Anthony Martin sent me a link about the Evangelical Theological Society adopting the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy — courtesy of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.
While I am glad to see this happen, I am concerned that it will not accomplish what needs to be accomplished, namely, the dismissal of Clark Pinnock and John Sanders from the ETS. According to the article, Pinnock and Sanders have both agreed to stand by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Apparently they feel that agreeing with the statement will in no way prevent them from continuing to espouse their positive view of Open Theism.
Please keep in mind that the discussion here is about the ETS and not the Church at large. Of course I consider Pinnock and Sanders brothers in Christ, however I find their idea of a reactive God repulsive.
Note: My opinions are not necessarily the same as Anthony Martin’s. He simply provided me with the link.
I think you and I agree about inerrancy. I believe little cute fluffy bunny rabbits hopped into the Ark two by two, all by their cute fluffy selves. What I don’t understand is why an organization feels like it’s necessary to kick people out over such beliefs. Shouldn’t we focus on more important things like the fact that Jesus is God, hell is hot, and forever is a long time?
As you say, the ETS is not the Church, so it’s not like they’re actually being excommunicated for not believing the bunny rabbit part.
Comment by — December 4, 2006 @ 11:21 am
Rather than get into why I believe Open Theism is not only wrong, but also dangerous I will go with a more simple line of reasoning.
The belief in the inerrancy of the Scripture was one of the founding principles of the ETS. Open Theism is not compatible with this view of Scripture.
Assume that you begin a society for Christians that believe beer is great. Later you discover you have several members who believe beer is not great, but wish to convince people that beer is actually bad. Now you are faced not only with the task of convincing other Christians that beer is good, but convincing other Christians that beer is good while at the same time arguing with members of your own group that disagree with your founding principle. Your society is no longer able to effectively fulfill its purposes.
Comment by — December 4, 2006 @ 11:45 am
Your “beer is/isn’t great” analogy is exactly what we Christians face every day, with regard to secondary issues. As long as these are secondary issues, I don’t see why a group needs to worry about internal disagreements, so long as tempers don’t flair or anything.
When we divide over these issues, Christians look foolish. Outsiders look at us and wonder how we can ever live in harmony with our enemies if we can’t live in harmony with ourselves over secondary issues.
I’d die on the hill of Jesus is God and the like, no matter what.
I’d die on the hill of inherency iff the alternative meant I had to personally accept Open Theism. Since no one is making me believe in Open Theism, I’m happy to let my Christian bothers who believe it be, as long as they’re willing to defend their belief. Then I get to grill them to my heart’s content (which happens to be so much fun). For instance, an Open Theist has to prove to me that Jesus is an Open Theist.
Or do you contend that allowing people with belief in [secondary issue X] to attend a “society” actually puts other people who believe in [opposite of secondary issue X] on a slippery slope towards a belief of [secondary issue X]?
How many secondary issues are dangerous like this? How exactly is it dangerous not to believe that little cute fluffy bunny rabbits hopped into the Ark two by two, all by their cute fluffy selves?
Many people simply don’t buy it. They think it’s an analogy or something. I ask how they can accept a God who creates the universe by his word and not the sense of God inspired self-preservation of a couple cute little bunnies. I see how it’s inconsistant, but I don’t understand how it’s dangerous.
Comment by — December 4, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
We are not talking about dividing the Church over the issue of Open Theism. We are talking about dividing the Evangelical Theological Society over Open Theism.
I’m happy to let my brothers believe what they will about Open Theism, and even to attend the same church with me. I’m not happy to allow them to be Open Theist and to be part of the ETS when they are in direct opposition to the purposes of the ETS.
Open Theism is a slippery slope, but I’m not sure that is the complaint here. The issue is as follows: The ETS is based (among other things) on a premise that the Bible is inerrant. Open Theism is not compatible with this view of Scripture. Those that do not agree with the views of the ETS should not be members of the ETS.]
How is it dangerous? Open Theism > Inclusivism > Moral Relativism.
Comment by — December 4, 2006 @ 2:04 pm