Just how inept is the Evangelical Theological Society anyway?

Double D

I read the article in the Baptist Press, I see nothing in there about Pinnock and Sanders being a reprobates - do you have anything at all substantial to back up your claim. Pinnock says he is an innerantist and an overwhelming majority or the ETC voted to keep him in. I just love your ability to pronounce the salvation of other people, I was not aware of your omniscience.

The follwoing is a quote from today's Baptist Press article:
______________________________________________
Bruce Ware, a theology professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., assisted the committee in its deliberations. He expressed mild surprise at the vote on Sanders but, like Nicole, said the matter was addressed in a positive manner.

"The process was eminently fair," Ware told Baptist Press. "Everyone on all sides can agree with that. The outcome was the decision of the ETS and it is different, in the case of Sanders, than what was recommended by the majority [of executive committee members] and supported by Dr. Nicole and myself.

"And yet we gladly accept the will of the ETS and do not begrudge this decision, though we believe it should have been otherwise in the case of John Sanders. I do believe the process has been healthy, that all people writing will be more circumspect in ways in which they talk about Scripture and its accuracy. In particular, open theists will be more careful and this will have an altogether beneficial effect. I honestly believe that in this the Lord was honored in the way it was conducted and for that I am grateful."
_________________________________________________

 

Roger Nicole, the man who brought the charges against Pinnock and Sanders, summed it up well. Pinnock retracted his statements so was exonerated, but Sanders escaped by the skin of his teeth. Hopefully, both men will seriously rethink their positions to avoid further damage to the cause of Christ. Roger Nicole and Bruce Ware should be applauded.

 

You might want to remember Romans 2:1,2 "Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.

Amazing how you would cast judgment upon God Himself by your words!

James 4:11,12, "Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?"

 

I have to respectfully disagree with the way the caricature is being painted. Just because there are liberals in the ETS does not make the ETS liberal, just as was the case with the SBC. Remember, a procedure was followed, and that procedure may in fact be flawed (which is what I believe). It does not indict the theology of the ETS so much as it indicts the methodology of discipline and membership.

 

Although I think you make a good point, Tom, I also think the ETS has had many years to deal with these issues. I just don't think there is the will to do it. This is why I did not continue my own membership in the ETS.

They are a part of why the term evangelical is becoming meaningless.

Just my two cents.

 

I actually enjoy reading about open theism. While I am in no way an open theist, Sanders and Pinnock are both strong Christians, and it seems strange that one would call them non-Christians. Have you even read his stuff? It's well-thought out, and he brings good points about the Greek basis of thought that is often impugned to God.

 

The problem is that a big enough majority of the ETS members did not feel that the ETS definition of inerrancy was clear enough to enforce an action against Sanders. Even more shocking is that they had founding members of the orginization standing before them explaining, "This is what we meant by inerrancy when we drafted our By-laws..." and then a large number of the general membership still indicated that they did not believe that the term "inerancy" could even be defined. Postmodernism at its finest!