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

[TylerR]

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.

Tyler, you are just plain wrong on this point. There is a difference between Calvinists and Calvinism in general and the New Calvinists in particular. Matt is not pointing to all Calvinists, but a particular subset of Calvinists identified by a particular label. The label is used by the movement itself and has been used in the secular media. It is a clearly identifiable group. You may never have heard of it, but please do some research on this point. You should see that there is a difference between Calvinism and the New Calvinists.

[TylerR]

• I just think you needlessly restricted your fire to Calvinists. I wonder why you did.

Just not so. He is pointing to the movement called New Calvinism. It is that movement he has a problem with. I invite you to also note the posts in this thread by Shaynus and Chip. They have no problem making the distinction.

Tyler, please read Peter Masters article. He is the pastor of The Metropolitan Tabernacle who has strongly exposed the dangers of the New Calvinism in his article, New Calvinism: The Merger of Calvinism and Worldliness. He is of course a Calvinist, and he draws none of my fire!

Here is the link: http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/Christian-Article/New-Calvinism-M…

E.S. Williams, who I have also mentioned in these posts, is a member of The Metropolitan Tabernacle and strongly opposes the New Calvinism. Williams also, a Calvinist, draws none of my fire. (www.newcalvinist.com)

Regarding my mistake earlier, when I said Conservative Evangelicalism was “somewhat synonymous” to NCism, what I should have said was New Calvinism is a movement that within CEism, and my series is focused on the movement of NCism. My apologies. The reason I focus on NCism is because many of the leaders of NCism are shaping CEism and are having a strong influence within Fundamentalism. I have sought to highlight some of the well known New Calvinists, Keller, Driscoll, Piper, etc. Together for the Gospel and The Gospel Coalition have been founded by New Calvinists as well. It appears to me that NCism is highly influential in the world of Conservative Evangelicalism and it has influenced our own Fundamentalist colleges and young men preparing for ministry. I merely am seeking to warn, challenge, and expose, and to encourage a separatist position based on New Testament texts, Romans 16:17-18; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; 2 Thess.3:6-16.

And thanks Tyler that you think that I have made some valid points in this brief series. And please do not assume that I said anything close to what your initial thoughts were when you said:

“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.”

It does not offend me, but it is just not true of my intentions nor have I thought that for one moment.

And Shaynus, thanks for your Christian love. And I agree with your point: “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.”

That is true, and as I referenced Masters and Williams above, both Calvinists. They are very critical of the New Calvinism, and again, these men draw none of my fire!

Matt,

Would you say that Acts29 and their President Matt Chandler (easily described as a New Calvinist) was practicing biblical separation when they kicked Driscoll out recently and called him to repentance? I would hope we would all be encouraged by that. It was essentially an action based in a fundamentalist understanding of separation NOT a New Evangelical one.
And what about tons of New Calvinist pastors from the Mars Hill sphere calling for Mark Driscoll’s resignation over persistent sin? I think it’s wonderful, and it’s a sign of a maturing movement and one committed to the fundamentals. If we’re talking trajectory, it’s a good one.

Shayne

You wrote:

It does not offend me, but it is just not true of my intentions nor have I thought that for one moment.

Very well. I apologize.

Fundamentalism is a big-tent philosophy of ministry, and we’re just on two very different wavelengths. As I mentioned earllier, I just think our energies and attentions can be more profitably directed to areas of concern other than the “New Evangelicalism” and their ilk. Take care.

I do not believe that if a person rejects a Dispensational theology for Calvinism worldliness always results.”

I’ve seen people reject dispensationalism for covenant theology and I’ve seen people who were not Calvinists become Calvinists. I’ve known a lot of people who were strong dispensationalists who were also strong Calvinists. I don’t see the relationship you were trying to make with your statement.

And, like Shaynus, I don’t think it would hurt anyone if the FBFI siad something positive about ACTS 29’s actions regarding Driscoll or the SBC’s actions in cleaning up their seminaries.

[Ron Bean] I don’t think it would hurt anyone if the FBFI siad something positive about ACTS 29’s actions regarding Driscoll or the SBC’s actions in cleaning up their seminaries.

While this thread has intimated about the direction of various movements, the reality is that the issue of believing in Biblical inerrancy is live and growing in churches.

Earlier this month I resigned as a member from my church after our pastors declared they ‘didn’t like the word inerrancy’ to describe how they approach the Bible. One a person and/or a church accepts that Scripture is not inerrant, then every doctrine has a cloud cast over it. In today’s world, these ‘debates and discussions’ are usually played out on social media for the world to cast their democratic opinion on.

Without meaning to sound too alarming, I am discerning that we are on the cusp of many churches jettisoning the plain teaching of Scripture.

JC,

I think that ship has already sailed. I am in graduate school at Liberty University, a conservative evangelical school with some fundamental leanings like young earth creationism. I am appalled at the ridiculous hermeneutics displayed by fellow graduate students when asked to apply scripture to various issues in our classes. It saddens me to see how far professing Christians in this country have been distanced from a personal ability to simply read and use God’s Word.

That is very sad. I wonder if Liberty’s sheer size (and their rapid online expansion) has resulted in a frankly less than capable student body.

[Ron Bean]

And, like Shaynus, I don’t think it would hurt anyone if the FBFI siad something positive about ACTS 29’s actions regarding Driscoll or the SBC’s actions in cleaning up their seminaries.

First, the Acts 29 thing is relatively new. I don’t speak for the FBFI, but as a member I would think that the vast majority (if not unanimous) view of the Acts 29 matter would be positive. Good for them for taking action. However, if you know much about Acts 29 you should know that there are still numerous issues outstanding in that movement which are not compatible with my view point. Not to mention that Driscoll’s abuses have been well known for years and this board sat around doing nothing about it.

With respect to the SBC resurgence, we have spoken to that in 2001. You can find our complete Resolutions here. See Resolution 2001.06. We indeed have commended the SBC for the turnaround and have not taken any action since to revoke that opinion. We also called on them to complete the turnaround by removing still objectionable elements in their fellowship. These changes have not yet happened.

I somehow doubt that this will satisfy you, however.

Chip, I agree that a some Christians having a low view of Scripture is not new, but the scale of the number of ‘Evangelical Christians’ who don’t take it seriously has surprised and saddened me of late.

“Objectionable elements” my favorite combination of words.

In the FBFI’s thirteen year-old tepid compliment of the SBC, what are the objectionable elements of which you speak?

And who are the “we” of whom you speak. Is it the entire FBFI who voted to accept the resolutions or is it the leaders of the FBFI who wrote the resolutions? Seriously, the “we” aspect of the FBFI was something I never quite grasped when I was a member.

With some people you just can’t win. I’ll leave it at that.

I was just perusing the Acts 29 Network website, New Calvinist church planting network started by Driscoll and now led by Matt Chandler, and they say this:

“Additionally, we hold to the The Lausanne Covenant Statement of Faith.” They then link to that statement. http://www.acts29network.org/about/distinctives/

And this is the same statement that I quoted in my article, in which Schaeffer said regarding the Scripture is a New Loophole to deny inerrancy.

So the New Calvinists use this New Evangelical doctrinal statement. This is the point of my series, that New Calvinism is a remake of the New Evangelicalism. And this bolsters that conclusion. As JC and Chip say above, the issue of inerrancy is still alive in our churches.

I encourage you brothers to go find your copy of The Great Evangelical Disaster. Schaeffer is right on. The Luasanne Covenant of 1974 said, “We affirm the divine inspiration…the Word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”

Schaeffer’s evaluation: “Upon first reading, this seems to make a strong statement in support of the full authority of the Bible. But a problem has come up concerning the phrase “in all that it affirms.” For many this is being used as a loophole…Nevertheless, it is a proper statement if the words are dealt with fairly…However, as soon as I saw it in printed form I knew it was going to be abused. Unhappily, this statement, “in all that it affirms,” has indeed been made a loophole by many. How…? … But on the basis of the existential methodology, these men and women say in the back of their minds, even as they sign the Covenant, “But the Bible does not affirm without error that which it teaches in the area of history and cosmos. Because of the widely accepted existential methodology in certain parts of the evangelical community, the words infallibility, inerrancy, and without error are meaningless today unless some phrase is added…” (The Great Evangelical Disaster, pp. 56-57)

The point is, Schaeffer said that an honest reading of this statement could mean that when the Bible says, “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God,” and that the Bible does not teach and therefore the Bible does not affirm, there is no God. That is what some said in this thread above that statement meant, and it does in an honest reading. But liberals look for loopholes and find them in that wording. That was my point in the statement of TGC on the Bible. An honest reading of the statement could lead one to conclude that it seems to be strong, but there is room for loopholes in that document as well.