Foreknowledge Debate Clouded by Political Agenda
Evangelical Theologians differ over excluding Open Theists.
David Neff | posted 11/01/2001 12:00AM
2 of 3
Lack of Resolve
Most ETS members disagree with Open Theism, but not everyone was enthusiastic about voting for the resolution. Outgoing ETS president Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary told Thursday's late-night discussion that the resolution was merely "a snapshot of the society," a way to get a clear reading of where the organization's members stood. In his presidential address, Bock argued that the organization's energies would be better spent on addressing the spiritual needs of a lost world rather than on internal wrangles. "Legislating such beliefs and debates might turn the ETS into one big legislature, and we know how effective legislatures are," Bock said.
However, former ETS president Wayne Grudem of Phoenix Seminary told Christianity Today the resolution was "a serious encouragement to Openness theists to change their minds—an encouragement that comes from the vast majority of their peers." If they fail to change their minds, he said, the resolution would be "a gentle nudge" toward their leaving the organization. Clark Pinnock said it was more like a fatwa from the evangelical mullahs.
Was the resolution actually a prelude to future disciplinary actions toward Openness theologians? At the Thursday night session, Nicole, visiting professor of theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, called Open Theism a cancer on the Evangelical Theological Society. He suggested that the cancer had not been resolved by chemotherapy and that the only alternative may be surgery.
William Lane Craig of Talbot School of Theology called the resolution "a transparent attempt to set the table to throw these folks out later." "This is not about their denying inerrancy," he said.
Alan Johnson of Wheaton College argued that the ETS is not an ecclesiastical organization but a scholarly research society where different ideas can be entertained. "If you vote no, it does not mean you disagree with the statement," he said. "It means you don't think it is the best thing for the Society."
Edwin Yamauchi of Miami University said, "If we exclude [Pinnock, Sanders, and Boyd], we will be a more orthodox society, but we will be a poorer society."
They'll Be Back
In the end, the Open Theists did not think the vote had excluded them. "There are people who wanted to run us out," Sanders told CT. "They were quite blunt with me. I think maybe they were surprised. I think they thought they had 90% and it turns out they don't."
Pinnock was surprised at the number of no votes. "I thought it would just be the three of us," he told CT. When asked what the vote meant for his future participation in the Society, Pinnock replied, "Nothing, because I don't think its decisive."
Grudem, however, did consider the vote decisive. "It is an overwhelming rejection of Open Theism," he said.
Hallway observers offered a variety of interpretations: the number that voted was small (360 out of a potential 1,000); the number that voted was large (400 in attendance at a Friday morning business meeting is astounding); the number who stayed away were "abstaining with their feet."
But nearly all agreed that the majority would have been much larger if it had not been for the suspicion that there was a "political agenda" behind the theological statement.
"It grieves me that it was clouded by political questions of procedure," said Bruce Ware. "It was not as strong a theological vote as I wished. All of the abstains would have been in the positive; many no's would have been yes's if it was just theological."
Grant Osborne of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School told CT he voted no even though he agreed entirely with the resolution's theology. "I do not agree that Openness people need to resign," he said. "We need to keep them in, but constantly try to bring them back. Theirs is a terrible view."
What does the future hold? Will it bring a formal procedure to exclude Open Theists from membership? Will it bring a revised and expanded doctrinal basis? Grudem favors revising the organization's doctrinal basis, but he believes the ETS should take the necessary time to achieve a result "to which a vast percentage of the members could agree."
RSS Feeds
Audio
Twitter
share this page
E-mail
Print
Post
Subscribe to Christianity Today magazine today!
