traction. American Baptists, going all the way back to the Philadelphia confession, were historically Calvanistic in their soteriology. However, I agree with Matt that too many of the NC leaders presently seem more interested in pushing cultural envelopes than in being doctrinally astute. For some it seems like being different and standing out is the goal, and that is not why I am a Calvinist.

Exactly Chip. Well said. To use the blind men and elephant analogy, there are different parts of many elephants we’re talking about.
If historically speaking Evangelicalism is a big river, there are many streams (Fundamentalism, New Evangelicalism, New Calvinism) that merge and diverge throughout time and in different related doctrines and practices. Tim Keller’s view of cultural renewal is not because he’s a Calvinist as much as it is other streams he’s in (and streams he’s actually creating). Many Calvinists would be critical of Keller on how he relates to culture.

mrecker:

You wrote:

Plus my focus in this series IS NOT ON CALVINISM, but on a NEW CALVINISM that is replicating the NEW EVANGELICALISM in many ways. Can you not give that any credence? I have sought to take one point of the New Evangelicalism at a time and show a comparison to the New Calvinism

Your series is about Calvinists, mrecker. I am not sensitive to it; it is in your title. You are trying to establish that New Calvinists are making the same mistakes as New Evangelicals did in years gone by. You aren’t talking about non-Calvinist evangelicals, you’re talking about Calvinist evangelicals very specifically and particularly.

You continued:

Can you not see any compromise in Keller? Does he not follow in the same path of New Evangelicals of old by elevating the Social Gospel and compromise by calling the Roman Catholic Church a true church? Or in Piper that his church was in the General Baptist Convention, now Converge Worldwide, which is a part of the National Association of Evangelicals? The NAE is mainline New Evangelicalism, is it not? Can you not see that it is dangerous for Piper to speak with say, Carl Lentz (Hillsong NYC) at a Passion Conference? Or to partake in a Lectio Divina with Roman Catholic sympathizer Beth Moore?

Of course I see it. I don’t travel in those circles. I don’t read those men. I don’t follow their blogs or Twitter accounts. They’re nothing but names to me. I skimmed through Keller’s Galatians for You in a bookstore, and actually thought it was pretty terrible. I’m not surprised at their associations; they’re soft on separation. Is this a surprise?

Let me be very honest with you - my initial thoughts on this entire series was that it was, in essence, a sort of circling the wagons for non-Calvinist fundamentalists, characterized by a series of guilt by association charges about New Calvinism (e.g. “Keller is a Calvinist, and look here … ” and “Driscoll is a Calvinist, and look here …”). I saw it’s basic theme as being “Calvinism is bad, evangelicalism is bad, see what they produce together, so let’s hold the course, boys!” My apologies if that offends you.

• You have made some very good points throughout the series.
• That article you mentioned on the New Evangelical characteristics from 1956 is absolutely critical. I wrote a small article for SI on this a while back.
• Your series clearly demonstrates that separation is essential. The sad story of Fuller, chronicled in Marsden’s book, proves this.
• I just think you needlessly restricted your fire to Calvinists. I wonder why you did.