tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14966686.post116473561525337805..comments2024-02-05T05:00:19.099-07:00Comments on Soylent Green . . .: On ETS and InerrancySharad Yadavhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14966686.post-17723033733094406522007-06-28T11:01:00.000-06:002007-06-28T11:01:00.000-06:00Great post!Whenever I hear people blast Open Theis...Great post!<BR/><BR/>Whenever I hear people blast Open Theism or Open Theist (not just saying they disagree with it but calling them heretics), I always wonder what exactly they've read from Open Theist. Most of the time it's just a book or article against Open Theism, or worse just a negative book review (sometimes not even that much). You can tell this when people start caricaturizing open theists' views, which anyone who's read them knows they don't believe. <BR/>Anyone interested in a good account of 1 particular strand of Open Theism should check out Greg Boyd's 2 books "God at War", and "Satan and the Problem of Evil".<BR/><BR/>I also appreciated when you said "For a good many open theists the issue comes down to differing understandings of genre and metaphor - they’re not saying that certain passages are erroneous; rather, they think that passages about God changing His mind mean what they say, and that it would be a violation of the text (!) to interpret them otherwise."<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>Bryan LBryan Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04144487212639973542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14966686.post-1165292822712411272006-12-04T21:27:00.000-07:002006-12-04T21:27:00.000-07:00J.D.,Gotcha. Just curious - thought maybe you were...J.D.,<BR/><BR/>Gotcha. Just curious - thought maybe you were holding back! Thanks for your comments!Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14966686.post-1165289680274158352006-12-04T20:34:00.000-07:002006-12-04T20:34:00.000-07:00I agree this way: equivocation makes inerrancy a m...I agree this way: equivocation makes inerrancy a moot point regarding using it to "throw the bums out", Chicago notwithstanding...<BR/><BR/>Also, as you implied, to do this would only mean that whoever is in power would use inerrancy as the tool of choice in removing their theological "foes"...<BR/><BR/>The "worms" are what they always are, opening up the discussion opens us up for attack by the "conservative" guard, as you well know...I am with you on this, Blue, I see waaaayyy too much of what I might call "Baskin Robbins 31 flavors of Bibliolatry" which is really nothing more than "my interpretation is better than yours", this is just another subtle form of it...<BR/><BR/>I believe in orthodoxy, creedal statements, and affirmations, and I don't believe in one man gangs and theological novelty to make up for our feelings being hurt by Paul or the other biblical writers, for sure, but I am not done studying, and I hope no one else is either...<BR/><BR/><I>For the record</I>, to me Open Theism is anathema...that being said, let's do things the right way, even if it is harder and more tiresome, otherwise it will backfire on us with another issue if we don't...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14966686.post-1165274738699628522006-12-04T16:25:00.000-07:002006-12-04T16:25:00.000-07:00So J.D., I'm somewhat puzzled by your comments - w...So J.D., I'm somewhat puzzled by your comments - why would you think this post is "opening a can of worms"? I assume that the ellipsis on your "agreed . . ." comment means you have more to say - what is it? Do you agree with the use of inerrancy to expel open theists, are you thinking I'm not giving inerrancy enough of a foundational role in my characterization of it, or what?<BR/><BR/>Let her fly, dude.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14966686.post-1165274466738119552006-12-04T16:21:00.000-07:002006-12-04T16:21:00.000-07:00If inerrancy and trinitarianism are the only requi...<I>If inerrancy and trinitarianism are the only requirements, either change the doctrinal standards to fit the society's vision or abide by the ones you've got without complaining and politicking.</I><BR/><BR/>Agreed...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14966686.post-1165257152352576022006-12-04T11:32:00.000-07:002006-12-04T11:32:00.000-07:00Thanks Centuri0n - it's really the sneakiness and ...Thanks Centuri0n - it's really the sneakiness and spinelessness of this kind of move that I'm objecting to. If inerrancy and trinitarianism are the only requirements, either change the doctrinal standards to fit the society's vision or abide by the ones you've got without complaining and politicking.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14966686.post-1165250599347840722006-12-04T09:43:00.000-07:002006-12-04T09:43:00.000-07:00Let me say first that I'm glad Raja isn't sure tha...Let me say first that I'm glad Raja isn't sure that Pinnock and Sanders belong in ETS. I wish he was a little more firm about this, but that's me: I'm for bold statements (especially about heresy) rather than a lot of nuance which might lead people to think that I'm in favor of thinking about God as a guy who has to stumble around even though his view on things of from eternity.<BR/><BR/>That said, let me agree with Raja about something: we ought to condemn what we <I>ought to condemn</I> and not build rube goldberg machines to find a sneaky way to condemn what we ought to condemn. If OT/OV is heresy, let's just say, "look: the Bible Teaches us that God <I>knows</I> the end from the beginning, so that if you deny this, you have denied something precious about prophecy and about the promises of Christ to return. That's enough to make you not an Evangelical, even if you demand that we must call you a Christian."<BR/><BR/>I also agree that trying to make a topic like this about the inerrancy of Scripture is not quite right.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14966686.post-1165076128383489202006-12-02T09:15:00.000-07:002006-12-02T09:15:00.000-07:00Thanks, Tim. My point isn't that the doctrine of ...Thanks, Tim. My point isn't that the doctrine of inerrancy doesn't affect hermeneutical considerations at all, just that it cannot act as judge for competing views. Inerrancy can guarantee the authority of what the Bible says, but it doesn't specify what the Bible says. Theological conclusions can't be ruled out on the basis of inerrancy unless the interpreter says, "passage X means Y, but I disagree". The problem, of course, is that while one can claim that passage x inerrantly means y, another can claim passage x inerrantly means z.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14966686.post-1165069744561175642006-12-02T07:29:00.000-07:002006-12-02T07:29:00.000-07:00Hey S, thanks for posting this, you have me thinki...Hey S, thanks for posting this, you have me thinking. :D I was processing this a bit typing it out, so here are some rattled idears.<BR/><BR/>Obviously some issues and areas of study are more important and extensive than other areas. Though I think damage is done in the oversimplification of issues.<BR/><BR/>I can see why the issue of innerancy can be up near the top, as a discussion on veracity, perception, and faith in regards to a Christian perception will have to deal with the Scriptures and their reliability. Such issues of veracity, perception, and faith can be primary to many later theological discussions, of course.<BR/><BR/>While I think you have a valid point that sneaking theology in the backdoor isn't a good practice, it seems to me (hermeneutics proper being the art and science of biblical interpretation), one's presuppositions about the biblical texts will indeed color the rendering of those texts, and as a result the study and understanding of those presuppositions is rather important. <BR/><BR/>I haven't read the chicago statement of biblical innerancy lately, so mayhaps there is something there that has some real pricklies as far as epistimology, perception, and propositions go. <BR/><BR/>Maybe I'm thinking more along the lines of instead of "inerrancy shouldn’t be given a position of hermeneutical arbitration," something like "inerrancy shouldn’t be given a position of ultimate hermeneutical arbitration," or "inerrancy shouldn’t be given a position of epistemological arbitration." <BR/><BR/>perhaps, with a result that statements with verifiable binary content are rendered in a standard propositional manner, whereas questions/commands that don't fit true/false criteria are understood in their communicative sense, but yet all can be rendered according to the principles culled through statements found in scripture about the nature of reality, God's word, etc.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14712582160440029836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14966686.post-1164748642174682622006-11-28T14:17:00.000-07:002006-11-28T14:17:00.000-07:00Notice that I'm NOT saying, though, that Sanders o...Notice that I'm NOT saying, though, that Sanders or Pinnock are right - or even whether they belong in the society. I'm not commenting on whether the society should or shouldn't draw tighter boundaries. I'm simply saying that making a chain of deductive inferences from inerrancy isn't the way to take on these kinds of positions, and it's a classic case of <A HREF="http://greensoylent.blogspot.com/2005/10/doctrinal-politics.html" REL="nofollow">doctrinal politics</A>.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14966686.post-1164741070126213482006-11-28T12:11:00.000-07:002006-11-28T12:11:00.000-07:00Can...open...worms...everywhere...Can...open...worms...everywhere...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com