Shaynus, I understand what you are saying, and I guess people can find a loophole even in the shatterproof marriage vow traditionally stated at many weddings, as divorce is so rampant. However, I go back to what Spurgeon said that some statements are so worded in order to appease two conflicting points of view. For example, when you compare the succinctly clear statement of Together for the Gospel with the round about versus the verbose statement of Dr. Keller on The Gospel Coalition, it leaves me wondering. That is why I conclude that their statement leaves room for loopholes. The author himself has found them. How else does one arrive at the views Keller has on the points enumerated in Engaging with Keller, Thinking through The Theology of an Influential Evangelical? In that book, even those who clearly admire Keller say his teaching on hell does accommodate to the postmodern mind and some of his other faulty emphasis truncates and obscures the foundational truths of the Gospel. Those are pretty serious charges and as Dr. Bauder stated in his essays, “One is tempted to ask whether inerrancy, pressed in the way Keller does, means anything anymore.”
I would agree with you, Rob. I trust that in these issues we can have robust debate and even disagreement and yet maintain charity and respect. These are complicated yet important issues, and we must be open to learn from one another and even be critiqued if we have overstepped. I appreciated Dr. Bauder’s articles and they did challenged me to reflect and reconsider. And Jim, I hope you are not being so cynical in your comment, “A rare kumbaya moment!” I believe that there is kindness yet truth among many in the FBFI.
I don’t want to nitpick, but your logic once again is sloppy. Here it is:
Comparing what they could have said with what they did say (inexplicably) I have to wonder about intentions.
Because I have to wonder about intentions, TGC didn’t say what I would rather them have said on purpose. To quote myself from another thread: this is the kind of logic conspiracy theorists use. Tighten it up. Make your conclusions follow from your premises.
I trust that in these issues we can have robust debate and even disagreement and yet maintain charity and respect. These are complicated yet important issues, and we must be open to learn from one another and even be critiqued if we have overstepped. I appreciated Dr. Bauder’s articles and they did challenged me to reflect and reconsider…
I pray that I can have that sort of attitude as well.
Thanks, Shaynus, I will keep on trying. But is sloppy logic worse than Keller’s heresy of denying fire in hell, or denying the creation of Adam from the dust of the ground, or denying the real purpose of salvation by saying that the “purpose of salvation is to renew creation?” What Dr. Keller wrote in his statement on inerrancy does not prevent him from functionally denying it. Now, is that logical or Biblical of him? A true belief in inerrancy should result in true doctrine. For Dr. Keller, who influences so many, it sadly does not. And by the way, I did email Dr. Keller’s office before posting my book review on Engaging with Keller to see if he has publicly responded to the concerns of the authors. Although they are eager to engage with him in healthy debate, he has not responded to them as yet. It will be interesting when and if he does.
The longer quote to the above is: “conservative churches say ‘this world is not our home — it’s gonna burn up eventually and what really matters is saving souls… so evangelism and discipleship and saving souls are what is important’. And we try to say that it’s the other way around almost. That the purpose of salvation is to renew creation.” I wrote earlier, “Keller drips with a derisive attitude toward churches that make evangelism and discipleship their priority, ridiculing and perhaps even judging those who evangelize as being motivated of wanting to increase their own personal tribes.” http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2014/08/21/cultural-renewal-and-the-so….
Though addressed to me, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote or addresses the logic of your post. It’s kind of like the title of your article on appreciating Dr. Bauder having little to do with the body of your article appreciating Dr. Bauder.
Wait a minute. There are conservative thologians who believe in literal eternal torment in hell forever but speculate that the fire spoken of in the Bible may be a metaphor for some sort of torment at least as bad as burning. We’re not ready to call them all heretics for that position, are we?
Yes, I am thankful for Dr. Bauder, and is last post concluded with a strong critique of Dr. Keller’s error in the very Gospel itself. Bauder concluded, “His (Dr. Keller’s) approach leapfrogs the question of whether Christians might use social activity as a tool to gain a hearing for the gospel—a question upon which Christians have differed. Keller goes further. He thinks that social activity is actually part of the gospel. By confusing social improvement with gospel proclamation, Keller ends up diluting—and thus obscuring—the very gospel that he hopes to defend. This error is more than incidental.” (From Matt Recker and The Gospel Coalition, part 7: The Clarity of the Gospel) This is important because if The Gospel Coalition co-founder himself has a flawed view of the Gospel, we should be very careful about participating with this movement. So, may God continue to give Dr. Bauder strength and wisdom to proclaim and defend the Gospel of Christ, and for that I am thankful. So why not deal with the real problem here and this is the theology of Dr. Keller that many former and disillusioned men raised in fundamentalism have heavily bought into.
Shaynus, are you saying that if a person says he believes in inerrancy yet denies clear doctrines of Scripture, he still actually believes in inerrancy? Is that logical? And for your information, conspiracy theorist I am not!
And I could say that you are ignoring the real issues of Keller’s deviant doctrine. Has disillusionment blinded you?
For the record: I do think Keller’s doctrine is incorrect and wrong. What I’m disputing is that your logically incoherent, shrill, and emotional treatment of this issue is helpful. It isn’t.
It is possible to interpret a passage incorrectly and hold to inerrancy. That’s not illogical. It may be incorrect, but not illogical or internally inconsistent. You may disagree with Keller, but it doesn’t make him at all the kind of false teacher you imagine him to be. It makes him human. Kind of like you.
Your appeal to deal with “the real problem” is in itself problematic. It implies that there is only one problem, and that any discussion of the process of dealing with error is out of bounds. It’s almost that you’re saying “why are you talking to me, and criticizing my argument when the real problem is Keller!” The answer is 1) the setting you’re in (most of us are dispositioned for your conclusions) 2) we are for you (I love the work you’re doing in NYC. You may not remember me, staying with my family when I was a boy, but I see you as my brother and a good man) 3) you need sharpening in your ideas and rhetoric.
Discussion
NewA rare "Kumbaya" moment
A rare “Kumbaya” moment - must be the Christmas season!
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewActually,
There is more of this kind of stuff going on than many here think.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
NewTherefore, I still believe
So does every statement on anything: including BJU’s own University Creed. The key to any statement is to look at how it’s used over time.
NewI Get It Shaynus, However...
Shaynus, I understand what you are saying, and I guess people can find a loophole even in the shatterproof marriage vow traditionally stated at many weddings, as divorce is so rampant. However, I go back to what Spurgeon said that some statements are so worded in order to appease two conflicting points of view. For example, when you compare the succinctly clear statement of Together for the Gospel with the round about versus the verbose statement of Dr. Keller on The Gospel Coalition, it leaves me wondering. That is why I conclude that their statement leaves room for loopholes. The author himself has found them. How else does one arrive at the views Keller has on the points enumerated in Engaging with Keller, Thinking through The Theology of an Influential Evangelical? In that book, even those who clearly admire Keller say his teaching on hell does accommodate to the postmodern mind and some of his other faulty emphasis truncates and obscures the foundational truths of the Gospel. Those are pretty serious charges and as Dr. Bauder stated in his essays, “One is tempted to ask whether inerrancy, pressed in the way Keller does, means anything anymore.”
C. Matthew Recker
NewI agree Rob
I would agree with you, Rob. I trust that in these issues we can have robust debate and even disagreement and yet maintain charity and respect. These are complicated yet important issues, and we must be open to learn from one another and even be critiqued if we have overstepped. I appreciated Dr. Bauder’s articles and they did challenged me to reflect and reconsider. And Jim, I hope you are not being so cynical in your comment, “A rare kumbaya moment!” I believe that there is kindness yet truth among many in the FBFI.
C. Matthew Recker
NewMatt,
Matt,
I don’t want to nitpick, but your logic once again is sloppy. Here it is:
Comparing what they could have said with what they did say (inexplicably) I have to wonder about intentions.
Because I have to wonder about intentions, TGC didn’t say what I would rather them have said on purpose. To quote myself from another thread: this is the kind of logic conspiracy theorists use. Tighten it up. Make your conclusions follow from your premises.
Shayne
NewThis from C. Matthew Recker
This from C. Matthew Recker was encouraging:
I pray that I can have that sort of attitude as well.
NewSloppy logic or heresy
Thanks, Shaynus, I will keep on trying. But is sloppy logic worse than Keller’s heresy of denying fire in hell, or denying the creation of Adam from the dust of the ground, or denying the real purpose of salvation by saying that the “purpose of salvation is to renew creation?” What Dr. Keller wrote in his statement on inerrancy does not prevent him from functionally denying it. Now, is that logical or Biblical of him? A true belief in inerrancy should result in true doctrine. For Dr. Keller, who influences so many, it sadly does not. And by the way, I did email Dr. Keller’s office before posting my book review on Engaging with Keller to see if he has publicly responded to the concerns of the authors. Although they are eager to engage with him in healthy debate, he has not responded to them as yet. It will be interesting when and if he does.
The longer quote to the above is: “conservative churches say ‘this world is not our home — it’s gonna burn up eventually and what really matters is saving souls… so evangelism and discipleship and saving souls are what is important’. And we try to say that it’s the other way around almost. That the purpose of salvation is to renew creation.” I wrote earlier, “Keller drips with a derisive attitude toward churches that make evangelism and discipleship their priority, ridiculing and perhaps even judging those who evangelize as being motivated of wanting to increase their own personal tribes.” http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2014/08/21/cultural-renewal-and-the-so….
C. Matthew Recker
NewMatt,
Matt,
Though addressed to me, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote or addresses the logic of your post. It’s kind of like the title of your article on appreciating Dr. Bauder having little to do with the body of your article appreciating Dr. Bauder.
NewWait a minute. There are
Wait a minute. There are conservative thologians who believe in literal eternal torment in hell forever but speculate that the fire spoken of in the Bible may be a metaphor for some sort of torment at least as bad as burning. We’re not ready to call them all heretics for that position, are we?
NewOh But I Am
Yes, I am thankful for Dr. Bauder, and is last post concluded with a strong critique of Dr. Keller’s error in the very Gospel itself. Bauder concluded, “His (Dr. Keller’s) approach leapfrogs the question of whether Christians might use social activity as a tool to gain a hearing for the gospel—a question upon which Christians have differed. Keller goes further. He thinks that social activity is actually part of the gospel. By confusing social improvement with gospel proclamation, Keller ends up diluting—and thus obscuring—the very gospel that he hopes to defend. This error is more than incidental.” (From Matt Recker and The Gospel Coalition, part 7: The Clarity of the Gospel) This is important because if The Gospel Coalition co-founder himself has a flawed view of the Gospel, we should be very careful about participating with this movement. So, may God continue to give Dr. Bauder strength and wisdom to proclaim and defend the Gospel of Christ, and for that I am thankful. So why not deal with the real problem here and this is the theology of Dr. Keller that many former and disillusioned men raised in fundamentalism have heavily bought into.
C. Matthew Recker
NewIs this logical?
Shaynus, are you saying that if a person says he believes in inerrancy yet denies clear doctrines of Scripture, he still actually believes in inerrancy? Is that logical? And for your information, conspiracy theorist I am not!
And I could say that you are ignoring the real issues of Keller’s deviant doctrine. Has disillusionment blinded you?
C. Matthew Recker
NewFor the record: I do think
For the record: I do think Keller’s doctrine is incorrect and wrong. What I’m disputing is that your logically incoherent, shrill, and emotional treatment of this issue is helpful. It isn’t.
It is possible to interpret a passage incorrectly and hold to inerrancy. That’s not illogical. It may be incorrect, but not illogical or internally inconsistent. You may disagree with Keller, but it doesn’t make him at all the kind of false teacher you imagine him to be. It makes him human. Kind of like you.
Your appeal to deal with “the real problem” is in itself problematic. It implies that there is only one problem, and that any discussion of the process of dealing with error is out of bounds. It’s almost that you’re saying “why are you talking to me, and criticizing my argument when the real problem is Keller!” The answer is 1) the setting you’re in (most of us are dispositioned for your conclusions) 2) we are for you (I love the work you’re doing in NYC. You may not remember me, staying with my family when I was a boy, but I see you as my brother and a good man) 3) you need sharpening in your ideas and rhetoric.