Comments on: Help Us Amend the ETS

By: Don Lowe

Don Lowe — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:11:28 +0000

I’m still waiting on an answer to my questions. They’re honest questions. I’m not here to provoke. I’m actually one of those Evangelical Reformed Augustinian Anti-New Perspective Baptists.

The reason I ask is that I think the proposers of the amendment should be as forthcoming as possible. There are NPP/Federal Vision proponents in ETS membership, and if this statement will exclude them, it should be stated up-front.

I think that the doctrinal basis ought to be revised, but I think it ought to be incremental and on things more central.

For example, defining the Bible as those particular 66 books as the supreme authority over all traditions is a good place to start. The need to be born-again is also essential. I think these things should and could be amended without any controversy.

By: Russ Ware

Russ Ware — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:50:04 +0000

“Maybe you should just start the ERAANPSBTS (Evangelical Reformed Augustinian Anti-New Perspective Southern Baptist Theological Society) Denny, because it seems that’s what you’re trying to make this.”

Amen.

This is exactly the sense I have gotten from this all along.

Denny’s ‘flavor’ of Christianity is a subset, and a small one at that. Small in terms of numbers and in terms of its historical underpinnings. And I do not begrudge him that. I think he’s just missing out on a great deal of the richness and fullness of our faith (old and new).

Fortunately, I expect cooler and wiser heads will prevail and this amendment will not pass.

By: John Holmberg

John Holmberg — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:34:25 +0000

This “amendment” is just silly. You’re narrowing the definition basically to reformed/semi-reformed Augustinians. I don’t care where you got the doctrinal statement from, it’s far too narrow. Maybe you should just start the ERAANPSBTS (Evangelical Reformed Augustinian Anti-New Perspective Southern Baptist Theological Society) Denny, because it seems that’s what you’re trying to make this. It would be tragic if it passes (which I think there’s absolutely no way it will), and would bring the scholarship level of ETS down to the level of scholarship at SBTS. I think most of the members will probably just laugh at it and it will prove to be a waste of time. It’s the epitome of pride to try and making everything conform to your own beliefs, practices, and convictions (e.g. politics, evangelicalism, ecclesiology, etc). The beautiful thing about Christianity is that we can have unity amidst our diversity, and the current ETS fosters this.

By: Russ Ware

Russ Ware — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:52:16 +0000

Yep… it was a mistake… mine.

The comment I thought had been deleted was on the other thread.

I forgot we had two going on this subject.

My apologies.

By: Russ Ware

Russ Ware — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:45:29 +0000

Denny,

You moderated me for my last comment. Seriously?

I am sincerely wondering if it was a mistake since I’ve seen much stronger things written in comments on your blog.

By: Mason Beecroft

Mason Beecroft — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:06:48 +0000

There really are people who think it is me and Jesus, nothing else. Wow! Tillich did get one thing right (evangelicals leap over 2,000 years back into ‘Bibleland’).

Anyway, as an evangelical catholic (aka Lutheran), I would like the opportunity to join ETS someday. Really. Perhaps when I recover my love of the genitive. For now, I will rest secure in my man-made rituals, secret societies and works righteousness, completely ignorant of Holy Scripture and Christ. I guess I just can’t think “consistantly” (sic).

BTW, where are those Jesus’ tools? Is this a carpenter reference?

+Mason

By: Don Lowe

Don Lowe — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:20:00 +0000

I had a couple questions regarding the amendment.

1) Is #6 intended to exclude “evangelicals” who deny penal substitution?

3) Is #7 intended to exclude the New Perspective of Paul and Federal Vision?

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:34:54 +0000

Why is it necessary to seek a more narrow definition? I’ve been involved in the ETS and have yet to see a tremendous need to tighten things up. If you stay the course with the current definition, i.e. inerrancy & a trinitarian confession, I think you’re quite successful in keeping the group restricted to an evangelical audience. If you go much further than this, I fear you make it a group of “evangelicals” rather than an evangelical society. The broad sense contributes far more to the advancement of scholarship that the narrow sense ever can.

By: Don Johnson

Don Johnson — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:36:50 +0000

My preferred way to designate myself is simply believer, as that is a good NT word. I know most Messianic Jews do not want to be called Christian, but they would agree they are believers.

What Denny is doing is asking ETS to define what it is and what it is not and more than it does today.

By: John Holmberg

John Holmberg — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:02:04 +0000

I don’t see the “Baptist” on the website, where are you getting that from? In any case, can’t we all agree that denominations are not nor were they ever Christ’s ideal? They are primarily a post-reformation construction that is the result of disunity, a trait no Christian is supposed to possess towards other Christians? Don’t we all agree there, regardless if we belong to a “denomination” or not?