Gospel Centrism and Its Neo-orthodox Foundations
Gospel
Centrism has been around for many years.
In most part it has been in the Neo-evangelical and Neo-orthodox camps
of theology. Within these camps Gospel Centrism has always been part of
varying degrees of false views regarding the doctrine of the Church. Both Neo-evangelical and Neo-orthodox proponents
view the Church as some large mystical entity of all the “elect” (the regenerated
and yet to be regenerated). This view of
the Church has been rapidly spreading through independent, fundamental Baptist churches
as they become converted to Reformed Theology in varying degrees. Because of this errant view of the Church,
their view of biblical unity is proportionately distorted as well. Depending upon what Camp you are in, there is a proportionate reduction of necessary of
agreement (theological unity) on other doctrines before fellowship can be established.
In I Corinthians chapter three, the
Apostle Paul harshly corrected the Corinthian believers for their carnal
divisions in the church. His rebuke was
not because they had refused to separate from them those teaching false
doctrine. He rebuked them because they
had created divisions between themselves regarding whom it was that baptized
them and of whom they considered the higher authority for what was being
taught. Divisions in the church were
developing that would lead to sectarianism
similar to the Rabbinical Schools existing
within Judaism. This was not to be part
of Christianity. Unfortunately, that was
not what has come to pass. We have men
who are more loyal to their alma mater
or some teacher/professor than they
are to Christ. Such is the problem
caused by the movement that has come to be known as Gospel Centrism. Bible
Colleges and Seminaries are the new Rabbinical
Schools and Bible Professors are the new
Rabbis.
Gospel Centrism fines its origins in
Karl Barth’s Dialectic Theology that came to be known as Neo-orthodoxy. Neo-orthodoxy was nothing new and it was not orthodox. Charles Ryrie
addressed Barth’s unorthodox Gospel
Centrism in addressing Barth’s radical view of his Neo-orthodox and
existential view of biblical inspiration.
Ryrie said:
“Karl
Barth (1886-1968), though one of the most influential theologians in recent
history, held a defective and dangerous view of inspiration, a view many
continue to propagate. Barthians
generally align themselves with the liberal school of biblical criticism. Yet they often preach like evangelicals. This makes Barthianism more dangerous than
blatant liberalism.
“For the Barthian, revelation centers in
Jesus Christ. If He is the center of the
circle of revelation, then the Bible stands on the periphery of that
circle. Jesus Christ is the Word (and,
of course, He is); but the Bible serves as a witness to the Word, Christ. The Bible’s witness to the Word is uneven;
that is, some parts of it are more important in their witness than other
parts. Those are the parts that witness
about Christ. Nevertheless, such parts, though important, are not necessarily
accurate. Indeed, Barthians embrace the
conclusions of liberalism regarding the Gospels, which teach that there are
errors in those records.”[1]
Granted, most of the (so called) fundamental Gospel Centrists would not go so far as
Barth in his very weak view of inspiration.
However, like Barth, they do tend to categorize
doctrines according to some highly subjective criteria. Can we find any such pattern in their
discussions for such subjective categorizing of doctrine according to
importance so they might have some form of ambiguous unity? Of course we do! Again, there is a general consensus that
agreement about defining the Gospel must be the first doorway that anyone must pass through before any kind of unity
might be had. However, that discussion
has never taken place in any public forum I have read coming from the Gospel Centrists. To make the Gospel the only significant doorway
to some basic agreement to unity is really naive and an extreme form of
theological reductionism. I WANT to have
fellowship with other believers and other local churches, but THEY MUST BE OF
LIKE PRECIOUS FAITH! I often go out of
my way to give a man the benefit of doubt.
I go with him an extra mile!
Undoubtedly,
the Bible is Christocentric. I do
not think anyone should argue with that statement. That fact is a reality from Genesis 3:15
through Revelation 22:20. Therefore, no
one should really argue against the fact that the Bible is Gospel
centered. The Bible certainly is Gospel centered. Neither would anyone argue that the Gospel is
the primary defining factor for the arena
of agreement necessary to biblical fellowship (meaning cooperative ministry) with another professing believer or with
other local churches. Paul clearly
established the priority of a pure Gospel as a necessity for fellowship with other
professing believers or other local churches in his epistle to the Galatian
churches.
“6 I
marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of
Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be
some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But
though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said
before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you
than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:6-9).
Certainly, we understand that the
perversion Paul addressed in Galatians was the adding of “the works of the law”
to the Gospel as a necessity for salvation.
“The works of the Law” included making any type of Moralism or Ritualism
necessary to someone’s salvation. We
would also agree that many other perversions of the Gospel have developed over
the centuries that carry the same anathema
of Paul’s statement in Galatians 1:9. In
fact, Paul’s anathema on the false
Gospel has more to do with unbiblical responses to the death, burial, and
resurrection of Christ than it does with the objective facts of the
Gospel. It is not that the Judaizers
disagreed with the objective facts of Christ’s accomplished redemption. They disagreed about the necessary response
to the Gospel in order to be saved. The
Judaizers saw justification as a process
rather than an event.
Men like Luther and Calvin also took a
progressive view of justification. In
fact, perseverance of the saints is
really a progressive view of justification.
In fact, in Calvin’s Institutes of Religion, he has dedicated the whole
fourteenth chapter to the discussion of progressive justification, which is
just an extension of his false doctrine of Monergism (if you are not familiar
with this term, be sure to educate yourself about it ASAP). If you are willing to read through all of Calvin’s
convoluted nonsense, you will discover that he believed that justification “by
grace through faith” is not an event,
but rather a progressive process. Calvin and Luther both believed in an extreme
form of the false doctrine of Monergism that confused or comingled justification
with progressive sanctification. This is
a common problem within traditional Calvinism and New Calvinism. Calvin said:
“On the contrary, though we may be
redeemed by Christ, still, until we are ingrafted into union with him by the
calling of the Father, we are darkness, the heirs of death, and the enemies of
God. For Paul declares that we are not
purged and washed from our impurities by the blood of Christ until the Spirit
accomplishes that cleansing in us (1 Cor. 6:11). Peter, intending to say the same thing,
declares that the sanctification of the Spirit avails “unto obedience and
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ,” (1 Pet. 1:2). If the sprinkling of the blood of Christ by
the Spirit gives us purification, let us not think that, previous to this
sprinkling, we are anything but sinners without Christ. Let us, therefore, hold it as certain, that the
beginning of our salvation is as it were a resurrection from death unto
life, because, when it is given us on behalf of Christ to believe on him (Phil.
1:29), then only do we begin to pass from death unto life.”[2]
(underlining added)
Calvin’s convolution in progressive
justification is also expressed in his commentary on I John 1:9:
“This passage is
remarkable; and from it we first learn, that the expiation of Christ, effected
by his death, does then properly belong to us, when we, in uprightness of
heart, do what is right and just for Christ is no redeemer except to those who
turn from iniquity, and lead a new life.
If, then, we desire to have God propitious to us, so as to forgive our
sins, we ought not to forgive ourselves.
In short, remission of sins cannot be separated from repentance, nor can
the peace of God be in those hearts, where the fear of God does not prevail.
“Secondly, this
passage shews that the gratuitous pardon of sins is given us not only once, but
that it is a benefit perpetually residing in the Church, and daily
offered to the faithful. For the Apostle
here addresses the faithful; as doubtless no man has ever been, nor ever will
be, who can otherwise please God, since all are guilty before him; for however
strong a desire there may be in us of acting rightly, we always go haltingly to
God. Yet what is half done obtains no approval with God. In the meantime, by new sins we continually
separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God. Thus it is, that
all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone
keeps us in the family of God.”[3]
(underlining added)
“9 If we confess He again
promises to the faithful that God will be propitious to them, provided
they acknowledge themselves to be sinners. It is of great moment to be fully persuaded,
that when we have sinned, there is a reconciliation with God ready and prepared
for us: we shall otherwise carry always a hell within us. Few, indeed, consider how miserable and
wretched is a doubting conscience; but the truth is, that hell reigns where
there is no peace with God. The more,
then, it becomes us to receive with the whole heart this promise which offers
free pardon to all who confess their sins. Moreover, this is founded even
on the justice of God, because God who promises is true and just. For they who think that he is called just,
because he justifies us freely, reason, as I think, with too much refinement,
because justice or righteousness here depends on fidelity, and both are
annexed to the promise. For God might have been just, were he to deal with
us with all the rigor of justice; but as he has bound himself to us by his
word, he would not have himself deemed just, except he forgives.”[4]
(underlining added)
The obvious error here is Calvin’s confusing
regeneration with salvation. Salvation
is an event that begins the process of regeneration that culminates in the
believer’s glorification. The so called Golden Chain of Romans 8:29-30 is in
fact the order of “the regeneration,” not the order of salvation. Although regeneration and salvation are
connected, they are two separate doctrines.
They are synchronous, but not synonymous. However, there is never any doubt about the
ultimate outcome in that every believer is “complete in Him” upon the moment of
their salvation decision. Paul, in
dealing with the heresy of Gnosticism, warns against the “philosophy” of
progressive justification in Colossians chapter two and makes some very
definitive statements condemning such an idea.
“8 Beware
lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition
of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For
in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are
complete {perfect, passive} in him,
which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye
are circumcised {aorist, passive} with
the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the
flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried {aorist, passive} with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen {aorist, passive} with him through
the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead”
(Colossians 2:8-12).
It is foolish to say that agreement on
the Gospel should be the only thing that determines what belongs in the arena of agreement for any cooperative
ministry to be blessed of God. After
all, should not the determining factor for fellowship be about what is
necessary for God’s blessings on cooperative ministry?
Granted, there are some nuances of
doctrine over which one should not separate.
However, in the propagation of Gospel
Centrism, we fine its proponents radically silent on even general areas of
doctrine. Instead they make wide,
sweeping arguments for unity without any biblical exegesis for the basis of
that unity. Have unity and fellowship
somehow become two separate and disconnected entities? Can Christians unite for fellowship without
any definitive theological foundations for that unity? It appears to me that many are throwing
around theological terms while trying to purposefully make the meaning of those
terms ambiguous. The job of theologians
is to provide answers, not raise doubts and questions that essentially abrogate
dogmatism.
It seems to me that the Gospel Centrists are striving for the
kind of unity that the leaders of the Reformation had? We would be foolish to think that there was
close agreement between most of the players within the Reformation. On a few occasions, they tried to have one
another killed. The leaders of the
Reformation were united in what they opposed. The leaders of the Reformation opposed Roman
Catholicism and Papalism, but never opposed Rome’s radically corrupted
Theonomic views of Ecclesiology or Eschatology.
The leaders of the Reformation opposed all who refused to baptize
infants, even persecuting and killing those with opposing views. Are Gospel
Centrists seeking a softer, gentler New
Reformation?
It would appear to me that the Gospel
Centrists are really trying to cultivate a twenty-first century New Reformation. They are proposing a New Reformation that is not based upon doctrinal agreement, but
upon denigrating those they oppose. Many
of the Gospel Centrists are trying to
accomplish this New Reformation within
their own ambiguous confession of faith known as Fundamentalism and
Conservative Evangelicalism. If you
understand the formation of the movement
known as Fundamentalism you
understand that their unity was in what they opposed rather than the few things
upon which they agreed. That is not
biblical unity! Biblical unity has a
trinity of agreement for unity:
1. Right doctrine (orthodoxy)
2. Right practice (orthopraxy)
3. Right purpose (orthopathy)
Careful exegesis of Ephesians chapter
four will provide ample foundations for this trinity of unity. Of course,
there will be small nuances of disagreement within each of these three areas of
agreement. We are not looking for unanimity. However, there should be a very broad and
definitive arena for agreement. If not,
the Scriptures have not given enough weight of evidence for dogmatism. There surely is enough weight of evidence to
be dogmatic about every general category of doctrine. In these general categories of doctrine there
must be agreement before unity can be achieved.
In Ephesians chapter four, the emphasis
is to seek unity with the Godhead. The
simple truth of the chapter is that all those in unity with the Godhead will be
in unity with one another. The unity of
the Godhead is a tri-unity both in their Persons and in the three areas of
orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and orthopathy.
We need to put a stop to all of the theological ambiguity of Gospel Centrism and mark it for its
reductionist’s goals of a pseudo unity lacking any theological parameters.
Instead of continuing a discussion
engulfed in theological ambiguity defining the center, perhaps the wiser of those in the discussion should be more
involved in a discussion of what defines the broader parameters of agreement
for unity. The Gospel Centrists refuse this part of the discussion because they
know their movement will immediately disintegrate into a thousand factions if
they do. Their answer to those wanting
them to define these parameters is – WE WON’T GO THERE! They know that true biblical separatism, when
practiced biblically, will dissolve their pseudo unity like sugar in
water.
Talking about Gospel centered ministry sounds wonderful. Who would disagree that every ministry should be Gospel centered? However, the terminology is purposefully deceptive, because the gospel of Gospel Centrism is Calvin’s Sovereign Grace gospel of Monergism. Gospel Centrism is an attempt at a New Reformation that joins together all those holding to various positions of Reformed Theology bound together by Calvin’s Sovereign Grace gospel centered in Monergism. In order to achieve this New Reformation that focuses on this new radical center, every other category of doctrine must be minimalized and marginalize to achieve the goal of Sovereign Grace Gospel Centered Unity (this would at least be an honest name for the movement). The naiveties within Fundamentalism are being suckered into this deception. If you do not believe this is true, connect the dots to those promoting Gospel Centrism.
If nothing else, this New Reformation is the outcome of the Gospel Centrism propagated by a book entitled The Gospel as Center edited by D.A. Carson, and Timothy Keller, with contributing articles by thirteen other men, all New Evangelicals. Another book, written with a similar premise, is Reclaiming the Center: Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times. This book was edited by Millard J. Erickson, Paul Kjoss Helseth, and Justin Taylor with thirteen other contributing authors; all New Evangelicals calling themselves Contemporary Evangelicals. Most true Baptists and true Fundamentalists do not read these kinds of books. They probably should read these books just to stay informed on the terminology and where these terms come from. Although these men may have some good things to say, there is a compromising spirit engrafted in their universal view of the Church.
The common denominator among all these
men is their connections to Reformed Theology.
Propagation of their New
Reformation has come through conferences such as Gospel Coalition, Together
for the Gospel (T4G), the Ligonier Conference of the Reformed theologian R.C.
Sproul, and the Acts 29 Convention.
Gospel Centrism is a Sovereign
Grace movement to capture evangelical Christianity and much of
Fundamentalism with Calvinism. There is
no doubt about it! The only difference
is that the reformed fundamental Baptists are trying to achieve the same goal
while hiding behind ambiguous terminology.
Unless these men are uprooted from our Baptist Bible Colleges and
Baptist Seminaries, they will turn many Baptist churches into becoming Reformed
in their doctrine. Before you recommend
any student to a Bible College or Seminary, ask those institutions who on their
staff holds to any degree of Reformed Theology.
Do not let them get by with their deceptions. Bring them out of the shadows by shining the
light upon their hidden goals.
“7 Go from the
presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of
knowledge. 8 The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his
way: but the folly of fools is deceit” (Proverbs 14:7-8).
[1] Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Wheaton, IL: Victor
Books1994, page 75.
[2] Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Public Domain PDF: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html, Third Book, Chapter Fourteen, page 483.
[3] Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles.
Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.pdf, page 143.
[4] Ibid. pages 145-146.
Anonymous comments will not be allowed.
Numerous studies and series are available free of charge for local churches at: http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/
Dr. Lance Ketchum serves the Lord as a Church Planter, Evangelist/Revivalist.
He has served the Lord for over 40 years.
