ACCC Resolution on "New Calvinism"

[TylerR] I wonder why the FBFI and now the ACCC are issuing these salvos now. What is the impetus? What is the problem? What has happened recently to cause these two fundamentalist organizations to issue similar statements to their constituencies about essentially the same thing at the same time?

Acts of desperation!

• Both groups represent shrinking constituencies
• Also aging constituencies
• Name calling is the outworking of an inferiority complex

Some of these concerns are valid, some are overstated, imo.
Of notable absence, however, is the regular critique from others within the Reformed community re. the “big names, big money” elements of New Calvinism. I’m curious why this is omitted, given the very vocal criticisms of Carl Trueman and many others.
Also missing is any significant sense of concession on the contributions of the movement.

[TylerR]

I’m not trying to stir up debate about fundamentalism. I really don’t even like discussing it. But, to use a lame journalist excuse, that’s what’s newsworthy right now. Not my fault, is it!? All the same, I wonder why the FBFI and now the ACCC are issuing these salvos now. What is the impetus? What is the problem? What has happened recently to cause these two fundamentalist organizations to issue similar statements to their constituencies about essentially the same thing at the same time?

Jim’s comment above about an act of desperation could be true, but keep in mind here that to understand things this way, we have to assume a degree of duplicity on their part. Given our arguments here, I don’t doubt that people actually believe what they’re saying, and hence I’ve got to offer an alternative hypothesis; given overlap between FBFI and AACC membership (e.g., ironically, Dr. Bauder), I’d guess that the “intellectual background” came together at about the same time in both places, perhaps from some of the same people who happen to talk to one another.

Doesn’t rule out a pragmatic reason, of course, but it’s theoretically more innocuous, really.

My hope is something I’ve repeated a lot elsewhere. Make your case from Scripture. If we can indeed point to a point in the early 20th century where the use of popular culture became impermissible—remember we’re using a ton of popular culture from the centuries before—let’s have it. A case for cessationism that goes beyond the verb tenses in 1 Cor. 13 and the lack of current tongues and prophecy? You bet! (I’ll get you started; just ask what else needs to be revealed except for the 2nd coming and end times in general—and He promised we wouldn’t know that)

I am, however, unpersuaded on a number of issues. While I tend to separate more readily than even some of my fundamental peers, I still can’t get worked up about Victorian culture as Biblical, or about a hardline cessationism.

Bert said this:

I’d guess that the “intellectual background” came together at about the same time in both places, perhaps from some of the same people who happen to talk to one another.

I’m sure that this is some of what’s going on. I haven’t seen the FBFI membership roll to compare names, but when I read through the leadership of the ACCC, there were a lot of BJU grads listed. So I’m convinced there’s cross-pollination going on between the two.

I also think that there’s a fair amount of fear about all the people ‘leaving Fundamentalism’, coupled with an earnest desire to see the truth defended and the gospel proclaimed. I very much doubt - but will leave the possibility open - that this is some kind of vengeance taking or intent to attack others.

What I don’t understand - and why I mentioned malice in an earlier post - is the level of ignorance or lack of basic understanding for some of the things they are attacking. Like I said, some of what they cover in the resolution is​ bad theology. Some of it is ​beliefs that have traditionally not existed within traditional Baptist Fundamentalism (postmillennialism, five point Calvinism) and things that should be openly and frankly discussed between brothers in a spirit of ‘we disagree, but we can disagree and still be friends’. Sunlight is the best disinfectant - demonstrate why, from the light of God’s Word, these things are errors and wrong. Come now and reason with us. Some things are wrong because God says so ​(malus in se). Some things are wrong because people say so ​(Malum prohibitum). One is not the same as the other, and lumping them all together just make you look bad.

That being said…some of this resolution, particularly the one key paragraph that I noted before, seems to indicate an ignorant, hostile, pugnacious, and deliberate mis-characterization of something so basic that literally the first Bing search result proves them wrong. ​That​ ​is something that I will never understand, and something that ought not to be. If you have to go to war with someone - go to war. Absolutely do whatever must be done. But don’t go to war against people - much less believers! - without absolute dead certainty that there are serious violations of Biblical teachings and issues at the core of it. Count the cost when you raise that army.

Maybe it’s epistemic closure, maybe it’s an echo chamber, maybe it’s heartfelt concerns by men who love Fundamentalism and want to see it prosper, and maybe it’s something else. But Christians - much less Fundamentalists! - ought to be known by dealing in truth​ and dealing in facts, and when the first search result proves an underlying assumption wrong, I’m going to have a hard time trusting the rest of what you say or ​giving you a lot of the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I’m just weird like that.

I emerged from the fundamentalist “Village” in 2004. (BTW, I still consider myself an historic fundamentalist.) I had no idea what was going on outside of that world.

I was stunned when I heard what had happened in the SBC seminaries. In the Village, the SBC and its seminaries were apostate and beyond rescue.

I had been told that the 20-30 year olds were leaving the church for the world and that church planting was impossible. Imagine my reaction when I visited Capitol Hill Baptist Church or attended T4G.

Someone gave me a copy of Piper’s Desiring God. My first reaction was that it was an updated and somewhat earthy expression of Jonathan Edward’s Religious Affections.

I am disappointed in this resolution. First of all, there are many Pastors of many different stripes, including many non-calvinistic independent Baptists who are embracing modern hymnody and Biblically sound updated music. I watched the video of BJU’s recent Thanksgiving singspiration and notice the use of modern hymnody- beautiful. I have never been to T4G but have noticed in their recordings that this group is bringing back some hymns that our churches have neglected for years. The resolution also paints a false picture of many of these Pastors’ views of men like Tim Keller. The young reformed guys that I have met express concern for some of Keller’s statements while at the same time appreciating some of the good things he has written,