 |
| 
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 11/24/2002 6:28 PM (GMT -6) |   | Here is the article:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/145/54.0.html
It is really hard for me to see how this could possibly be good for the ETS.
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 | | |
 |
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/24/2002 7:44 PM (GMT -6) | | It was only a matter of time...those in power who cannot defeat something through legitimate debate crush it by silencing it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/25/2002 12:36 AM (GMT -6) | | | Seems off to me. The issue of "inerrancy" only became 'hot' in the last several decades. And Evangelicalism is much, much older. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/25/2002 3:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Sad. Very sad. I've little interest in having people know me as "evangelical" anymore. Yuck.
Tom
"No one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 11/25/2002 4:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the update, Iconoclast. What a sad thing. With Tom, it's hard to think of myself as Evangelical anymore (in the denominational sense of the word).
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/25/2002 5:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
With Tom, it's hard to think of myself as Evangelical anymore (in the denominational sense of the word).
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori."
Right, Brett. And especially out here in the Muslim world. Ask a Muslim what an "evangelical" is and he'll quote Falwell or Swaggart ranting in hatred about Muslim terrorists or (as Swaggart said) shipping every Muslim student back to where they belong. So between what evangelicals are becoming in the States and how they're seen out here...
...I officially renounce the tag. I am not an evangelical.
Tom
"No one's ever eaten a donut hole because they don't exist." Starkman
Edited by - TGB on 11/25/2002 10:24:02 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/25/2002 7:27 AM (GMT -6) | | While I hear you guys, I would prefer to defy those who would bemirsch (bad spelling) the term. I prefer to try and get people to understand what the term truly means. After all many people think being a Christian means being an American. Let's not let a few bad apples spoil the bunch...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
hand_carved
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111
| Posted 11/25/2002 12:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Well, said, honorman.
In England at the time Lewis was at Oxford, to be "Evangelical" meant to be "right-wing fundamental." That is becoming more and more the case...
What to do with all these labels...
"I follow Paul!"
"I follow Appollos!"
"I follow Christ!"
Yeesh!
blessings...
hand_carved
"I'm beside myself!" C-3PO, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 11/25/2002 2:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the info, Iconoclast.
While discouraging, the article did offer some signs of hope. For example,
"The debate was largely civil, with more members speaking against the motion than in favor. Those backing Pinnock and Sanders expressed concerns about a "narrow-minded" scholastic society that was chasing away members by being unnecessarily restrictive."
I suspect that if the motion passes that it will serve only to further marginalize the ETS. Perhaps if more open theists got involved in the society this sort of thing wouldn't happen. A better society for open theists is the Society of Christian Philosophers--much more open-minded.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/25/2002 3:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey, does Doctor Boyd have a particular reason why he isn't a member of the ETS? Just curious...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 11/26/2002 5:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey folks, just got back from Toronto. I didn’t go to the ETS, but I did hear about the vote from Pinnock, Sanders, Boyd, and others. It is discouraging, though not surprising.
Don’t give up on the name evangelical yet. Some exciting things are in the works....
Electra
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 11/26/2002 6:48 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hey folks, just got back from Toronto. I didn’t go to the ETS, but I did hear about the vote from Pinnock, Sanders, Boyd, and others. It is discouraging, though not surprising.
Don’t give up on the name evangelical yet. Some exciting things are in the works....
Electra
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8
OK Electra,
I give...what could possibly be exciting with regards to keeping the name "evangelical"? 
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/26/2002 7:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Welcome back Electra (and Doc, Modes, Mephi, et. al.). I cried the whole time you guys were there and I WAS HERE!
With Tiggers, I gotta know what's so exciting about hanging on to the tag.
Hey, Electra, weren't you and your Mr. heading down to FL after Toronto?
Tom
"It might take a year or two to begin to understand Calvinism. But you won't do so by reading books. It's a transformation of outlook." Al & Fred
Edited by - TGB on 11/26/2002 12:22:17 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 11/26/2002 8:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Welcome back Electra (and Doc, Modes, Mephi, et. al.). I cried the whole time you guys were there and I WAS HERE!
Electra: We'll make up for it at next year's meeting in Atlanta.
Tom: With Tiggers, I gotta know what's so exciting about hanging on to the tag.
Electra: The ETS in its current state does not represent evangelicalism. We went to many top notch evangelical presentations at the AAR, many of which were packed out. We learned about excellent alternatives to the ETS for evangelical scholars, including CTRF (Christian Theological Research Fellowship), IBR (Institute for Biblical Research), EPS (Evangelical Philosophical Society), the Evangelical Theology Session of the AAR, and the Word Made Fresh. As more people become disillusioned with the ETS, these groups are growing and working together.
At the same time, as mainline denominations are shrinking, they are taking a serious look at what makes evangelicals tick. So these ETS groups are composed of moderate evangelical scholars, and also open to pietstic participants from other church traditions. The variety and vitality that results is truly exciting. The politics of exclusion at the ETS may ultimately result in its own marginalization within the broader context of evangelicalism, while allowing other evangelical societies to flourish.
Tom: Hey, Electra, weren't you and your Mr. heading down to FL after Toronto?
Electra: Yep, we'll only be in town for about 24 hours. Hopefully I can write a paper between now and then...or I could catch up on the board. 
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8
Edited by - Electra on 11/26/2002 1:45:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
¡Que Payaso!
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 108
| Posted 11/27/2002 7:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey all you ex-evangelicals,
You can request via e-mail copies of some of the papers presented at ETS and IBR at:
http://www.zondervanchurchsource.com/clip/convention/schedule.htm
and
http://www.zondervanchurchsource.com/clip/convention/ibrschedule.htm
Also, Glen Scorgie presented a really good paper at the Far West ETS Meeting in 2001. He re-presented it this year at the Annual Meeting. I think he offers a balanced perspective to this whole debate. You can find a version of his 2001 paper here (I'm not sure if he made any changes to his paper for this year):
http://www.immanuel.net/sites/cbcsd/dr_scorgie/articles/when_we_differ_sharply.htm
El Payaso 
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 11/28/2002 4:45 AM (GMT -6) | | What an interesting study in religious behavior. The ETS opponents of Open Theism wanted desperately to get rid of it. But HOW? Since attempts to get momentum to modify the required statement of faith didn't work last year, they only grounds they have is to argue that Open Theists don't "really" believe the required statement that is already there. Since no one suggests Open Theists aren't trinitarians (yet, anyway), they have to argue we don't believe in inerrancy.
True, Open Thiests SAY they believe in inerrancy. So the opposing group must argue that they either a) are lying or b) are too stupid to notice that their own beliefs undermine inerrancy. (An alternative would be to argue that they DEFINE it differently -- assuming the supposed conflict between Open Theism and "inerrancy" -- in conflict with the "official" interpretation of inerrancy. But there IS NO "official" definition of inerrancy, so this tactic wouldn't have worked.)
So, how do Open Theists deny inerrancy? In Roger Nicole's accusation, he sites passages where Pinnock, Sandes and myself (comically, since I am not a member) say we believe that God can change his mind so that previous prophecies don't come to pass. Most interestingly, in the majority of citations, we are quoting scripture -- and he notes this! Scripture says (39 times explicitly, hundreds of times implicitly) that God changes his mind. And now, in the name of defending inerrancy, this group is moving to kick out those who believe, on the basis of inerrancy, that these verses are inerrantly communicating what they say. Wild. Truly Amazing.
Just for fun, consider one representative passage. God tells Jeremiah to preach to the Judeans (26:2) telling him "It maybe that they will listen, all of them, and will turn from their evil way, that I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on them because of their evil doings (26:3).
They MAY change? Doesn't he foreknow whether they WILL or WILL not? He MAY change his mind? Isn't it certain? He may CHANGE HIS MIND? Can his mind really change? He INTENDS to judge them, but ends up not doing it? Did he really INTEND this if he was certain he WOULDN'T judge them? If he didn't really "change his mind" then he couldn't have REALLY intended to judge them when he said he did. But it continues.
Jeremiah obeys and tells the elders, “It is the LORD who sent me to prophesy against this house and this city all the words you have heard. Now therefore amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God, and the LORD will change his mind about the disaster that he has pronounced against you." (26:12-13).
Apparently pronounced prophecies can be averted, for God can change his mind. The elders clearly believe this, for they then turn around and tell the people, "Did King Hezekiah of Judah and all Judah actually put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and did not the LORD change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced against them? But we are about to bring great disaster on ourselves!”
So God tells Jeremiah, "I may change my mind." Jeremiah tells the elders, "the Lord will change his mind". And the elders, citing a previous time when God changed his mind, tell the people "the Lord will change his mind."
Now, I'm simple enough. But I can understand how a person who believes Scripture to be inerrant might just come away from this passage saying, "Gee, it seems like the Lord can change his mind." Indeed, this seems to be THE POINT OF THE PASSAGE. Suppose such a person says this in the context of an academic society that is founded on the belief that Scripture is inerrant. The society says, "No, God doesn't really change his mind. And you are denying inerrancy for thinking he does"! Is this not bizzare?
Couldn't one more easily make the charge in THE OPPOSITE DiRECTION? Maybe Open Theists should have charged Roger Nicole for denying inerrancy on the grounds that he thinks Jeremiah, the elders, and the Lord himself were WRONG in saying the Lord can "change his mind."
What if Jeremiah, or the Elders, or the Lord himself, belonged to the ETS and spoke exactly what they spoke in this chapter?
[size =5] They'd all be kicked out -- on the grounds they don't believe in inerrancy.[/size=5]
And all of this within the context of a supposedly scholarly organization in which healthy dialogue and critical thinking is held up as a supreme virtue.
I confess: I find this all remarkably amusing. Most interesting of all, the critics of Open Theism seem to REALLY BELIEVE those who hold that God can change his mind are denying inerrancy. Their interpretation that God doesn't really change his mind when Scripture says he does is so fused with their belief that Scripture is inerrant in all it says (their "map" IS "the territory") that they cannot fathom a person genuinely believing in inerrancy while denying their interpretation.
It's very interestingl, but also quite sad. For the ETS is held in high esteem by many within evangelicalism. Many Christian colleges look to it as sort of a watchdog organization.
Doc
ps. Per an earlier question, I gave up on the ETS last year, which is why I didn't renew my membership.
pss. Its important to remember that over 40% of the group voted NOT to forward the accusations to the Executive Committee. Many leaders in high places spoke adamantly AGAINST this motion.
psss. Assuming the Executive Committee will stand by the charge (which most think is inevitable), two thirds of the membership of the ETS must vote to "dismember" Pinnock and Sanders. This is NOT a given. BUT, the ETS is meeting in Atlanta next year -- Southern Baptist territory -- and the political machinery of the opposition group tends to be strong. I anticipate we will see a mass influx of anti-openness members this year in the South. So I'm not optimistic about Pinnocks and Sanders chances.
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/28/2002 5:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
pss. It's important to remember that over 40% of the group voted NOT to forward the accusations to the Executive Committee. Many leaders in high places spoke adamantly AGAINST this motion.
Pinnock: 171 to 131
Sanders: 166 to 143
What kinda lousy voter turnout is this? How many voting members were there? Thousands right? What's the deal?
Tom
"It might take a year or two to begin to understand Calvinism. But you won't do so by reading books. It's a transformation of outlook." Al & Fred | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/4/2002 7:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Does this whole fiasco not call into question the principle of sola scriptura? I mean seriously: in the name of "affirming the inerrancy of the Bible" some who take the biblical message that God changes his mind literally are being called on the carpet for NOT affirming the inerrancy of the Bible. Does this not reveal that we -- or at least those who affirmed to move toward kicking Pinnock and Sanders out -- are kidding ourselves (themselves) when they say they base all their faith ONLY on Scipture?
Maybe we should just come clean and admit that none of us REALLY believes Sola Scriptura.
What do you think?
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
¡Que Payaso!
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 108
| Posted 12/4/2002 8:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc,
I read the five-part interchange between you, Pinnock, Ware, et.al. in an issue of JETS earlier this year. Ware tried to make the point that OV denies innerancy, and for the life of me, I tried to be as sympathetic to his view as I possibly could. It still doesn't make sense to me that they are trying to turn this into an innerancy issue.
The OV debate is a clear-cut hermeneutical issue; it has nothing to do with denying innerancy.
Payaso
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/5/2002 5:29 AM (GMT -6) | | I agree payso. It has nothing to do with inerrancy. But the whole debate DOES call into question the sola scriptura principle, at least on a psychological basis. I guess my question is like this: if these informed and intelligent people can be psychologically convinced that are "just believing the Bible" when they move to kick Sanders and Pinnock out -- when its so obvious to others that this is NOT what is REALLY going on -- then might we all be kidding ourselves in claiming we "just believe the Bible"?
I have had this same question in multitudes of debates. Women in ministry/ men as head of the household/ charismatic gifts/ inclusive-exclusive salvation, etc... Heck, take any or all the issues in the book Across the Spectrum. What drives one to assume a position here, it seems to me, are fundamental intuitions about the matters at hand. E.g. if someone proved to me that Scripture teaches that slavery is part of God's plan for all time... I would, I strongly suspect, find a way to deny it. Why? Because such view blatantly contradicts OTHER things I am certain about vis-a-vie God and humanity. And why do I range these beliefs in this fashion? Because of certain fundamental intuitions I have that latch onto one set of passages over another.
I do not see how you can resolve debates "objectively" when the people involved in them have fundamentally different intuitions.
In the ETS issue, those who move to kick Sanders and Pinnock out have strong fundamental driving intuitions about God and the future, and they therefore see the Open View as a God-denying, dangerous position. They THINK (so it seems) that their intuitions are clearly expressed in Scripture, and thus who deny their intuitions are denying Scripture. They think (so it seems) that they are simply practicing sola scriptura. But, as a matter of fact, it seems perfectly obvious to me that it is not scripture itself that is driving this issue. In my view, Scripture itself teaches that God can and does "change his mind."
Perhaps we can still hold to sola scriptura as a formal principle. But if so, it is certainly not one we act on very consistently. And I worry that it therefore degenerates into something that simply fosters self-deception.
Just thinking out loud.
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/5/2002 6:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc-
If you know the answer to this and can share it with us, I'd be interested in knowing how Craig and Clark felt about the Pinnock/Sanders vote. That's probably not for you to share unless they specifically said it did't matter to them who knew how they felt.
Tom
"It might take a year or two to begin to understand Calvinism. But you won't do so by reading books. It's a transformation of outlook." Al & Fred | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/5/2002 6:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc-
If you know the answer to this and can share it with us, I'd be interested in knowing how Craig and Clark felt about the Pinnock/Sanders vote. That's probably not for you to share unless they specifically said it did't matter to them who knew how they felt.
Plus, who believes in "Sola Scriptura" anyway? The more I think about it I honestly wonder whether anybody CAN base their faith ONLY (sola) on the Bible. Tradition is A source, experience is A source, reason is A source. The Bible towers over them all, OK, but it's not the ONLY authority. I'd guess those who want to kick Pinnock and Sanders out would agree. OK, so what is the "sola" in "Sola Scriptura" supposed to mean?
Tom
"It might take a year or two to begin to understand Calvinism. But you won't do so by reading books. It's a transformation of outlook." Al & Fred
Edited by - TGB on 12/05/2002 11:35:12 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/5/2002 7:48 AM (GMT -6) | | I think the open view is LESS of EXISTING intuition-based approach to Scripture; that we open theists find it rested that God does change His mind. Many of us have only come to terms with what really never settled biblcally in the first place. There was always something in the back of my mind that just didn't jive with God knowing everything exhaustively, because it was neither the way Scripture consistantly portrayed God, and it isn't the way human-human and God-human relationships work (at least not from a human perspective.) As are still other issues in my thinking and thelogy, as was the open view, they too will have to eventually be brought to the fore-front and worked out. Early on in the thought process, intuition accounts for getting our attention. But for those who have set aside (or overcome) their fears of God being thrown off his thrown in light of a redefinition of what is included in God's omniscience, intuition goes to the way side in favor of more peace in accepting Scripture for what it seems to be saying. This approach to Scripture is safer, because it doesn't have to rely on intuition. Not that intution is bad--as I say, it gets out attention--but it itself can be questionable and challenging. In the case of the open view, there is nothing of which intution has to CURRENTLY drive someone, and thus come into accountability because it's set to the side after it serves its purpose.
More than any other person I've heard and what little I've read of his work against the open view,, Bruce Ware is almost screaming with fear in his words, fear of something more than just "sola scriptura". It's as if he is way beyond this and anything else, for that matter, which might cause HE HIMSELF to have to consider the truth of open theism. He protests too much! I do not believe his is intuition, but fear and fear alone. It is one thing to defend something for the cause. It is quite another to defend it at the cost of anything else when that cost is neither warrented nor beneficial. And that, to me, is the sad part. It's sad when any of us has resorted to utilizing anything and everything outside the perameters required of the situation at hand. We end up only harming ourselves and others, not loving them.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 12/5/2002 8:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman: I totally agree with your take on Ware. There is such a fear urgency to his works, as if somehow God could be effected by false belief. From my view, I think it is beginning to dawn on many opponents of open theism that it is not simply going to go away just because they don't like it.
And if the recent book by Geisler/House is any indication, open theism has nothing to fear from the arugments against it.
On a personal note, sometimes I want to say, "why can't we all just get along." Apparently, many times, Jesus command that we love the brothers just falls by the side.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/5/2002 8:33 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 34 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:54 AM (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 |
|
|