Now I’m not sure who to believe. The ETS web site says nothing about withdrawal and says that the EC recommended postponement and proposed a special session to discuss the issue. You’re saying that they recommended withdrawal and no discussion.

It also says that the proponents of the amendment determined not to delay. But you’re saying that you were willing to hold it back for another year.

http://www.etsjets.org/?q=website_constitution_amendment_announcement

So which is it?

Both Ray and I favored more discussion. But we were asked by the EC to withdraw our proposal, not discuss it. If they had asked us to discuss, we might have held it back for another year.

Anyway, the discussion we had at this last meeting was a good one, I think. I am hoping that this is just the beginning of an effort to amend.

Thanks,
Denny

I can’t help but think that the Executive Committee was wise in their recommendation for more discussion.

What about my other question? I’m still trying to understand this.

It would seem to me that a current member who believed in the Trinity and Inerrancy but not sola fide, once they were forced to sign an abstract which contained sola fide, would be forced to effectively drop out of the Society (or sign in bad conscience). But you say only the Trinity and Inerrancy will call membership into question. I’m not sure I understand that part of your post.

Welcome back!

It’s been hard to figure out how to constructively comment on this ‘Successful Effort’ post. Have you considered any measure of circumspection and humility in this matter. Any consideration of the possibility that actually you lost and should rethink your agenda?

In the debate, several members indicated that they would not be able to sign the amended doctrinal basis. The amendment had some affirmations that were troubling to people: justification, imputation, and original sin. I think a more generic statement might have gotten more support. For many, this one was just too specific on some points.

Thanks,
Denny