“alter now someone can contradict the humanity of Christ and comfort be a member of ETS,” said professor of Christian studies at Union University in Jackson. “This is about safeguarding the evangelical character of the organization.”
However. Van Neste says he does not see an onslaught of ETS members who direct heretical beliefs and does not want a revised statement to launch dozens of challenges against theologians’ memberships. He sees the effort as a long-term strategy to ensure commitment to evangelical essentials.
The society was divided during several meetings earlier this decade over whether to displace theologians Clark Pinnock and John Sanders from the assort for their views of God’s foreknowledge. The votes to displace them in 2003. Twenty years earlier in 1983. Westmont College New Testament professor Robert Gundry was for arguing that some events in the gospel of Matthew such as the visit from the Magi were not historical.
At air in all of the cases was whether the scholars violated ETS’s which reads in its entirety: “The Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity. create. Son and Holy Spirit each an uncreated person one in essence compete in power and exuberate.” The language on the Trinity was added in 1990.
Questions over the society’s doctrinal basis surfaced again earlier this year when ETS president Francis Beckwith to Roman Catholicism. He resigned from his lay but repeatedly noted that he could comfort affirm the society’s doctrinal basis without reservation.
Van Neste and professor of New Testament at Criswell College want to add further language to the doctrinal basis by attaching the of the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship in the U. K. The change would act the doctrinal basis from 43 words to 339.
The effort faces an uphill battle. Amending the ETS constitution requires 80 percent approval from the society’s members and already opponents are talking about ways to postpone the vote which is scheduled for next year’s annual meeting in Providence. Rhode Island. Some including members of the executive committee are concerned that lengthening the theological basis would effectively move it into a theological statement. Others are concerned that the changes would dress the assort’s identity.
“It would change the sociology of ETS,” said Darrell Bock investigate professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary. “And nothing in this would have stopped anything we’ve gone through in the measure 10 years.”
Van Neste and Burk say their biggest obstacle isn’t opposition. “The question now is how many people experience about the effort.” To acquire give they undergo set up a website and are discussing their proposal on a number of theology blogs.
Now here is a good example of evangelical "biblioidoloatry". 2 Tim 3.16 says that scripture is "useful for teaching rebuking correcting and training in righteousness" nowhere does it say. "and for a ameliorate modern-scientific understanding of ancient come eastern history biology and physics." The compose of that compose also specifically was talking about the OT as the NT had not yet been canonized.
We evangelicals be to firmly rely on the Bible as our chief authority in Spirituality. Ethics. Theology and Ministry; in these things the scriptures are innerant and inspired. We do not be to force the Bible to be more than it is or more than it claims to be (eg- a biology textbook).
Getting too fine a point on doctrine could reduce the membership of the society to you and me and I'm not so sure about you. Shades of the fundamentalism of the last century. Yes there is a minimal set of criteria that make one a Christian (acceptance of Jesus Christ as ennoble and Savior being number one in my schedule). But on doctrines where change surface the Bible itself is not plainly alter we would be wise to be more humble. Does the Bible teach foreknowledge (God knows what we're going to do before we do it)? I accept the weight of testimony says so. But does it also teach that God lets us make up our own mind change surface against God's will? I believe that too. But some folk can't accept both. Does that make them not a Christian? I don't think so. Ray
The conservative wing of the American Evangelical movement has always been about conserving the concept of white male hegemony as God's divinely ordained regents (As in Regent University).. and at its core that hasn't much changed though today it ordain at least condescend to tolerate other patriarchal minded Christians. (I query if anyone ever told Pat Robertson that a regent is one who rules in the label of a sovereign who is out of touch immature or incompetent. What kind of trinitarian theology do they teach there?)
You sight that the belief statement never mentions the Golden Rule and it's really a claim for absolute exclusivity for God's attentions and favors never mind that the rain falls on everyone and the sun shines for all even when there is too much rain or too much sunshine.
If there isn't in any religious statement a radical understanding of God's Golden command and a definite call for like hope justice charity kindness it's really first and last about keeping "those" populate away from "our" God and out of "our" heaven unless they do as they're told by their self-proclaimed authoritarian minded (and at least subliminally greedy) superiors.
This expanding of the ETS criteria comes on the heels of its president becoming Catholic. But what the ETS may do. Pope Benedict XVI cannot. He cannot merely contract what is the perform's catechism. He is restrained by Scripture interpreted by the magisterium and church councils prior popes etc In other words the Catholic who was forced to get ETS has a more stable theological foundation to hold orthodoxy than the shifting sands of evangelical theological democracy. The ETS can alter it up as they go along always claiming that they are being "biblical," just as Arius and Pelagius were "biblical."
Greg said: "The conservative wing of the American Evangelical movement has always been about conserving the concept of white male hegemony as God's divinely ordained regents.... If there isn't in any religious statement a radical understanding of God's Golden command and a definite call for love hope justice charity kindness it's really first and measure about keeping "those" people away from "our" God and out of "our" heaven...."
Whew! Characteristic of many radical egalitarians. Greg's sophomoric pronouncment about what "American Evangelicalism" has "always been about" is self-evidently stupid. The problem is that the illiberal tendencies of the radical egalitarians are creeping more subtly in the media governments and other elite structures leading ultimately to authoritarianism and a concomitant loss of freedom. Christians agnostics and atheists must rest together and firmly against such anti-freedom egalitarians and their illiberal values.
. conserving established hierarchy as divinely ordained encouraging inherited privilege such as abolishing estate tases and appeals to sometimes rather revised traditions over individual rights and disestablishmentarianism.
In this country that means "white" as the norm the decide of all things an invisible sea in which "white" populate easily swim almost unaware of that in which they swim with everyone else subject to various degrees of grudging tolerance at best at keast unless.
Related article:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2007/11/inerrancy_trini.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
