Robert A. J. Gagnon and the authority of Christ

[Bill The Baptist]

As I am sure many of you do as well, I have appreciated Dr. Gagnon's work on defending the biblical view of sexuality. One of the things that Dr. Gagnon appeals to in his book and in his debates is the authority of Christ and his view on marriage and sexuality as recorded in the gospels. In fact, Dr. Gagnon was taken aback in his recent debate with Dr. Kirk when Dr. Kirk argued that in his humanity, Jesus was simply wrong on this subject. That being said, while I greatly appreciated Dr. Gagnon's book "The Bible and Homosexual Practice", I couldn't help but notice that almost from the first page, Dr. Gagnon refers to the authorship of the Pentateuch using the JPED designations of the documentary hypothesis. My question is this; does it seem a bit hypocritical, or at least incongruent, to appeal to the authority of Jesus when it comes to human sexuality, but then reject that same authority when it comes to the authorship of the Pentateuch?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I had Dr. Gagnon for class when I was a student at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.

He does not, in any way, shape, or form believe in biblical inerrency. He also denies Pauline authorship of the pastoral letters and is a big defender of women's ordination. Outside of this issue Dr. Gagnon is a garden variety mainline "evangelical", and I do not mean that in a rude or dismissive way to be clear.

When I was younger and more brash and was in my cage stage discovery of the doctrines of grace (while a student at the aforementioned PC(USA) seminary) I challenged Dr. Gagnon on that very point, making reference to John 5 and "Moses wrote about me". This is mainly because it was in his class while he was defending his position on why homosexuals should not be ordained that I, ironically, started to question women's ordination (because the arguments are quite similar), and he responded to me, at that time, that my position had been disproved by the church and that I should rethink some of the authors I was reading at the time.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I had Dr. Gagnon for class when I was a student at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.

He does not, in any way, shape, or form believe in biblical inerrency. He also denies Pauline authorship of the pastoral letters and is a big defender of women's ordination. Outside of this issue Dr. Gagnon is a garden variety mainline "evangelical", and I do not mean that in a rude or dismissive way to be clear.

When I was younger and more brash and was in my cage stage discovery of the doctrines of grace (while a student at the aforementioned PC(USA) seminary) I challenged Dr. Gagnon on that very point, making reference to John 5 and "Moses wrote about me". This is mainly because it was in his class while he was defending his position on why homosexuals should not be ordained that I, ironically, started to question women's ordination (because the arguments are quite similar), and he responded to me, at that time, that my position had been disproved by the church and that I should rethink some of the authors I was reading at the time.

In my estimation, this clearly demonstrates the inherent weakness of selective inerrancy. If the entirety of the Scriptures are not inerrant, but only the parts we wish to be, then who is to say that any of it is truly inerrant? Once human opinion becomes the determining factor, the whole foundation collapses.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I had Dr. Gagnon for class when I was a student at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.

He does not, in any way, shape, or form believe in biblical inerrency. He also denies Pauline authorship of the pastoral letters and is a big defender of women's ordination. Outside of this issue Dr. Gagnon is a garden variety mainline "evangelical", and I do not mean that in a rude or dismissive way to be clear.

When I was younger and more brash and was in my cage stage discovery of the doctrines of grace (while a student at the aforementioned PC(USA) seminary) I challenged Dr. Gagnon on that very point, making reference to John 5 and "Moses wrote about me". This is mainly because it was in his class while he was defending his position on why homosexuals should not be ordained that I, ironically, started to question women's ordination (because the arguments are quite similar), and he responded to me, at that time, that my position had been disproved by the church and that I should rethink some of the authors I was reading at the time.

In my estimation, this clearly demonstrates the inherent weakness of selective inerrancy. If the entirety of the Scriptures are not inerrant, but only the parts we wish to be, then who is to say that any of it is truly inerrant? Once human opinion becomes the determining factor, the whole foundation collapses.

Exactly.

If Jesus is wrong, or at best accommodating himself to the times on things like Moses writing the 5 Books or Jonah or whatever you cannot really take fault with Dr. Kirk using that same concept to question Jesus on Matt 19.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Interesting story Ben.

It just goes to show that the PCUSA Churches leaving the PCUSA on this issue aren't doing so out of a fidelity to the Word of God but more so on this narrow issue. It does seem to me that calling good what the Scriptures plainly condemn as an example of man's captivity to idolatry is sort of the last straw and it's heartening to realize that some mainliners haven't completed collapsed but that seems inevitable to me once you abandon the authority of God's Word for what the experts say we need to believe.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Interesting story Ben.

It just goes to show that the PCUSA Churches leaving the PCUSA on this issue aren't doing so out of a fidelity to the Word of God but more so on this narrow issue. It does seem to me that calling good what the Scriptures plainly condemn as an example of man's captivity to idolatry is sort of the last straw and it's heartening to realize that some mainliners haven't completed collapsed but that seems inevitable to me once you abandon the authority of God's Word for what the experts say we need to believe.

As I noted to a friend of mine recently who gave me a hard time when I left the PC(USA) in 2008 (I was in seminary from 2006-2009) who decided recently to go EPC instead of ECO the evangelicals in the PC(USA) are really only interested in turning the clock back theologically to 1995.

 

[Philip]

NT Wright seems to have a more conservative view of NT authorship than does Dr. Gagnon. I remember a couple years ago, I was attending a lecture following the release of his 1500 page doorstopper on Paul and a Harvard Divinity student asked Wright which Paul he was talking about. Wright responded, "If you had written thirteen letters over the course of twenty years to different audiences using different secretaries, future scholars might conclude that you were three different people too."

 

[MW]

A broken clock will happen to be right twice a day.

Everyone functions with the concept of inerrancy. I have never heard anyone say that he believes something because it is wrong and expect to be taken seriously. An inerrant source of authority is inescapable. A problem in communication arises when people will not disclose their source and open it up to examination.

 

[Pilgrim]

Interesting story Ben.

It just goes to show that the PCUSA Churches leaving the PCUSA on this issue aren't doing so out of a fidelity to the Word of God but more so on this narrow issue. It does seem to me that calling good what the Scriptures plainly condemn as an example of man's captivity to idolatry is sort of the last straw and it's heartening to realize that some mainliners haven't completed collapsed but that seems inevitable to me once you abandon the authority of God's Word for what the experts say we need to believe.

It is my hope that some have been shaken to the point of rethinking their whole position given the obvious trajectory that led to the affirmation of homosexuality. This doesn't mean that they will be ready to jump to the OPC or RPCNA or embrace strict subscription. What I mean is at least coming around to where they could affirm the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and come around to a broad evangelical position as opposed to a "mainline evangelical" one as described above, which sometimes amounts to not much more than being able to affirm the Apostles Creed and believing that Jesus literally rose from the dead. (That being said, there are some egals who can affirm the Chicago statement and a few may have even been involved in its formulation, if I'm not mistaken.) I know of at least one former PCUSA church that seems to be headed in that direction, with the pastor rejecting women's ordination, etc. This is mainly based on a few conversations I've had with the pastor about what he is reading, what conferences he attends, etc. But I don't know how many others there are that are like that. Whatever our disagreements with them, it is a good sign when you see people toting around ESV Study Bibles in a former PCUSA church.

In his book on homosexuality that was published about 10 years ago, Jack Rogers plainly states that Old Princeton views on the Bible (i.e. inerrancy) have been disproved and abandoned in favor of neo-orthodoxy, etc. and that those who have taken that step don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to opposing homosexuality. Thus, he abandoned the "literalist" Biblical view himself.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Click Here

Of course Rogers and McKim's book on Old Princeton was shown to be false by John Woodbridge 40 years ago.