The Ringing Call of New Evangelicalism Repeated in the New Calvinism

One quick clarification in matters of logic and low; no one should be convicted by association, ever. Guilt by association is a fallacy, period.

Now there are some things that look a lot like guilt by association, but in fact are not. For example, if you accompany a person to commit a crime and do nothing to stop it, you may be convicted of aiding and abetting the crime. It’s not who your friends were, but rather that you knew someone was about to be victimized and participated in the event instead of working to stop it.

How this applies to a pastor; I would presume that a pastor, when he shares his pulpit or associates with an association, is responsible to understand the views of that person or association and take proactive steps to either commend or condemn the views, whichever is appropriate. In certain cases, yes, separation would be called for. And in light of the expulsion of open theism from the BGC, and Piper’s role in it, I would suggest he’s satisfied this Biblical requirement.

I understand Bart. Let’s balance it out with “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.”

And let’s remember that John Piper aided and defended Driscoll for a long time, in spite of obvious sins he was committing and the dark worship he was promoting.

Matthew

We don’t “balance” out the rules of logic any more than we “balance” out the Gospel. It is what it is. Partaking in other peoples’ sins is sin in itself; we do not need to argue that there is some kind of guilt by association.

Now you’re getting closer on Piper; the trick is that you’ve got to demonstrate, Biblically, that what you called “dark worship” is indeed contrary to God’s Word, and that Piper indeed knowingly endorsed Driscoll’s ministry including the stunts he pulled.

Matt,

Thanks for the article. Kevin Bauder has stated that Mohler repudiated his signing of the MD. I think this is recorded in in the Four Views book on Evangelicalism authored in part by Bauder and Mohler. The doctrinal statement in the FBFI is a moderate four-point Calvinistic view as well as pro-repentance and pro-Lordship. Only theological ignorance or dishonesty could deny this. I too am concerned about the “hipster” Christianity that pops up in Christian circles, be it new Calvinism or otherwise. For all the God-talk about sovereignty, some new Calvinists appear to be as pragmatic as their Arminian counter-parts such as Rick Warren. I share the same concerns in this regard that Peter Masters has. The propping up of Driscoll by Piper and the Gospel Coalition is mystifying to me. These men should have known better. MacArthur saw it early on and exposed it. I don’t think you will see Mac inviting Piper back to Grace anytime soon. Of all the CE men I like Mac and Phil Johnson the best. Their conference on Strange Fire was much needed. Fundamentalists can learn from men like them while avoiding their mistakes. Meanwhile, we must discipline ourselves not to have speakers at the National meeting who subsequently are scheduled to speak at Hammond and who still have their KJV only credentials in print. Not much discernment in that. Clearly we are wrong when it comes to those kinds of decisions. Hammond still has huge problems theologically with KJV onlyism, radical easy believism, and raw pragmatism, plus a sordid history that has never been owned up to. I purposely did not attend the National meeting this year because of this scenario. I have spoken up numerous times in the past about obliterating the Hammond connection and then this happens. Nevertheless, thank you for the article. I think you made a number of good points and it took some courage to write it.

Thank you, Mike, for your analysis and hitting on many interesting points.

Your words drove me to the FBFI constitution, which does say in Article 3, Section 3: Jesus Christ…”died as a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of all men according to the Scriptures…” Section 6. Salvation…”We believe all the elect of God, once saved, are kept by God’s power and secure in Christ forever.” I take that why you said “moderate four point Calvinistic view.”

I am curious as to what you mean by “pro-Lordship” in their doctrinal statement? Thanks again.

And I meant to add that I will pick up Wayne Van Gelderen from the airport in an hour or so and he will speak at our local church institute tonight and our FBFI NYC Regional meeting tomorrow. Looking forward to a great time!

Mike, I have read the quote that Bauder says is a repudiation for MD, including the immediate context (Note: I recall Bauder using the term “apology” rather than “repudiation”). I haven’t read the full thing, don’t have the book, but would like to get it someday (donations anyone?). Have you read the statement? Do you really think that statement passes muster as a repudiation? Do you think that it is sufficient as a repudiation when the Mohler’s blog justifying the MD fiasco is still posted with no amendments? Search the internet on “Mohler Manhattan Declaration” and his blog will show up in the hits. Do you think it is sufficient to make an obscure comment in an obscure book and leave it at that? Don’t you think that he should at least have some kind of update posted on the piece in his own blog?

I just don’t buy the “Mohler repudiated” apologetic for him, in case you couldn’t guess!

Anyway, interesting comments as always. Looking forward to discussing this and other points in person next time we get together.

Don,

“Repudiation” on second thought is too strong a term. Kevin cited Mohler’s retraction of the MD some time ago. One of my church members just gave me some documentation that still explains his original justification for signing it. Certainly, he could and should be as open in his rejection of the MD as he was in its acceptance. I had opportunity last year to question him personally about this, but I didn’t. Missed opportunity. Nevertheless, if indeed Dr. Mohler has said in print that the signing of the MD was a mistake, I don’t think we should go after him on that. I don’t possess the Four Views book to look it up.

Matt,

We affirm in the FBFI doctrinal statement that saving faith is an unreserved trust in the person and cross-work of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Also, the insistence of repentance and faith or repentant faith is a pro-Lordship statement. You won’t see anything like that coming out of places like Hammond, et. al.

I had great hope that the document and the movement would steer a new path that would accomplish a brave moral consensus without confusing the theological issues at stake. Nevertheless, in light of subsequent statements, I came to believe that the Manhattan Declaration had also crossed the line into an unwarranted and unbiblical recognition of the Roman Catholic Church. We should not be embarrassed to state that we stand together when indeed we do—and on these crucial issues of concern it is especially important that we stand together with courage. But no sense of cultural crisis should blind us to the priority of the gospel. The moral arguments presented in the Manhattan Declaration are eloquent and powerful statements of Christian moral conviction and discernment. The statement is a brave call for men and women of conviction to defend life, marriage, and religious liberty with courage. When it comes to evangelicals and Roman Catholics, the difficulty lies in crafting a statement that acknowledges the Christian truths that are expressed and commonly cherished without requiring a mutual recognition of churches.[The Spectrum of Evangelicalism, 85-86]

I think that dubbing Mohler’s signing of the MD as a fiasco is a bit much. I would say it was equivalent to John Vaughn’s association with Focus on the Family and James Dobson.

[Ron Bean]

I think that dubbing Mohler’s signing of the MD as a fiasco is a bit much. I would say it was equivalent to John Vaughn’s association with Focus on the Family and James Dobson.

Ron, even if you take Mohler’s words on why he may not resign the MD, “that the Manhattan Declaration had also crossed the line into an unwarranted and unbiblical recognition of the Roman Catholic Church,” to compare that to what Dr. Vaughn did (not even sure quite honest) is no way the same thing. Signing the MD was a compromise the of the Gospel and it honored pope’s who oversaw the inquisition. Not quite at all the same thing. I don’t think Dobson has had anyone put on the rack; and it would seem from Mohler’s “apology” even he might agree.