 |
| 
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 11/20/2003 8:37 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/20/2003 9:27 AM (GMT -6) | | That's good new. I thought, however, that a 3/4 vote was required to expelling a member. Doesn't matter. Sanders statys.
Very interesting!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 11/20/2003 9:34 AM (GMT -6) | | [quote]Originally posted by geebob
63% were in favor of chucking Sanders. they needed a 2/3 vote. So Sanders is still in by a margin of 3%
only about a third voted to expell pinnock.
Sanders indicated at a recent conference that things should tame down at least from on OT perspective if the vote was in his favor. I am skeptical but let's hope so.
To God alone be the glory
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 11/20/2003 11:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's the Christianity Today article:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/146/41.0.html
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/20/2003 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | | I can see where Geisler develops his methods...http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/146/42.0.html | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 11/20/2003 11:59 AM (GMT -6) | | | It was also nice to see it was handled with love and care... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 11/20/2003 1:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, Scott, for the article link. Glad Sanders wasn't ousted.
I have some brief comments on the way the author formulates OT. He says,
"Open Theism claims that God created human beings with complete free will, that in doing so he took on genuine risks, that because of human freedom the future is indeterminate, and that God cannot know the future precisely, but only with varying degrees of probability."
This is better than many definitions of OT that I have seen. It correctly affirms that, according to OT, God gave us free will, took on genuine risks in creating, and that the future is indeterminate. Nevertheless, it has some problems:
1) It is not clear what "complete" free will means. At any rate, OT need only claim that some creatures have libertarian free will in some circumstances some of the time. It does not require anything stronger.
2) OT holds that the future is partly indeterminate. The extent to which it is indeterminate is something open theists can disagree on. By leaving "indeterminate" unqualified, the author seems to suggest that OT is or may be committed to the complete indeterminacy of the future.
3) He says that God knows the future, not "precisely", but "only with varying degrees of probability". He seems to be equating a "precise" knowledge of the future with a knowledge that everything has a probability of either 1 or 0. At any rate, OTers like Doc would say that God does know the future precisely--if something definitely will come about tomorrow, then God knows that; if something now has a 65% chance of coming about tomorrow, then God knows that; and so on. It's not that God's knowledge of the future is imprecise, but rather that he doesn't know the future as a completely settled state of affairs. In OT, God knows the future as a branching tree of real possibilities. In other views, there is and always has (at least since the moment of creation) been only one real possibility.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/21/2003 3:56 AM (GMT -6) | | I could be way off on this, but…
I’m rather surprised that the Committee suggested Pinnock stay and Sanders go. My reason is I doubt that these two fundamentally differ from one another on the question of biblical prophecy and its fulfillment. I’ve read Pinnock’s “new” footnote as well as the Committee’s notes regarding their interview with Pinnock and Sanders and am not convinced that there’s a material difference between the two at all.
I’d VERY much like to hear Pinnock express any disagreement he would have with Sanders over the issue, or (on the other hand) Sanders express disagreement with the way Pinnock expressed himself in rewriting the problematic footnote in MMM. I doubt Sanders would have a problem with Pinnock’s new footnote, and I doubt Pinnock would have a problem with Sanders’ claim that a prophecy may in fact be conditional without the conditions being expressly recorded in Scripture.
I thought the minority view of the Committee's report on Sanders was interesting. Two voted that Sanders not be expelled because there exists no "official" definition of inerrancy upon which the ETS can act in expelling anyone. In fact, the minority report pointed out that if the majority of the Committee was correct in claiming that Sanders' view of prophecy is incompatible with that understanding of inerrancy held to by the framers of the ETS Constitution and held to today by the "majority" of ETS members (and no doubt the majority of the Committee is correct here), isn't this in fact an admission that there exists a "minority" (other than Sansers) of ETS members who do NOT hold to the framers' understanding of inerrancy and wouldn't it suggest that these are as elligible for dismissal from the Society as is Sanders? The minority report called for a committment to officially define inerrancy. Of course, this could end up in LOTS of people leaving the ETS if they don't agree with the new official version.
Good luck.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:28 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 |
|
|