Carson and Keller on Confessionalism, Boundaries, and the Gospel.
Don Carson and Tim Keller posted an excellent piece today: Reflections on Confessionalism, Boundaries, and Discipline. The post wass written primarily to explain The Gospel Coalition position on disagreement and correction among board members. But, it’s really an excellent read for understanding how boundaries and confessions work in any movement.
You should go read the article, but I wanted to highlight a couple of things that I found particularly interesting.
First, they use the distinction between an “boundary-bounded set” and a “center-bounded set” to describe their movement. This language has been around for a while now, and it differentiates between groups that try to establish clear in/out boundaries (e.g. confessional churches), and those that build their commitments on some central agreement(s) but leave lots of fuzziness around the edges (e.g. evangelicalism as a whole). This distinction has been around for a while, so it’s not unique to Carson and Keller. Indeed, Roger Olson recently used the same distinction to argue that evangelicalism is a “centered set” movement. So, what’s interesting here is that although Olson has been rather critical of groups like the Gospel Coalition for having an overly narrow and closed-minded understanding of evangelicalism, it would seem that Carson and Keller actually view the movement in very similar ways.
I also appreciated the discussion toward the end on the relationship between the doctrine of the Trinity and the Gospel, in which they draw a distinction between whether the Trinity is essential to the Gospel and whether having an orthodox view of the Trinity is necessary for salvation. As they rightly point out, those are two different issues:
In some discussion or other, we might claim, rightly, that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is irrefragably tied up with the gospel. Someone might object, “Surely not! Is an orthodox view of the Trinity necessary for salvation?” In reality, these are two differentiable issues. To say that the doctrine of the Trinity is tied up with the gospel is to make a claim about the structure of the gospel, about what the gospel is, about its content.
Ignoring for a second that they actually used the word “irrefragably,” this is a great point. Doctrines like the Trinity and the Incarnation provide an essential shape and structure to the Gospel. Without them, the Gospel is undermined in critical ways. But, that doesn’t mean that someone who rejects them necessarily rejects the Gospel. It just means that they’re operating with an understanding of the Gospel that has some real weak spots. But, fortunately for us all, the standard of salvation is not how well we understand orthodox theology, as important as that might be.
Posted on October 12, 2011, in Gospel, Theology, Theology Proper and tagged Christology, confessionalism, Confessions, conversion, evangelicalism, Gospel, incarnation, Salvation, trinity. Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.
Pingback: Carson and Keller on Confessionalism, Boundaries, and the Gospel … | Gospel Feeds
Pingback: I Beg To Differ | Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth
Pingback: Is Believing in the Trinity and Incarnation Essential for Salvation | Diglotting
Pingback: On the Web (October 12, 2011) « New Testament Interpretation
Pingback: Is rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity a rejection of the Gospel? | Near Emmaus
Pingback: The Trinity is a Work, not Faith | Unsettled Christianity
Pingback: Flotsam and jetsam (10/14) « scientia et sapientia
Pingback: Trinity, Gospel, Theology, Dogmatics and the Patristic era repeated. Frost responds … « The Evangelical Calvinist