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

Question for Matthew Recker: Can you cite any examples of men in The Gospel Coalition or Together for the Gospel where they functionally deny inerrancy?

I ask this because if not your article basically has a “cry wolf” tenor to it.

I am a pastoral member of the Fellowship of Fundamental Bible Churches (and have been for 30+ years). This is a find group of men and churches. It was formerly known as the Bible Protestant Church. When I joined at our annual conference (my first annual conference with them), I raised the point (a motion) that their doctrinal statement affirmed inspiration but omitted verbal addressing inerrancy. I can tell you that every man in the BPC (now the FFBC) believed in inerrancy but their doctrinal statement was outdated. They unanimously beefed up their doctrinal statement at that year’s annual conference.

So back to my question for you: Name men in the in The Gospel Coalition or Together for the Gospel where they functionally deny inerrancy. I doubt you can but the ball is in your court!

Thanks, Matt, for expanding on what Schaeffer said for those of us without ready access to his book.

Based on that, it seems the problem with the “in all it affirms” wording is not so much the terminology itself but the dishonest way that some approach that statement. I still wonder if this terminology is intentionally used to allow the loophole Schaeffer refers to and if it is possible to come up with better terminology that deals with the objections to inerrancy that I always thought this terminology was designed to counteract.

The reason I ask is because I see this terminology (or very similar) used by a variety of people who have a high view of Biblical inerrancy but want to define it carefully and accurately. For example, Paul Feinberg — “Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be whole true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences.”

In his discussion of inerrancy, McCune says, “accuracy means that what is affirmed in Scripture is a correct statement of facts or principles. That is Scripture represents a correct state of affairs by its affirmations.”

Robert Reymond, in his New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, also uses this terminology – “By it we asset that the Bible is true, that is to say, devoid of , and incapable of teaching, falsehood or error of any kind in all that it intends to affirm. It is internally noncontradictory and doctrinally consistent. Its assertions correspond to what God himself understands is the true and real nature of things….the Bible does not err in any of its affirmations, whether those affirmations be in the sphere of spiritual realities or morals, history science, and is therefore incapable of teaching error.”

Maybe it is worth adding a clarifying statement, like some do, that “all it affirms” includes every realm, not just those regarding theology, morals, or spirituality. I don’t know if the Lausanne statement is intentionally vague or not but it does seem that those with as high view of inerrancy have incorporated the “all that it affirms” type of terminology, not to provide a loophole but to be more precise.

And just so you know, my reason for bringing this up is because I care about accurate and protective statements regarding what we believe. I am in general agreement with you regarding the problems with New Calvinism and the constant assault on inerrancy across the whole spectrum of evangelicalism. Tyler is right, btw, and I’m sure you would agree, to highlight where the battle is raging today — from a rising coalition of evangelicals who oppose traditional formulations such as the Chicago Statement. Peter Enns, for example, refers to the Bible as “incarnational,” meaning, since it is both divine and human, we should expect some “diversity” (by which he means errors) due to an accommodation to the human element. I don’t think that’s what TGC means when they use the “human words” terminology you highlighted but while I am not as concerned as you regarding these particular doctrinal statements, I do agree that the issue of inerrancy is worth fighting for and defining correctly and carefully.

Andy

[Don Johnson]

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.

I’m not sure I’d be the ideal, since 1. I’m not a current FBFI member, and 2. I have concluded, in one specific instance, that there are very few doctrinal differences between where our church or the MBA has been in comparison to Phil Johnson/John MacArthur/GCC- a conclusion that has been disputed by some (some of whom would be in your constituency). In a way, I consider myself one that needs to be convinced to some degree. I know there are differences in application of principles, but for many being painted with this broad brush, I think there is more in common than we sometimes would care to admit.

[mrecker]

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?

Pastor Recker-

I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think your articles are inculcating the fear of the Lord, which is “the beginning of wisdom”. If fear is the motivating factor for what we do as believers, then we have yielded ourselves to the Evil One’s schemes. God, as I was taught repeatedly and fall back on often, “does not give us a spirit of fear, but of power, of love, and of a sound mind.”

It is more challenging to love the men and women in the CE/NE side of the debate - and to look for good attributes to praise when things are done well or rightly (such as Acts29 expelling Driscoll) - than it is to act in a way that we need to be afraid of the harm that they might be doing.

If the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, and peace, then why does your article seem to revolve so heavily around being afraid of these men?

Just thinking aloud here; I hope that’s helpful.

I really do consider Don Johnson and Matt Recker my brothers in Christ. It’s just that when I read the Biblical texts that Matt used to justify their warnings I am concerned. In practice they treat Piper, Dever, Mohler, Keller, etc. the same way they treat apostates and false teachers. There are other texts that deal with how we should deal with those who we consider erring brethren.

Jim, Tim Keller has had close association with a man named Ron Choong for many years. Choong taught a Sunday class at Redeemer and then started a ministry called ACT (Academy of Christian Thought).

“ACT confesses a belief ‘in the divine inspiration and entire trustworthiness of the Scriptures.’ What is interesting is that infallibility and inerrancy are not used to describe their view of the Scriptures.

Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in New York, a sponsor of ACT (Academy of Christian Thought), has hosted ACT seminars and lists ACT as a valuable resource. Dr. Tim Keller, senior pastor of Redeemer, is one of three pastors on ACT’s Board of Reference.”

Please note these two links:

http://gospelmasquerade.com/ron-choongs-ties-to-tim-keller-and-his-here…. (This article is written by Jonathan Cousar, who was a member at Redeemer for 18 years but is now a member of our church. He understands Keller’s theology and ministry from personal experience.)

(http://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/dr-ron-choong…)

Choong’s position: “According to Dr. Choong, Genesis was written around the 6th century BC as the Jewish people were returning from their Babylonian exile (1). As such, it was not written by Moses, although Moses may be the author of some parts (3-4). The purpose of Genesis 1-11 was to provide a polemic against the Babylonian gods, not to explain the “how” or “in what order” of creation.”

Also, according to Choong: “Adam and Eve were probably collective names describing a community of hominids [pre-humans] selected by God for moral cognition.”

In the article by Cousar, Choong himself says:

“All my views about Adam and Eve have been published for more than 10 years and Redeemer as a church as well as Dr Keller as a minister have never had any objections to my non-doctrinal interpretations.”

Now, can a person say they believe in inspiration and/or inerrancy and then believe this? Keller has been in close association with Choong for many years. This is a functional denial of inerrancy to associate with someone like this.

Another terrible association of Keller is with the BIOLOGOS website, which promotes theistic evolution and of which Peter Enns had been a senior fellow. Keller has said:

“Two years ago at BioLogos’ Theology of Celebration (hosted by Tim Keller in New York), Dr. Keller was quoted as saying: To develop a Biologos narrative is ‘the job of pastors?” Is it the “job of pastors” in the Reformed denominations to promote/defend/develop a “BioLogos” narrative that denies the special creation of Adam and Eve?” Dr. Peter Enns, mentioned earlier in these posts, was also connected to Biologos. So Keller has had a working association with Ron Choong and Peter Enns, and he says it is the JOB OF PASTORS to associate with men like this. (https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/tag/tim-keller/, see MONDAY, March 24 entry and TUESDAY July 16 regarding Choong and Enns especially).

Now let’s try these two NT texts for such an association: 1 Tim. 5:22 and 2 Thess.3:6-15.

The 1 Tim.5:22 passage is of special interest to me on Keller’s association with someone like Choong (although the other definitely applies). “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.” The laying of hands speaks of a commendation and identification with a man in the act of ordination. McCune says that “There is also the principle here that recognition of someone as a genuine Christian leader must be preceded by cautious and wise investigation. Otherwise one could share responsibility for his sins. The injunction to ‘Keep yourself free from sin’ has strong overtones of ecclesiastical separation.” (Promise Unfulfilled, p.150-151). McCune goes on: “Separation from erring brethren means that we will not associate our name… with any church, ecclesiastical organization, or religious leader which maintains connections with those who do not believe and obey the word of God in doctrine and practice.”

Pickering makes a similar point and says, “Here again is a principle which flows out of specific instruction. A servant of God may contaminate his own testimony by giving public recognition or endorsement to another who, though a brother in Christ, nevertheless is not maintaining a walk that is pleasing to God.” (Biblical Separation, p.220) The word “partaker” is the koinonia, or fellowship. By endorsing those who take unscriptural positions a person has fellowship of their unscriptural position.

Finally, if New Evangelicals found a “loophole” in the “all that it affirms” statement, they will probably be able to find many loopholes in TGC foundational statements, especially in the Theological Vision for Ministry statement that was written by Tim Keller, who has been a partaker of the sins of men like Choong and Enns.

And Ron, thanks for your concern. And it sure makes me feel better that you don’t doubt my salvation!

Can anyone agree even a little that Keller is sloppy in such associations? Or breaking the principle of 1 Tim. 5:22?

What you have labored to show in your last post is that evangelicals don’t practice the idea of “secondary separation,” particularly in regards to parachurch organizations. We already knew that. We have Pickering’s books. We have McCune’s book. We understand. You are saying nothing new.

You write:

Finally, if New Evangelicals found a “loophole” in the “all that it affirms” statement, they will probably be able to find many loopholes in TGC foundational statements, especially in the Theological Vision for Ministry statement that was written by Tim Keller, who has been a partaker of the sins of men like Choong and Enns

I am sure people will try to steer TGC into muddy waters sooner or later. I am also sure good men will try to stop it. Such is the nature of any organization, be it church or parachurch. I get it. We all get it.

Next year’s Shepherds’ Conference is addressing the theme of inerrancy: http://www.shepherdsconference.org/

Speakers: http://www.shepherdsconference.org/about/?page=keynotes

Maybe the matter of those problematic associations is in the process of being addressed…

If we look closely enough we would see that everyone, even some members of the FBFI, are a little sloppy in their associations.

That’s great Tyler, so glad you got it. I was asked by Jim to name someone who “functionally denies inerrancy.” If everyone got it, why did they not know that Keller functionally denies the inerrancy he claims to affirm, by endorsing men like Enns and Choong? I was answering that question and I do believe showed good proof of it.

And since we all got it, let’s not call it secondary separation, as McCune says, “Ecclesiastical separation does not really admit of “degrees’… the reason for separating may well involve someone’s unscriptural involvements, but in reality this is no more ‘secondary’ than a primary separation from apostasy.” (p.147) Separation from an erring brother is not secondary separation but Biblical separation based on the texts, 2 Thess.3:6-15; 1 Tim.5:22.

Quite funny however. I use one text and some are concerned that I use the wrong verses. I use other verses, the right ones I assume, and I am basically told I am wasting my time because you already know that. Ok, I get it too!

mrecker:

Your claim that Keller functionally denies inerrancy because he has associates who are soft is specious:

• I fellowship with non-Calvinists. I have a good friend who is very opposed to Calvinism. Because I fellowship with this man (and others), am I functionally endorsing what I consider to be a deficient soteriology?
• I am not KJVO. However, I am attending a fellowship in six days with some men who are, and others who aren’t. I am officially a member of this fellowship. Am I functionally endorsing that position now?
• I am not a Landmarkist. However, I am good friends with a Pastor who is part of a fellowship where these views are taught. Am I functionally endorsing Landmarkism?

If you say “no” to my questions, then you must also say that Keller isn’t denying inerrancy by fellowshipping with these men. If you say “yes,” then at least you’re consistent. I’d really like to know what you’d answer to these questions.

Keller is wrong on separation. Perhaps he feels the good these men do outweighs the bad. The issue is with his doctrine of separation (or lack thereof), not a functional denial of inerrancy.

Something that might actually support Recker’s point to some extent…

https://twitter.com/Phil_Johnson_/statuses/504441432543727616

…and…

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2014/09/truth-worth-dying-for-anyone-buell…

…reacting to…

http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/aha-moments-theirs-and-mine

[mrecker]

Can anyone agree even a little that Keller is sloppy in such associations? Or breaking the principle of 1 Tim. 5:22?

I don’t see what laying on of hands has to do with having unwise relationships. Is Keller ordaining these people?

Unwise? Sure. “Sloppy” is a good term to use, but I’d be more worried about sloppy relationships in the FBFI - where I actually know people and have influence - than I ever would be about a guy whose relationship with me is that I own his books and sometimes listen to a sermon or podcast. But the FBFI doesn’t seem to be concerned about their ‘sloppy associations’ - just those of people that they don’t agree with. I could take this series more seriously if I saw the FBFI addressing their own personal issues instead of firing up the guns at those who are already not in the FBFI orbit.

Separation doesn’t work if I don’t know the person in real life or if I don’t have an actual, you know, relationship to that person. It seems to me that you’re making more of these relationships than may be warranted. If the purpose of separation is restoration (Matthew 18), then why is there such an emphasis on cutting off the relationship?

—edit—

Went back and reread Matt Recker’s post. Recker is right to note the issues with Keller, but I have no real relationship with Keller or even interest in his church. They’re in NYC and are evangelistic. I support that. I think that noting his issue is legitimate and noteworthy, but I’m still far more interested in the FBFI, where there was a relationship, than there ever will be with Redeemer, with whom I have little to no actual real life contact. So the latter section remains.