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

Mrecker,

do you happen to know if that statement was the first to adopt that language? I was just curious. I am glad that you went and found that link because that makes the point much more strongly than what you had before.

one factor you need to understand is genetically the FBFI and the SBC haven’t been closely linked since the demise i(for good and sufficent reasons, please see Wayland’s Notes…) of the Triennial Convention. So, unlike the BBF and other organizations, the FBFI would not becoming back to the mother ship.

I would love if there were a series on the FBFI blog on “things we’re really thankful to God for in the work He is doing in non-Fundamentalist circles.” Maybe make it a ten or twenty part series. It would be theraputic. It would be really healthy to cultivate an attitude of “hey look over there at what God is doing! I have some concerns and we should watch out for this and that, but praise the Lord for the fruit!”

Topics could include: lots of people being in heaven because John Piper put his on suit many times a week for 30 years and preached the Bible at Bethlehem, loads of great SBC missionaries in very dangerous places, men and women fighting battles to protect orthodoxy against attacks you couldn’t, God’s Word regularly being taught, and the Holy Spirit using His word as he promised to do.

When we’re writing polemically and the subtext is Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear, rather than JOY JOY JOY JOY JOY, it makes me think Satan has an opening he will one day exploit. The King is on His throne, even at Redeemer Pres.

Your wrote:

When we’re writing polemically and the subtext is Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear, rather than JOY JOY JOY JOY JOY, it makes me think Satan has an opening he will one day exploit. The King is on His throne, even at Redeemer Pres.

Well said.

Matt Recker has mentioned in this thread things like how disappointing it is to see where Northland has gone, or the pain of seeing friends and family leave the movement he is in for the New Calvinists/Conservative Evangelicals. This prompts some questions in my mind:

1. Would it be preferable for those who have left to have “stayed in,” while not holding as firmly to the principles and ideals of “the movement”? Is being a Fundamentalist a matter of organizational loyalty, or is it a matter of principles and ideas? In other words, is it possible that people are leaving because they are forsaking some of your key distinctives (rather than having been seduced by specific personalities), so they look for somewhere else to go, and this is where they end up?
2. Recker has cited Schaffer a great deal in making his case. If someone believed as Schaffer did overall (not just in the matters cited), would he qualify as a Fundamentalist, or did Schaffer have some beliefs and practices that distinguished him from Fundamentalists of his day? What is the difference between citing and acknowledging the insight and ideas of someone of the recent past like Francis Schaffer vs. someone like Al Mohler today?
3. This is less of a question, and more of a suggestion- Don has asked me elsewhere (in a Facebook thread on the same series of articles) if there is ever a time to identify erroneous teaching. Here’s an idea: what about a side-by-side comparison table, showing what the FBFI position is, and how CEs/New Calvinists compare (both favorably and where they would deviate, or where the FBFI would interpret/apply in a contrasting manner)? The tone of these current series of articles comes across as alarmist and accusatory… maybe what is needed is a more “clinical” treatment to make your point in a way that people who you want to will actually listen.

I am not sure what fear you are meaning, but I assume it is not the holy and righteous fear of God that does bring joy. It is not any sort of negative fear that moves me to expose error, it is a love for the truth and it is the fear of the LORD that is a fountain of life and brings strong confidence. Was it not a godly fear of the Lord and a love for truth…

That caused Micaiah to stand before Ahab and Jehoshaphat and said, “As the LORD liveth, even what my God saith, that will I speak.”

Or, that led Noah, moved by fear, to build his ark and “condemn” the ungodly world,Heb. 11:7.

Or, that led Jude to write his brave epistle in spiritual agony for the truth of the faith?

Or, that led Paul to expose those in Asia who turned away from him, or to expose the cancerous doctrines of Hymenaeus and Philetus’ false teaching? (2 Tim.1:15; 2:16).

Or, that led Jesus to tell his disciples to beware of the leaven of the Sadducees and Pharisees?

I have never said that Piper, Mohler, or TGC have not helped with their messages or their websites. I completely understand why many young men would be drawn to listen to Piper or Keller’s sermons, buy their books, or if they google a passage to study on line, TGC website, or Albert Mohler’s or Desiring God will be near the top the search engine with some helpful exegesis or answers to sticky questions. I have done all that myself with benefit. And yes, Southern Baptists are in dangerous places, even near the Isis Muslims in Iraq. In fact, I heard of some recently and have been praying for God’s people in harms way there. I am not afraid of saying that. I am also not afraid of exposing the errors of their movement especially the danger of their associations.

Shaynus, your words reminded me of what Rick Warren said a few years ago, something to the effect that all fundamentalists are motivated by fear, but I sure don’t see Biblical Fundamentalism in that way. In fact, to see how Driscoll led Mars Hill Church for many years and the fear he engendered, and you will see a ministry built through unwholesome fear. I am not saying Fundamentalism has not had issues with a unwholesome fear, but who has not? But historic and genuine fundamentalism, and the kind of Bible believer I long to be and that I have experienced myself in Biblically fundamental circles, is one motivated by a godly fear, a love for the truth of the Gospel, that brings real joy.

(PS. Josh, I am not sure the answer to your question. That would require more research.)

Greg, you wrote,

“This is less of a question, and more of a suggestion- Don has asked me elsewhere (in a Facebook thread on the same series of articles) if there is ever a time to identify erroneous teaching. Here’s an idea: what about a side-by-side comparison table, showing what the FBFI position is, and how CEs/New Calvinists compare (both favorably and where they would deviate, or where the FBFI would interpret/apply in a contrasting manner)?”

I like this suggestion and it would be challenging to do.

However, you say I have been accusatory and alarmist, but in my heart, I have only sought to expose areas of concern, many of which I did not know previous to some of the research. Maybe others did not know as well. Many young men already know positives about Piper, Mohler, Carson, Keller, etc, but have not heard some things to be concerned about.

For example, in my part 2 of this series I sought to present reasons Piper and Carson take a continuationist position on tongues. I did not know that Piper tried to speak in tongues by singing in non-syllabic languages, and that a verse he uses for a continuationist position is that tongues are the language of “angels.” I sought to interact with that and compare it with Scripture to show my disagreement. I actually think that is sloppy exegesis of the text. I did the same with DA Carson’s view that 1 Corinthians 14 teaches that tongues can be used in a private prayer language. Although I also said that Carson’s book was generally helpful I do not think at all I was being alarmist or accusatory to interact with what he said and wrote to give valid points of disagreement with him that 1 Corinthians 14 says nothing at all of private prayer. So yes, I do disagree with Carson in his interpretation of that passage, and offered good reasons why. I was not accusing them of anything but interacting with his doctrinal position in what he wrote. Is that close to what you suggest?

That article is here: http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2014/07/23/new-calvinism-and-continuat….

The Attack on Inerrancy is gaining momentum.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/08/when-inerrancy-no-longer…

However, you say I have been accusatory and alarmist, but in my heart, I have only sought to expose areas of concern, many of which I did not know previous to some of the research. Maybe others did not know as well. Many young men already know positives about Piper, Mohler, Carson, Keller, etc, but have not heard some things to be concerned about.

Matt,

I am not trying to communicate that you intended to be accusatory and alarmist- but that whether or not that was your intention, that it is being received that way by many (as this thread illustrates to a degree). Again, if the only ones you want to reach are the “amen corner” (while further stirring up the dissenters) then you have been successful. If you want to provoke analysis and thought from those on the fringes, and maybe even illustrate why your position might be a better alternative, I think there is room for improvement in tone and temperament, if you will. Do you want to coax people back, or push them out the door more quickly?

So Matt do you think that calling out these men is the same kind of thing Jesus did in calling out the Pharisees? I think that’s the basic category error I see in your writing that it has the feel that you think you’re calling out the Pharasees. Does that make sense?

These men are brothers not Pharisees, so treat them that way carefully by not turning up the rhetoric too many notches. I have absolutely no problem with opening fire on Joel Osteen, a thoroughly gospeless false teacher. There should be a real difference in polemical writing between categories of merely incorrect teaching by good brothers and men like Osteen. I think you’d be more effective if you wrote more appreciatively and used a different tone. It reminds me of the warning one Puritan author had for preachers ​that they should not “pitch matters too high… neither more nor less, just so much.”

Again I seriously appreciate you and your work in NYC. I just moved to Nashville and if you’re ever in town please let me know and we could do coffee.

I found this interesting. Apparently Geisler saw the Lusanne Covenant as an earlier affirmation of Innerrancy.

http://books.google.com/books?id=tYUb_9D4spYC&pg=PT22&dq=lausanne+coven…

That is why I asked if the “in all that it affirms” phrase was used before and by who. Since it is an older statement and the Chicago Statement seems to be the standard statement for those who affirm Innerrancy I do wonder why Acts 29 and anyone else would not adopt that statement.

Greg, If that is how I come across to you, then I will prayerfully work on it, and I am sure I have plenty of room for improvement.

However, I am still not getting much interaction with the points I am making quite patiently. I am actually being accused of being sloppy, and yet when I showed that I accurately quoted Schaeffer, no one responded to that.

Getting also to your points above:

Point 1: I am not a fundamentalist at all for organizational loyalty. I believe in the Biblical position of separation from false teachers and disobedient brothers. Billy Graham has been a watershed for me as the BGEA leads a clear pathway back to Rome. That is the road I do not want to get on or lead others to. I believe that the ministry of Rick Warren and the Contemplative Prayer movement is also a clear pathway back to Rome. That is why I do stay clear and warn others of those who endorse or practice those things, like Beth Moore, Tim Keller, the Emergent church, etc. These are not organizational principles that lead me to separate from those ministries, but Biblical principles.

It seems to me that there are diverse reasons men are leaving Fundamentalism. It is a fractured movement and many have separated over non-Fundamentals, for one. I realize that. I do believe that the success of some of the personalities in the NC and CE is a draw to many also. The reason I have remained a fundamentalist is not because of the personalities within our movement, that is for sure. It is the position to remain separate unto God, apart from the false harlot church or from fellowship that leads back to it (my dispensationalism is leaking out now).

2: I have never said that Schaeffer was a Fundamentalist, and I assume, perhaps wrongly, that those I am writing to would know that he was in the New Evangelical camp. This book is very powerful because it was his last book before dying, and he admits that the movement he gave so much of his time and life to was a disaster. If Mohler writes such a book about the disaster of the New Calvinism I will no doubt use him as an example as well.

Plus, it is obvious also that Mohler writes many good things. His exposing of Andy Stanley’s tolerance toward same sex marriage was bold, for example, and he speaks very clearly for some of these Biblical issues we all hold dear. For that, I am thankful.

[mrecker]

Greg, you wrote,

“This is less of a question, and more of a suggestion- Don has asked me elsewhere (in a Facebook thread on the same series of articles) if there is ever a time to identify erroneous teaching. Here’s an idea: what about a side-by-side comparison table, showing what the FBFI position is, and how CEs/New Calvinists compare (both favorably and where they would deviate, or where the FBFI would interpret/apply in a contrasting manner)?”

I like this suggestion and it would be challenging to do.

I agree too. Greg, since it is your idea, I think you are ideally suited to take up the task. I will be glad to consider your findings for publication on P&D.

BTW, while there are many areas of broad agreement theologically and even practically, it is the differences that distinguish and are most important in deciding best practices going forward.

[Ron Bean]

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.

Ron, I was simply saying that those who are non-dispensationalists are not worldly. I do not dispute your point. The point I was trying to make was that NEism made a conscious decision to move away from dispensationalism in order to fulfill their NE agenda, and overall, according to Schaeffer, accommodation to the spirit of the world resulted.

McCune says it well in Promise Unfullfilled: “Surely much of the anti-dispensational bias so evident in the development of the NE stems from Henry’s view. Dispensationalism, with its doctrine of the professing church and society each growing more apostate toward the end-times, and its concept of a utopian kingdom of God that was being delayed until the eshcaton, was simply too pessimistic to sustain any hopes of present global betterment through the church and its gospel… Ockenga said, The social theory of the fundamentalists was governed by eschatology. It was believed that conditions would grow worse and worse until Christ came again.” (page 37)

The footnote on that page 37 is also relevant: “Dispensationalism also impacted other areas of the developing new evangelicalism…Dispensationalisms doctrine of an apostate church… had a direct bearing on the separatism controversy… which (also) tended to retard the success of NE dialogue and cooperation with non-evangelicals in various settings.”

I find it very interesting how dispensatonalism had to be jettisoned by NE in order for them to fulfill many of their goals: that is, to repudiate separation, dialogue with liberals, and fulfill their social theory. Their conscious decision to from dispenstationalism to fulfill their agenda did open the door for NE to accommodate with the world’s spirit. Ron, am I making any sense at all? At least I am trying!

This does NOT mean that there are many godly Calvinists and non-dispensationalists.

Sorry I did something wrong..