 |
| 
Ronald Ricketts
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/23/2003 3:50 PM (GMT -6) |   | Have any of you read the lastest by Piper & others, Beyond The Bonds? I have the book and it seems like the old arguments, etc. about OT. I have read the chapter on Inerrancy and still find it weird that the ETS wants to dismiss Pinnock, Sanders & others on the basis of inerrancy.
Ronald | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 5/23/2003 5:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's a bit of discussion:
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1824&ARCHIVE=&whichpage=1
"Dreams are illustrations...from the book your soul is writing about you." -Marsha Norman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 5/24/2003 8:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Christian: don't forget that it is also written by pastors who are very much against the open view. Don't forget that
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Ronald Ricketts
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/25/2003 4:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Christian: Thanks for indirectly forcing me to reread the chapter on inerrancy in Beyond The Bounds.Wellum writes that he will investigate OT & its view of scripture in 3 ways. What does the Bible say about inerrancy (239), what does the Bible say about human freedom, is it determined or indetermined? (250) and is OT supportive or detrimental to inerrancy (258). He believes that OT is detrimental to inerrancy. He also raises the question of whether OT can support a high view of scripture & his answer is a definite NO.(By the way, WHO determines what is high & what is low). Wellum feels strongly that OT destroys the guarantee that what God wants to be written freely by human authors to be/will be true. Wellum also feels that litertarianism & inerrancy "might" be reconciled but that this is not an option for OT. He would go further to write that it is next to impossible to affirm both OT & inerrancy (273-274). THEREFORE, OT must be rejected because it undercuts the very foundation of Christian Theology, which is, the sovereign God who speaks through human authors in an inerrant manner (274). For me personaly, I still find it strange that the ETS would dismiss Open Theists on the grounds of inerrancy. I like the question of, as a Open Theist and a believer of errant scripture, then exactly where am I out of bounds? Am I out of bounds as a evangelical & am I out of bounds of being a Christian. I have the nagging suspicion that I would be out of bounds on both accounts. Thanks for reading. Ron Ricketts
Ronald | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 5/25/2003 7:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Ronald: I would simply add that the ETS(and those of their kind) use inerrancy simply because they are beginning to realize that open theim isn't going to go away as easily as they wish, given that they have not been able to refute it biblically. As such, books such as Beyond The Bounds seem to me to be a "last gasp" attempt at refutation, but is really nothing more than preaching to the choir.
Christian, if you were hurt by any advocate of open theim I sincerely apologize. But I can tell you this: I praise God because of open theism.
I never praised God more than when I saw the depth of his love for me in allowing me true choices, in wanting to have a true relationship with him, not a relationship where he maniqualates me into being what he wants for his "glory." The God I worship does not need to control everything. He is strong and powerful enough to work through my choices, not by controling them.
In the final analysis, open theists declare inerrency, regardless of what others may believe, they hold to all the major creeds, hold to an orthodox view of who God is and hold that Christ died for their sins. It is sad that Piper and his group have such a hard time seeing that, but God doesn't.
Edited by - honorman on 05/26/2003 12:17:28 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 5/26/2003 3:32 AM (GMT -6) | | I've read Beyond the Bounds and most everything else ever written against the Open View. But I will give a quarter, yes TWENTY FIV E BIG ONES, to anyone who can explain to me how the Open View entails a denial of inerrancy. I have to deliver a paper on this at this years ETS meeting and I am finding it really difficult to even enter into the alleged logic of this accusation. HELP!
bewildered
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Ronald Ricketts
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/26/2003 5:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Christian: I want to reply to your posting but first I must say that I am absolutely amazed that the ETS will let Dr. Boyd in the convention hall for this years ETS meeting. After what they have written about you directly and indirectly, I think that you had better take a body guard or at least a bullet proof vest. As a Chaplain with the Indianapolis Police Dept. I will be glad to lend you one. Now to you Christian. I too am a traditionalist. a lover of antiguity, & the Old School. For example, the contemporary music, the bongo drums and so forth, do NOT enrich my soul. The suggestion that I shake EVERY hand in the house is a tad too much. The hymnals are gathering dust! Yet, I remind myself that all change & challenge is not necessarily evil. As a Baptist pastor for over 50 years I have seen & spent a lot of energy over silly theological battles. Examples might be The God Is Dead Movement, & the Charismatic movement.I have some Amish friends who are now splitting over electricity in the barn, but NOT in the house. Also, is Inerrancy really the Litmus Test or the foundation stone for all of Christian Theology as Wellum seems to believe?? I will admit that a lot of my fellow Baptists sure think so. I am saddened that churches have split & pastors fired over the issue of inerrancy. It is my humble feelings that IF we must have a boundry line, then why not 2 Corinthians 5;19, "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself" or why not 1 John 4:15, a confession that Jesus is the Son Of God, & we all know there could be a host of other boundries, but Inerrancy???? Peace & Joy to all on this beautiful Memorial Day.
Ronald | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/26/2003 5:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Ronald Ricketts
It is my humble feelings that IF we must have a boundry line, then why not 2 Corinthians 5;19, "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself" or why not 1 John 4:15, a confession that Jesus is the Son Of God, & we all know there could be a host of other boundries, but Inerrancy????
Iconoclast
What you describe here is not a "boundary" line but a "center". In essence you are suggesting that there should be NO boundary line but rather ONLY a center.
I completely agree with this.
The problem is that the knowledge of good and evil by its very definition requires a boundary line. To deny folks a boundary line is to deny them the ability to apply their knowledge of good and evil to others. Jesus got killed for doing that sort of thing.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Ronald Ricketts
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/26/2003 3:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Dr. Boyd: I feel honored just to be able to float some ideas by you on your paper before the ETC. I have some questions, such as, #1, Is there or can there be more then one (1) definition of inerrancy? Wellum quotes one definition (Beyond The Bounds, 249). #2, Is divine sovereignty & inerrant scripture similiar to Siamese twins, never to be separated? #3. Has Ot ever claimed that scripture is anything less then Gods written word? (Beyond The Bounds,250). #4. Is the rating of one's high or low view of scripture, a personal matter? #5.Is sovereignty the only criteria for ones view of scripture? Thanks for reading. Ron Ricketts
Ronald | | Back to Top | | |
|
Ronald Ricketts
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/26/2003 3:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast: I think that you are absolutely right. The question is not a boundry, but rather a centering. What is the center of my life?
Christian; I honestly have not viewed the Open Theism theology as a emotional thing. I am not a OT because it calms my emotions. I am a OT because I think that it is biblical corrent. I have long struggled with the issue of evil. I find it very difficult or next to impossible to always be blaming God for my sin, evil, & just plain stubborness. By the way, it is rumored that the church that I attend is thinking of selling & removing the beautiful and majestic organ. Now if that happens, I am going to be one unhappy camper. I don't want to end on a unhappy note. I want to end with happiness and joy and I hope that your day will end the same. May peace be with thee.Ron Ricketts
Ronald | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/26/2003 5:48 PM (GMT -6) | | doc: quote:
I've read Beyond the Bounds and most everything else ever written against the Open View. But I will give a quarter, yes TWENTY FIV E BIG ONES, to anyone who can explain to me how the Open View entails a denial of inerrancy. I have to deliver a paper on this at this years ETS meeting and I am finding it really difficult to even enter into the alleged logic of this accusation. HELP!
Quite frankly, I haven't even figured out what any connection is between the Open View and inerrancy (I mean in some sort of specific and not vague generalities). That one got right passed me!
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/26/2003 6:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Honorman: In the final analysis, open theists declare inerrency, regardless of what others may believe, they hold to all the major creeds, hold to an orthodox view of who God is and hold that Christ died for their sins. It is sad that Piper and his group have such a hard time seeing that, but God doesn't.
Flyonthewall: A Baptist minister who sat down besides me at a charity event summed the OV up by saying that it has changed who God is. He did't bother with anything about inerancy.
I observe that OV shades towards tri-theism, in several ways. I'd say that that inertia to shade in that direction is one of its worst flaws. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 5/27/2003 1:50 AM (GMT -6) | | POW: I am unconcerned with what a Baptist minister believes. I am concerned with what open theists declare they believe. While I can say I believe reformed believers are wrong and that there view dimishes God, I would never say they "change" God because of their misinterpretation of scripture, but rather I recognize they, regardless of where I disagree with them, hold to the truths that are listed in the creeds. I think it is time for them to do the same for the open view.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 5/27/2003 1:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Christian: it is, sadly, typical, of the those who are opponents of the open view to deride it as an "emotional" response to God, or something to that effect. I would say that there are those who response to God with emotions in all areas, from the open view to the reformed and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as it is tempered with thought and reflection and a person's emotions do not overwhemed their logic.
Everyone comes from type of background and brings that into their theological perception. It cannot be helped. Having said that, let add a couple of personal notes.
I did not come to the open view with the thought of being "converted" to it, nor whether it was right or wrong, but rather was it scriptural, was it within the general realm of orthodoxy and is it viable to a christian to believe? These are the issues that have concerned me since I started studying it. From my view, the answer is yes.
However, it should be noted that all views have their problems. All views have their weak points, simply because we are not God. As such, I sometimes find critics of the open view almost disingenious in their attitude towards it, simply because they take an attitude of arrogance, that their view is not without its problems. All views have difficulties.
For the record, I like both hymns and contempory songs and our church uses both.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/27/2003 11:37 AM (GMT -6) | | What I've been bothered by is the lack of Christians to be able to even define who the GOd is that we worship. I'm not criticizing the OV for stating their beliefs. I respect their beliefs. I also respect the beliefs of Jews and Muslims. But it seems essential to any religion or doctrine to be able to define the beliefs of that doctrine.
Although I know there is not much tolerance for tradition on this board, I do think there is value to the creeds and the catechisms - even the Vatican documents - that systematically lay out what exactly it is that we are talking about.
Saying that we love Jesus and that's it, is not enough. Muslims and Jews say they love Jesus as a prophet- others say he was a great man, like the Buddha, who had great insight and we should follow his precepts. However, are those people Christians?
Now I know, as humans we cannot fully fathom God or comprehend him. But we do need to be able to agree on who it is we worship.
Instead of trying to change traditional Evangelical beliefs, perhaps the OV would work better as a separate tradition. Much like how luther attempted to reform the Roman Catholic church but ended up starting Protestantism which became its separate belief system.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Ronald Ricketts
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/27/2003 11:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Dr. Boyd: I have a question. In the history of the church or the teaching of doctrine in the Church, was inerrancy always a companion subject when sovereignty was discussed? Would I be correct in thinking that it is only recently that sovereignty and inerrancy have been joined at the hip? Ron Ricketts
Ronald | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 5/27/2003 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Ron R. #1, Is there or can there be more then one (1) definition of inerrancy? Wellum quotes one definition (Beyond The Bounds, 249).
Doc: There is no one definition of "inerrancy." Some hold to "verbal plenary" inerrancy, others to "conceptual " inerrancy, others to "inerrancy of purpose," etc… The problem, of course, is that the concept of "inerrancy" presupposes a standard of "error" against which the Bible is measured. But the Bible consists of many different genre of literature, each of which have their own criteria of "error" (or for which the concept of measuring them against error is utterly inappropriate.) Moreover, its written over many centuries, which adjust the criteria of error. Its read now by various cultures that have their own distinctive criteria for error. And, to top it off, the concept of "inerrancy" supposedly only applies to the original autographs which everyone admits WE DON’T HAVE. So, to say "inerrancy" is a slippery concept is to put it mildly. Nonetheless, THIS is what Pinnock and Sanders are on trial for denying (without any agreement about what AFFIRMING it even means).
RR: #2, Is divine sovereignty & inerrant scripture similiar to Siamese twins, never to be separated?
Doc: I know of no theologian who conjoined them till the 19th century. I may be wrong however.
RR: #3. Has Ot ever claimed that scripture is anything less then Gods written word? (Beyond The Bounds,250).
Doc: No. But Pinnock and Sanders have been sensitive to the sort of issues I outlined in response to #1 above.
RR: #4. Is the rating of one's high or low view of scripture, a personal matter?
Doc: Indeed, even determining what "counts" as "high" or "low" is quite personal.
RR: #5.Is sovereignty the only criteria for ones view of scripture?
Doc: ONLY? I never knew it was ANY criteria for one’s view of scripture till a motion was made to kick me out for allegedly denying the connection (though it turned out I wasn’t a member so couldn’t be kicked out. I’m joining now however).
RR: In the history of the church or the teaching of doctrine in the Church, was inerrancy always a companion subject when sovereignty was discussed? Would I be correct in thinking that it is only recently that sovereignty and inerrancy have been joined at the hip?
Doc: You would be VERY correct, so far as I know. For example, I don’t know of any Arminian who was accused by Calvinist of denying inerrancy on the grounds that they held humans were free (which, note, is ALL open theists are saying vis-à-vis the inerrancy issue). HOW ON EARTH does holding to an open future affect one’s estimation of inerrancy – at least any more than the simple affirmation of freedom affects inerrancy? Is the Arminian view "safer" just because (presumable) God FORSAW that the free biblical authors HAPPENED to get it right? Heck, at the very very very least an open theist could argue, "God got lucky. All the biblical authors happened to get it right." They’d be no worse off than the Arminians. So why are Open Theists being kicked out?
And look – what if our view WAS not condusive to a consistent view of inerrancy (which I absolutely deny). Do you kick people out of a fellowship because of what they affirm or deny, or because you judge that they have OTHER THEORIES that IN YOUR MIND aren’t entirely logically consistent with the affirmation they unequivocally affirm?
I have to say that this is one of the MOST BIZZARE things I have EVER witenessed… and I’ve seen some el bizzaro stuff!
The fact that its being carried out by a purportedly "academic" and "scholarly" organization makes it all the more bizzare.
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Ronald Ricketts
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/29/2003 3:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Christian: To find out about dates & places of ETS's meetings. Type in "Evangelical Theological Society" in your computer search box. When ETS comes up on the screen go to your left side under Contents. Then scroll down to Meetings & you will find the meetings dates, & places. Peace. Ron Ricketts
Ronald | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 6/2/2003 1:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Greg said:
quote:
I have to say that this is one of the MOST BIZZARE things I have EVER witenessed… and I’ve seen some el bizzaro stuff!
The fact that its being carried out by a purportedly "academic" and "scholarly" organization makes it all the more bizzare.
In writing this, I feel sort of like the child crying out that the "emperor has no clothes". But seriously, I feel that what I'm about to write is not overly cynical and needs to be said (in fact, I'm surprised no one's said it yet).
Sanders and Pinnock (and you, if only you were a member) are being made candidates for ejection from the ETS on the grounds of inerrancy because the balance-of-power in ETS is (and always has been) in traditionalist conservative hands and they are not willing to tolerate you-all. These hands find open theism revolting and the last straw in what they perceive as broader liberal (read: non-Augustinian/Lutheran/Calvinist) compromise in evangelicalism that they feel has been encroaching upon them since the 1960's and 1970's - first with infallibilism and absorption of some higher criticism; then with soteriological inclusivism and related wider-hope views; then annihilationism; and now open theism, which reminds them of process theology. That what-we-might-call "liberal" (if only to draw the contrast with "conservative") evangelicals' case for these things has been well-reasoned, biblically-based, and clearly-couched in acceptance of the "center" (Jesus is Lord) - ie, that evangelicals' case for these things has been made in a manner faithful to the evangelical sine qua non - just makes it worse for them (for people abide perceived "traitors" least of all). The ETS' charter, however, gives them only two possible charges for forcible expulsion of you-all - trinity and inerrancy - and if there's something open theism has less to do with than inerrancy, it is the doctrine of the triune God. So as a matter of political expediency, "inerrancy it is".
Sorry to be so bleak. But as a pastor I'm sure you know that life in any organization of people centered around ideas about which they are sensitive and passionate is 50% politics.
FYI, I am not personally an open theist. But as a fellow "liberal evangelical" in other ways (eg infallibilism, inclusivism) I feel the "affinity of the persecuted" (perhaps too strong a word, but still).
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 6/2/2003 5:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott:quote:
...as a pastor I'm sure you know that life in any organization of people centered around ideas about which they are sensitive and passionate is 50% politics.
VERY well said!
-Winghead
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 6/2/2003 5:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Christian, I can sympathize with your struggles. However, I think the key word is balance.
Neither "dancing with God" or "How Great thou Art" are wrong kinds of songs to sing. There is a time to rejoice with dancing, like David, and there is a time to bow down in with a humble and contrite heart.
I have had turmoil and struggles with different ideas -- both Calvinism and OV. The thing that helped me most is to realize that we are finite and will never (in this life at least) fully grasp God. At some point, all our ideas and reasonings about God must be set aside, or they become idols. When wrestling with a theology starts to make you feel weighted down and "sick", then it is time to stop wrestling with it and take a breather.
The important questions, whether you are a Calvinist or an Open Theist, is do you trust God? Can you throw yourself into his arms regardless of your understand of His essential being, or the circumstances you are going through, or the lust of the flesh, lust of they eyes and the boastful pride of life that so easily entangle us?
God's soverignty and power and trustworthiness does not depend on our theology. It depends on GOD.
What inerrancy and a high view of scripture means to me is that when we cannot understand it, we accept it as true. When it tells us something we do not want to hear, we submit to what the Holy Spirit is saying to us anyway. At the very least, we give scripture the benefit of the doubt.
Yours in Christ,
Winghead
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 6/2/2003 6:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc, Regarding inerrancy.
I had an atheist friend that would delight in trying to get "fundies" (as we would call them) to defend inerrancy in light of the use of 3.0 for the ratio of pie in Kings. All you had to do is to explain that 3.0 was a common ratio for pie at that time, in that part of the world, and he would agree. But if you tried to approach scripture as a moslem would approach the Quaran, then you will have to explain why God got pie wrong...  ...much to the amusement of my atheist friend.
It strikes me that the ETS has two choices. 1) Define inerrancy so narrowly that Open Theist could not possibly agree with it. 2) Define inerrancy so as to reflect the general understanding of the issue. If the first is the case, then more than the OV will be excluded. This will likely become problemmatic for the ETS. If the second is the case, then the OV should be able to stand within that scope.
The real issue is not that you and they disagree on inerrancy or a high view of scripture. Afterall, Cynic, Sage, or Son of God should prove that. The real issue is that the idea of God changing his mind, or relenting, etc. just does not fit into their thinking about God. They cannot allow for different interpretations. Interpretation is outside the scope of inerrancy. Focus on sola scriptura. Resist the efforts to be categorized as outside that scope.
As you have said, when theology becomes a person's God, then people get threatened when their theology is challenged.
The answer might only partially lie in a well reasoned response. The rest of it requires gentleness, humblity, patience and lots of LOVE.
Yours in Christ,
Winghead
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/3/2003 4:35 AM (GMT -6) | | As an Open Thiest, I can't thank God enough for shedding the light of "openness" truth on me that has cleared up all the imbroglio created by the Calvinism and (verses) Arminianism theology. God has given us real freedom. God really relatest to us minute by minute and isn't acting like He is, rather than, as is believed by many, that He already knows as happened every single word, thought and move, but talks with us as if it hasn't happened. How deceiful and deceiving that would be. There's no real relationship in this theology.
I'm thankful that history--every last thought, move, action and word--has not happened yet, but that God is no less omniscient, because there's nothing to know yet (except that part God has already determined and the heart, mind and soul of man). I'm thankful for, despite how many misunderstand the Open View, that God doesn't change--He NEVER changes--but (as we are created in His image and reflect the same trait) He changes things like His actions against mankind from wrath to grace when mankind repents: he changes his thoughts from one direction to another, particularly toward us. Scripture doesn't teach that God knows all along that x, y, and z (every last detail) were exactly what would happen but then fools us in conversation that conveys the opposite. It's real relationship, real interaction between God and man.
I'm glad that when God "repented" (King James) that He had made man, it was actually that He "grieved" about what man became--another thing to be thankful for: that Scripture doesn't say that God grieved when He wasn't really grieving, because He already knew every single thing, word, event, sound, thought, move that was going to happen; He was just acting like He was grieving. One doesn't grieve who knows EVERYTHING--I MEAN EVERYTHING--about the future. One grieves when one knows that something COULD happen and then it does. God grieved to have watched before His eyes what the world had become.
As an Open Theist, I'm thankful for God's omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevelence, despite the many who misunderstand the Open View and claim Open Theists don't believe in some of these characteristics and attributes of God. I'm thankful that I haven't seen an Open Theist on this board (at least not that I can remember) attack a non Open Theist ad hominem (simply because the person doesn't believe in the Open View) as non Open Theists have done so toward Open Theists.
Thank God Almighty for real, genuine, undeceptive relationship!
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown
Edited by - Starkman on 06/03/2003 09:47:30 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 6/3/2003 7:46 AM (GMT -6) | | "Winghead" wrote:
quote:
It strikes me that the ETS has two choices. 1) Define inerrancy so narrowly that Open Theist could not possibly agree with it. 2) Define inerrancy so as to reflect the general understanding of the issue. If the first is the case, then more than the OV will be excluded. This will likely become problemmatic for the ETS. If the second is the case, then the OV should be able to stand within that scope.
This is very astute political observation. The ETS "conservatives" (Calvinist traditionalists) must define inerrancy restrictively enough to rule-out certain theological deductions like open theism, but if they do so, they may alienate erstwhile "moderate" allies in the ETS who are more Arminian in their leanings. They may also open-up the rift over total factual inerrancy (ala Warfield, Archer and Geisler, for example) vis-a-vis looser views (ala Ramm).
Yes, they will have to walk a thin line, but I predict they will succeed in ousting Pinnock and Sanders - if only because of the precedent the ETS set back in the 1980's when they ousted that scholar (don't remember the name) over his views on midrash in Matthew.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry over how closely this resembles partisan politics, even right down to my own punditry :-(
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/3/2003 8:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott
quote:
Yes, they will have to walk a thin line, but I predict they will succeed in ousting Pinnock and Sanders - if only because of the precedent the ETS set back in the 1980's when they ousted that scholar (don't remember the name) over his views on midrash in Matthew.
Robert Gundry
Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through? | | Back to Top | | |
| 73 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:40 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|