The Gospel Coalition: Foundational Documents

I got this from Justin Taylor, and I understand it to be the final version of The Gospel Coalition's Foundational Documents.  I have made it into a pdf file and hosted it on my blog.  I have compared it to other copies that have been online for a couple of days and there are some changes, though they appear minor.

Comments

[Tim]

You so should have been there. I was a pretty neat thing. Wish you could have made it. Thanks for posting the documents.

[Tim Keller]

Steve--Yes, you've got the latest revision of the documents. You are right that each of the individual changes that were made during the final process of re-writing were minor, but there were dozens--at least 60 or 70. So its important to have the final documents.

[Steve McCoy]

Tim E., I wish I could have been there. I opted for some family time away instead. Thanks bro.

Tim K., thanks for the clarification on the documents. They look good.

[Timmy Brister]

Steve, if I may (and if he's still around), I would like to ask Dr. Keller a question . . .

Dr. Keller,

I want to thank you and Dr. Carson for heading up such an excellent endeavor. I have reviewed the documents (the previous version) and find them well-written and certainly useful for both individual and corporate usage.

One of the unique aspects of these documents is how the gospel is applied to various fields of epistemology, hermeneutics, contextualization, and ministry. I wanted to ask you if you or Dr. Carson have considered including a section also on the "gospel and world religions" or the "missiological implications of the gospel." I know this was addressed in part in other sections of the documents, but I was curious if further elaboration would be beneficial in such a document.

For example, in our growing pluralization and politically correct ethos, presenting the unique truth claims of the gospel is considered unethical and arrogant among many. The truth claims of the gospel and the truth claims of other religions are incompatible, although some would not like for us to think that. For over a century, the gospel has faced attacks against the absoluteness of Christianity (Troeltsch), the uniqueness of Christ (Hick), and attempting to historically relativize the Christian message (Toynbee). Such pluralists would rather have Christianity one among many truths/paths to the Ultimate/Real/Divine.

Secondly and more subtlely, I find the debate over the continuity/discontuity issues of the gospel with other religions especially with regards to revelation a crucial issue. For instance, some will argue that Christianity is the fulfillment of other religions and that the gospel message is simply a complete revelation of what others have partially. Others will argue that general revelation is salvfic or made salvific through a cosmic Christology or the Spirit's redemptive mission (apart from Christ and His Church). Indeed, such positions make the orthodox understanding of the gospel unacceptable and the gospel itself unnecessary.

These are some surface points I mention for the purpose of making a request that you and Dr. Carson could consider including a statement of the gospel and world religions, perhaps within a missiological context. With the increasing syncretistic and ecumenical mileau, such a statement could be not only a clarification of the gospel but a defense of it against those who would want to either change it or do away with it.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Timmy Brister
www.timmybrister.com

[Miles Mullin]

Steve,

Thanks for posting this. I have been looking forward to seeing it.

Yours,

Miles

[John Sather-Here's Life Inner City]

I love what they have come up with...I would suggest that they not use the word "disadvantaged" under the the doing justice section as most of those who are poor do not see themselves as be a "disadvantaged" person but a person "underserved"....I would change that word

[dopderbeck]

Hmm.... I like it, and yet I don't like it.

I'm uncomfortable with making a specific epistemological statement about "correspondence" an evangelical distinctive. I lean towards Reformed Epistemology ala Plantinga and critical realism, but I'm nervous about how closely associated many correspondence theories are with foundationalism. We need to emphasize Jesus over Kant.

Or take this statement from the document: But the document states: “We believe that Scripture is pervasively propositional.”

I’m not sure what “pervasively” is supposed to mean here. If it means that scripture is mostly given to us in the form of propositions, I’d have to strongly disagree. Most of scripture (quantitatively and qualitatively) is given to us in the form of stories, proverbs, parables, and poems. If it just means that scripture contains many propositions, I can agree with that, but then I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. (Actually I’m pretty sure what the fuss is about — it’s about countering the emphasis in the evangelical left on narrative).

Or take this one: scripture is “final in its authority over every domain of knowledge to which it speaks".

This is the sort of lacuna that probably can sink the whole document, because it begs the key question of which “domains of knowledge” are supposedly addressed by scripture. Given my interest in the faith-science interface, I could affirm this phrase, but I’d probably shrug and add “and scripture doesn’t say much of anything about what we today call ’science.’” But of course, others will take the same phrase to mean something completely different, and one of the more difficult and divisive questions in evangelicalism today will remain unresolved. This is a perennial problem with documents like this — they always include affirmations (propositions!) which can mean almost polar opposite things depending on who is affirming them.

Ultimately, then, I'm not completely sure what's been accomplished here.

[dopderbeck]

One other quibble. The document says: "Our theoretical knowledge of God’s truth is only partial even when accurate, but we nevertheless can have certainty that what the Word tells us is true (Luke 1:4). It is through the power of the Holy Spirit that we receive the words of the gospel in full assurance and conviction (1 Thess 1:5)."

What is meant by "certainty?" If your theory of truth is truly "chastened," then this cannot mean objective certainty. If you are talking about the subjective assurance provided by the Holy Spirit, I think it's more appropriate to speak of "assurance" rather than "certainty." We will not know for certain that our faith is true until we see Jesus face-to-face -- that's the whole point of living today by "faith," isn't it?