July 1, 2003
Apologia Pro Vita Sua
Clark Pinnock replies to Roger
Nicole's charge that he has violated the doctrinal basis of the Evangelical
Theological Society (ETS) in his book, Most Moved Mover (Baker Academic, 2001)
and has thereby merited expulsion from the Society.
Introduction
In a resolution on November 21,
2002, the ETS commended Roger Nicole, a charter member of the Society, for
seeking clarity on the status of members holding to what is called "open
theism." Many in the Society have felt for some time that this was an
issue needing to be resolved and members voted for the motion to expel to go
forward to the executive committee. In voting thus, the membership was not
actually committing itself to expulsion but to having the issue resolved, one
way or the other. Thus the motion to expel became an item of business for the
following year.
On a personal level, of course, it was not a happy day for me, as one of those
indicted and whose integrity was called into question. I have been a member of
the ETS for thirty five years and now, doubt is cast on the soundness of my
work and (by implication) on my sincerity in signing the doctrinal statement.
His action also had the quality of a personal vendetta - in that he was heard
to say that either I (Clark) am expelled or he (Roger) himself will leave the
Society. The tenor of his campaign to oust me obviously is hurtful and
alienating. I have the impression, rightly or wrongly, that Roger will do
practically anything to have me ejected from the ETS by fair means or by foul.
I get the impression that Roger does not wish to engage the truth with me but
to win out over me whatever the cost. The whole incident illustrates what
Darrell Bock says: "My sense is that we do not engage each other very well
when people feel that the stakes concerning the truth are high.(1)
Earlier in my life I heard the
call of God to defend and to secure the truth. Later the call came to go and do
better work in its defence. I know that some who appreciated my earlier work do
not now appreciate the later work. But I submit that they are both important
vocations.
My place in the ETS
Attending the annual meetings of
the Society has been a highlight of my life since 1965. It has been a good
place to meet other Bible-believing scholars and to share insights in an
atmosphere of respect. It has been an open society, relatively speaking. Given
our diversity, trust has had to be an important factor. We have had to honour
one another even in our differences and we have done so reasonably well by
observing what Wayne Grudem calls "the honour system."(2) In my thirty five years in the ETS,
moves to expel members have been rare because the Society has a generous (may I
say "liberal") basis of membership, requiring only adherence to
biblical inerrancy and the doctrine of the trinity. It gives liberty to members
to speak freely, to investigate matters, and to grow as interpreters of the
word of God. The authority of the Bible is assumed of course (we all sign the
doctrinal statement each year) and we test one another's interpretations. We
have benefited from this.
In the wisdom of the charter
members, the ETS developed no statement of faith unlike comparable groups. They
were confident in the Bible and believed that its truth would win out in a fair
and open discussion. It was communicated that one does not need to read
Scripture through the eyes of a confession of faith but can approach the Bible
with fresh eyes as if for the first time. Of course, if the founders thought
that commitment to the Bible would result in a set of uniform interpretive
conclusions, they were naive and overly optimistic. For better or worse, they
gave us a society which allows liberality in matters of interpretation. I have
always valued the "openness" of the ETS and its confidence in the
power of God's truth to prevail in the market place of ideas without resorting
to power politics. But now this is being tested. Do I detect a whiff of
despair? Are we going back on our conviction?
Resorting to expulsion on a
matter of interpretation now could be a step backward. It could do harm to the
Society, continuing a trend since the Gundry affair to narrow the
representation of evangelicalism in the ETS. I don't think that we want an
Evangelical Theological Society but the Evangelical Theological Society, if at
all possible. So why are we driving scholars away too who (like me) want to be
creative in their conservatism? We may be opening the door of membership wider
to custodians of tradition than to our visionaries, thus reducing opportunities
for dialogue. Good discussion in the ETS requires that evangelicals with
different ideas feel welcome and safe from such punitive measures.
We need to ask where this will
stop and who will be next? Will it be the biblical feminists like Nicole
himself? (People in glass houses should not throw stones.) After all, the
Southern Baptist Convention has already ruled them out, so it's bound to come
up at a future ETS business meeting now that the precedent is set.(3) In part, this is a struggle for the soul of the ETS
- will it be the open society as founded by the earlier Roger or will it close
in on itself at the hands of a later Roger? It seems like the ETS of 1949 was
confidant in open discussion but the ETS of 2003 is fearful.
I have been a member in good
standing of the ETS for many years and I have played by the rules. Like Roger,
I have signed the doctrinal statement and have been part of the discussion. One
may judge some of my opinions to be faulty but one has to admit that I have
played fair. I have done what was asked - I have sought to understand the
authoritative Scriptures as best I can. The ETS is an open society and I have
been a member of it in good standing. This action against me is uncalled for.
It hurts the Society too and should not (I think) be happening.(4)
I have to admit being surprised and dismayed by the controversy surrounding
open theism in the ETS. I have had difficulty understanding the intensity of
the furor and the over-the-top criticisms. When I see extreme titles like
"God Under Fire" and "Beyond the Bounds" and "Battle
for God" and "God's Lesser Glory" and "No Other God"
and "No Place for Sovereignty" and "Creating God in the Image of
Man" etc. And when I hear open theism called "a cancer", "a
pernicious error," "a heresy," "a crisis of unprecedented
magnitude," etc. And when I learn that open theism is "replacing
historic Christianity," "denying the gospel of Christ,"
"needing to be ruled out of order," etc, I have to ask myself what is
going on here? How could so many of my colleagues in the ETS, ordinarily calm
and sensible people, be such extremists? I must have done something terrible
but I cannot for the life of me figure out what it was. So often these very
people will acknowledge the important things we are saying and then condemn us
as if it were not so.
What has to be done (I suppose), if I am to be expelled, is that the ETS will
need to draw a new boundary, as Grudem has argued. If open theism cannot be
excluded because the Society has no relevant doctrinal standard, one such must
be added. Then the open theists can be legitimately ejected. This having not
yet been done means that as of now my standing in the fellowship ought to be
secure.(5)
A problem admittedly
difficult to handle
What do we do though when
members espouse biblical inerrancy but draw non-traditional inferences from
these texts? What if (for example) a Mormon signed on espousing a social
trinity in the context of a polytheistic world view? I think that there would
be a motion to prevent it and I would support it. Thus I do not oppose Roger's
motion in principle. Maybe open theism is beyond the bounds - one cannot rule
that out a priori. We just have to proceed carefully case by case in a society
which enjoys a lot of diversity.
In the case of open theism, we
have a difference of opinion and a different theological hermeneutic. Roger
sees it almost as a cult and "a cancer" (his words), while I see it
like another Roger does, Roger E. Olson, as a neo-Arminian model and a variant
of free will theism.(6) Our differences pertain, not to inerrancy
at all, but to beliefs concerning the doctrine of God. For Roger Nicole, the
open model is "beyond the bounds." He writes: "In my judgment,
open theism with its denial of God's advance knowledge of future decisions of
free moral agents, is a cancer on evangelicalism. Since radiation and
chemotherapy have not worked so far, the time has come for surgery."(7) Elsewhere, he tags me with the Socinian
label, a low tactic of guilt by association, just as former Calvinists did to
Arminius, centuries ago.
Although I respect Roger's right
to hold it, I submit that this is a mistaken judgment on his part. In respect
to the term Socinian, he knows that I am a social trinitarian and not a unitarian.
Nevertheless, he introduces the term anyway in order to poison the air and
arouse
people against me. It is the tactic of guilt by association. He also commits a
genetic fallacy, as if Socinians are incapable of getting anything right. More
importantly, the point of doctrine that concerns him most (that is, the nature
of the knowability of the future in the light of libertarian freedom) belongs
to the Wesleyan tradition and discussion.(8) Is he aware of the work of Jack Cottrell
in the ETS who works with an understanding somewhat similar to ours which is
dubbed "incremental foreknowledge?"(9)
The fact is that, like it or not,
there is a debate over divine foreknowledge going on among evangelicals today
and ejecting me from the ETS is not going to change that. It might even
backfire and create sympathy for my views. People are asking, "Does God
know everything that will come to pass?" or "Does God know all that
shall be as well as what may be?" This is a good debate for us to be
having. Apart from a few Molinists and Methodists, it has not received
sufficient attention. There is a desire out there for a better view of the matter
among large numbers who are not able to accept Roger's view that God knows the
future exhaustively because he predestined it completely. I rather think that
some of the animus against me here arises from a fear that this is so. There
are some good reasons, as William C. Davis puts it, and not only bad reasons,
"why open theism is flourishing now."(10)
Roger is not fair to me, but, if
one were fair, the truth is that open theism is Arminian in direction and holds
to only one distinctive tenet (its view of a partly open future, with
implications for divine omniscience). At the ETS, we discuss things exactly
like this. People study every nuance of the divine perfections and papers are
read on such topics as the nature of immutability, impassability, sovereignty,
etc, and members come down on different sides. How is it "out of
order" to want to discuss divine omniscience and to take positions on it?
Bruce Ware and John Feinberg have both admitted that open theism offers the
most coherent version of free will theism they have seen and both agree that it
is a logical (and we think, a biblical) extension of it.(11) So why, in a society dedicated to open
discussion around the Scriptures, are we resorting to expulsion, a political
move? My "offense" does not rise to this level does it? It was one
thing to have shown by a vote at the Society in 2001 that the majority of
members do not approve of open theism. It is another thing, and a much graver
thing, to vote in 2003 to expel the holders of the minority viewpoint. Why is
our presence so threatening? I don't see us making a lot of converts. Besides,
that is not what we are there for.
We are not going to settle the
question of theological boundaries in a coalition as diverse as evangelicalism
in the ETS, though some may wish it. But we can be fair to one another and we
can put the emphasis on central convictions and core values. We know basically
who the "evangelicals" are. There's a family resemblance among us. We
are a Christ-centred, Bible-centred, and mission-oriented folk. Like me for
example (I speak as a fool) - am I not respectful of the Bible, am I not passionate
about Jesus Christ, and am I not a witness to his resurrection? What is the
ETS? Is it a confessional organisation, charged with policing the membership,
or an inclusive meeting place for all evangelicals for their mutual benefit?
From this kind of society you do not expel people if you don't have to.(12)
In contrast to Roger's way of
doing it, mine is a mediating kind of theology which entertains differences and
attempts to bridge unnecessary gulfs between perspectives such as these. Open
theism is not "a cancer" (I submit) - it is a stimulus to our growing
as hearers of the Word. If Roger does not want to grow as a hearer, that is his
decision, but we must not let him impose an ideological clamp upon everybody
else.(13)
As I said, there may be a time
and a topic for a motion like this but this is not the time or the topic. Calm
reflection should lead us to permit open theism as a topic of discussion and
even an option for members, an issue not (yet) ruled out of the question. Let
me add that I understand why Roger thinks it is out of order. Augustine held
the opinion that a Being who was not completely prescient is just not God. It is
a deep and old conviction even, if not well thought out. On this matter I would
expect to be one of a small minority holding to it.
Roger's indirect case for
expulsion
What we are seeing here is a
struggle over the interpretation of the biblical doctrine of God - a truly
worthy subject and a great tussle. Unfortunately, one party to the debate is
trying to disqualify the other party by making it into an issue of biblical
inerrancy and kick them out of the ETS. This is awkward (however) because of
the way the Society was set up, in part (ironically) by Roger himself. An
interpretation cannot be the basis for expulsion according to the rules.
Indeed, we welcome fresh interpretations and the light they may possibly shed.
Any such charge then would have to be framed circuitously such that it involves
biblical inerrancy somehow. Roger has to show that I, as an open theist,
violated biblical inerrancy in the course of my work. It puts him in an awkward
position. His charge is weak in being indirect but it's the only way it can be
done. It's even a little deceitful but what choice is there? When you get right
down to it, I don't think it is a question of the interpretation of individual
biblical verses and who has gotten it right. I think it's something larger - namely,
the possible implications of reading them in one way rather than another.
Antipathy toward my doctrine of God itself, which is Roger's real beef, is an
important subject but sadly for him, it cannot as things stand be the grounds
for expulsion from ETS.(14)
Let me begin by saying something
about biblical inerrancy. Like every member, I sign the doctrinal basis of the
Society. Since the category "inerrancy" is not defined and its meaning
is not spelled out, it signifies pretty much what a member thinks of it. (The
ETS allows remarkable interpretive liberty even here!) But, in case anyone
wonders, to me, inerrancy means that the Bible, in the original autographs and
when properly interpreted, is truthful in all it affirms. The locus of
inerrancy is the author's original intention which means we must observe genres
of the literature and the culture within which the author is working, etc.(15) The reason for invoking inerrancy is
that it commits us to listening for the word of the Lord even if it is
inconvenient. One is not supposed to invoke it as a cover for one's own
presuppositions, as if inerrancy entails five point Calvinism or
hierarchicalism or such like when it does no such thing.
1. Among his charges, Roger
detects "an attack" on biblical inspiration in my work. Following
Wellum, he reasons that, in the absence of compatibilistic freedom, an Arminian
like me could not as easily explain the existence of an inerrant Bible as a
theological determinist like him could.(16) The point is valid. Determinism (total
control) can get any result very easily. For example, a determinist like Roger
can explain the inerrancy of the New York Times, if he wants to, since there
are no significant human agents to stand in the way. It's true that God in the
open view has to be more resourceful than the Calvinist (or Muslim) God. But,
as John Frame observes: "If open theists believe in an authoritative,
inspired Bible, that belief would seem to be a happy inconsistency within their
overall system."(17) I accept that. So it's not impossible
for God to produce an inerrant Bible in this way, just harder. In any case, my
trust is in the text, not in a theory about how God inspired it. Roger also
seems to be forgetting that his charge applies equally to any member of the ETS
who holds to libertarian freedom, not just to open theists. It sounds like all
Arminians will have to go eventually if his argument holds and we will surely
lose some of our best members (Bill Craig, Francis Beckwith, J. P. Moreland,
etc)
2. For some reason, not at first
obvious, Roger is concerned about my interpretation of texts of divine
repentance. My "offense" apparently is that I take them at face
value, while he does not. I wonder why Roger puts himself on such dangerous
ground, because these texts seem to prove me right by indicating that God
changes his mind when dealing with people. Open theists are comfortable with
these texts, while Roger is vulnerable. We take the texts seriously, while he
wants to be rid of them. I can't blame him for that but where is his belief in
inerrancy now?
These verses are very difficult for his total control system of interpretation:
"The Lord was sorry that he made humankind on the earth and it grieved him
to his heart." (Gen 6:6) "The Lord changed his mind about the
disaster that he planned to bring on his people." (Exodus 32:14) "The
Lord was sorry that he had made Saul king over Israel." (1 Sam 15:35)
Regarding Saul, it seems clear that God repents having made him king. He had
originally planned to work through Saul but changed his mind. "When God
saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind
about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them and he did not do
it." (Jonah 3:10) In Jonah's case, the prophet announces the destruction
of Ninevah in categorical terms. But their repentance made the difference. It
activated God's mercy which was precisely what Jonah worried would happen.
Concerning Hezekiah, the prophet announced his soon coming death (2 Kings 20:1)
but the king prayed in the hope that God would change his mind. Which is what
happened, because of his prayer (20:5). Evidently God changes and adapts. As
Jeremiah says, clay which is spoiled on the potter's wheel can always be
reworked (Jer 18:4). Evidently God responds to what is happening in history and
is open to changing course, as he relates to people. Is Roger closed to the
truth of these Scriptures? Does he worry that they (and their Author) mislead
us?
Ironically, Roger charges me
with violating inerrancy, when it is more natural to ask whether he believes
the Scriptures. Does he believe that God is affected by creatures and sometimes
surprised by what they do? (e.g. Gen 6:6) Does he believe that God tests people
to discover what they will do? (eg Gen 22:12) Does he believe that God changes
his mind and alters his plans as he relates to his creatures? (1 Sam 2:30) The
meaning of such texts has been debated for centuries and I know what trouble
they cause interpreters like him. He worries that, if he were to repent, it
might not be possible to trust God. But, Roger, God is faithful to his plan,
even when he alters it, as when he offers to start afresh with Moses and give
up on the Israelites. God's faithfulness to his promises is flexible not rigid.
I want people to see the biblical truth and not resist it. The texts which he
appeals to, in order to unseat me, do more damage to him than to me. The tables
have turned on him.
What is the point Roger hopes to
make? It is not easy to detect. He appears to think that for some reason our
interpretation of these verses which seems so plausible "cannot (in his
words) be anything but false." Why is that? Because it depicts God making
"false" statements. My reply is, "No it does not." God is
free to say what he will do under plan A and then what he will do under plan B,
should it arise. Roger is bringing alien assumptions to these texts. He is
forcing them to pass though the sieve of his system. My interpretation is a
sincere and plausible response to the texts and not (as he would charge) a
violation of them.
One can see the bias in Roger's
saying that (contrary to Genesis 18) "it is preposterous to imagine that
God's administration of justice in the case of Sodom was dependent on the
number of righteous people in the city." Yet this is exactly what the text
says, or seems to say. Who is violating inerrancy here? He seems to be telling
us not to trust Genesis because he knows better. The Bible tells us that God
tested Abraham to see what he would do, but (lo and behold) according to Roger,
God did not need to do this because he knew that already. Whereas Exodus says
that God changed his mind in response to Moses' prayers, Roger says "no!
We cannot believe that (for other extra textual reasons). In the very texts
intended to show my unfaithfulness to Scripture, Roger exposes the unbiblical
character of his own thought. What irony!
In a strange section of his
report, Roger makes fun of taking Scripture seriously and resorts to ridicule.
He lists the terrible things that have happened on account of the God's taking
the risk of giving creatures significant freedom. Tragedies have arisen from
man's refusal to respond to God's call: the fall into sin, murder in the second
generation, evil in the time of Noah, confusing the tongues at Babel, etc.
Roger goes on to ridicule the God of open theism who is pained by all these
things. "What a poor record this risk taking God has," Roger sneers.
Then he says: "I would sooner say this was God's plan from the
start." Rather than recognising the tragic character of history, Roger
says he would rather believe that God ordained every tragedy to his glory, in
spite of the way the Bible views these things. In place of the bumbler God of
open theism (as he sees it), he would rather have a monster God.
Such mysteries deserve (do they
not?) greater humility and respect of the other. I wish that Roger would see
that we are both struggling to handle challenging biblical material and that
neither of us is "violating" biblical inerrancy. Both of us are seeking
to understand biblical texts. The main difference is that Roger, though he has
no reason to be, is much more dogmatic than I am about being right, even to the
point of expelling me on the strength of it, whereas I do not rule his
interpretations out altogether as possible. His views have a history, they have
a certain logic. I do not rule them out but he does rule mine out. The fact is
that I hold no views in my open theism which are knowingly incompatible with
biblical inerrancy. Roger thinks that I do, but that is only his opinion. It is
no better or worse than my opinion that his Calvinism denies text after text
and no more relevant to his or to my membership.
3. Roger hopes that predictive
prophetic passages of Scripture and how I handle them will prove to be my
downfall. As a theological determinist, Roger has an easy time of it. He can
wield the assumption of divine exhaustive definite foreknowledge, based on the
further assumption of an all-controlling divine sovereignty, in his
interpretation of such predictions. Roger's deity needs to fore-know nothing -
he only has to consult his pre-temporal decree. For my part, I cannot interpret
the Bible's predictive prophecies in this way because I do not find the Bible
teaching either of his assumptions - either that divine sovereignty is
meticulous or that divine foreknowledge is exhaustive and definite.(18)
But that does not mean that I,
as a free will theist, have no exegetical options. The situation is far from
(what Roger calls it) "catastrophic." Predictions can be understood
in several ways. They may be statements of what God intends to do,
unconditionally. They may be conditional declarations of what God will (or will
not do) depending on the circumstances. They may be inferences based on God's
knowledge of the past and present. Such principles as these allow me to
interpret biblical predictions without denying that aspects of the future
remain indefinite. I am not saying it is always easy determining how to handle
a text, only that we do our best.
In a section dealing with these matters, Roger calls attention to a page in
Most Moved Mover where I say that prophecies sometimes go
"unfulfilled." God is free in the matter of fulfilment. We should not
make predictions more precise than they are. I quote myself in my defence:
"God is free in the manner of fulfilling prophecy and is not bound to a
script, even his own. The world is a project and God works on it creatively; he
is free to strike out in new directions. We cannot pin the free God down."(19)
Roger mentions a prediction in
Daniel chapter 11, which he thinks is so detailed in his forecasting that it
presupposes God's possession of exhaustive definite foreknowledge. I suppose he
is saying that an open theist cannot revere this oracle because his
presuppositions prevent it. So I must be violating the doctrinal statement of
the ETS in this case (this is typical of his line of arguments - anything will
do!) First, I do respect the inerrancy of Daniel chapter 11, whether he thinks
I can or not. Second, the problem is reduced if one assumes a late date for the
book (like my professor, F. F. Bruce did and most scholars do). In that case,
the events forecasted are much nearer at hand. Though presented as if given in
the distant future, many scholars agree that the writer is using an accepted
literary form which would have deceived no one. The temporal standpoint of the
writer is revealed by the increasing detail in the account from vv 21-35. If
the passage were composed nearer to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, around 165
BC, then the prediction is not as remarkable, as Roger (and Ware) are
suggesting. It may even beg the question. Roger dates the book early in order
to find "evidence" for a detailed prediction to use against me, while
I date it late to avoid it. In any event, this uncertainty regarding the date
undercuts any confident appeal to it in this context.
This operation is an attempt to
pass off what is a hermeneutical difference as if it were a violation of
biblical inerrancy. It is a category mistake and Roger's effort to make it
stick is weak at best. His arguments are mostly indirect, contrived, and
unnatural. If this were an ETS paper, it would embarrass the Society and, as
the basis of a charge, it will not do. Both Roger and I believe that we have
compelling biblical interpretations but we both have to negotiate the proof
texts put forward by the other. This is because the Bible (from the Greek
"books") presents diverse perspectives and does not readily line up
on one side. This means (I think) that God is inviting us to think things
through as his grown up sons and daughters. It is not, as it can be in the
fundamentalist mindset, that there is only one way to look at issues like
these. It is more like what Paul says: "Think over what I say and the Lord
will give you understanding in all things."(20)
Conclusion
Expulsion is one thing, but an
unfair expulsion is another. I detect unfairness in Roger's pretense that this
is an issue of biblical inerrancy, when it is an issue of biblical
interpretation. I object to his exaggerating the threat which the open view is
supposed to pose to evangelical thought, as if it were a heretical novelty,
when it is in fact, a legitimate variant of Wesleyan thought. I take exception
to his allegations that my interpretations are illegitimate, when they are
every bit as good as his own and maybe better. It will be a sad day if I am
expelled from the ETS on these charges. I am on trial here, but in a way, so is
the ETS itself. I hope that we may yet step back from the brink to which
Roger's motion has taken us. The easiest way to step back would be for Roger to
withdraw his unconsidered motion. He has placed the Society in a no-win
situation. If I am ejected, some members will bolt and if I am not ejected
others will bolt. The blame lies on Roger - he is ruining the ETS. What a sad
climax to his career. I could resign myself (I suppose) since I know when I am
not wanted. But I find it difficult to resign in face of an ill considered
charge. Roger has made it hard for me. Were his charge convincing, it would be
different. Asking me to resign (as Grudem once did and others) tends to confirm
my suspicion that critics know that their case against me is weak.
Perhaps Timothy George can help:
"In the course of his long and sometimes bitter dispute with his former
fellow-traveller Rudolf Bultmann, Karl Barth once said that the best answer to
a bad theology is a better one. Perhaps a better theology of God will emerge
from this present debate. In the meantime, Thomas Oden, an Arminian theologian
who has encouraged free discussion of openness ideas while showing no sympathy
for them, has said that those given to the fantasy of divine ignorance of the
future should be resisted with charity. Charitable resistance is a hard thing
to come by among evangelicals for whom the more usual expedients in theological
controversy are either uncritical toleration or raucous denunciation. But
charitable resistance is just what we need right now."(21)
(1) Darrell Bock, Purpose Driven Theology:
Getting our Priorities Right in Evangelical Controversies (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 2002), 7-8. [back to text]
(2) Grudem in Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism
and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, edited by John Piper, Justin
Taylor, and Paul Helseth (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003), 340. [back to text]
(3) Grudem in Beyond the Bounds, 359. [back to text]
(4) Glenn Scorgie, "When we differ
sharply: Pursuing truth and preserving community" ETS paper, 2001. [back to text]
(5) Grudem in Piper et al 352. Nicole should
take note that biblical feminism is another matter on which Grudem desires a
new boundary. Grudem in Piper et al 359. [back to text]
(6) Roger E. Olson, Mosaic of Christian
Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 2002), 194-96. [back to text]
(7) In John Frame, No Other God. [back to text]
(8) Randy Maddox, "Seeking a
Response-able God: The Wesleyan Tradition and Process Theology," Thy
Nature and Thy Name is Love: Wesleyan and Process Theologies in Dialogue,
edited by Bryan P. Stone and Thomas J. Oord (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 2001),
ch 5. [back to text]
(9) The irony with Socinus is that, had he not
denied the trinity but stuck to his views of divine foreknowledge, he might now
have been widely credited instead of being mostly maligned. His denial of the
trinity nullified what could have been a real contribution. [back to text]
(10) Davis in Piper et al ch 4. [back to text]
(11) Bruce A. Ware, God's Lesser Glory: The
Diminished God of Open Theism (Crossway Books, 2000), ch 2 and John S.
Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God (Crossway, 2001), ch 15. [back to text]
(12) Chris Hall and John Sanders show us a
rather better way to deal with our differences over open theism They practice
dialogical virtues. Does God have a future? A debate on Divine Providence
(Baker Academic, 2003), ch 36-37. [back to text]
(13) In the spirit of Roger E. Olson, The
Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity , 11-27. He
seeks a both-and rather than an either-or theology. [back to text]
(14) Noted by Grudem in Beyond the Bounds,
349. [back to text]
(15) The Chicago Statement goes into much
more detail on these matters. [back to text]
(16) Wellum, "The Inerrancy of
Scripture" in Beyond the Bounds, ch 7. [back to text]
(17) Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open
Theism (P & R Publishing, 2001), 205-7. [back to text]
(18) All Arminians reject meticulous divine
sovereignty because it rules out a moral universe and open theists also reject
exhaustive definite foreknowledge because of texts which present God as facing
a future not altogether settled. Everyone knows that the Bible often presents
God as uncertain about the future but only open theists pay attention to this
fact. Is it not a violation of inerrancy to pass over such texts and not to
hear them? Eg Num 14:11, Hos 8:5, Is 5:4, Jer 3:6-7, etc. [back to text]
(19) I was leaning on Stephen Travis here - I
Believe in the Second Coming of Christ (Eerdmans, 1982), ch 4. [back to text]
(20) Roger is more of a modernist in his
epistemology than I. He thinks he can come up with absolute truths unaffected
by his own subjectivity. Whereas I am much more modest in what I can conclude.
Nancey Murphy shows how modern and postmodern philosophy affect such
altercations as this one. Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism (Trinity Press
International, 1996), 2, 15, 28. [back to text]
(21) Timothy George in First Things June/July
2003 p. 8. I recall Mouw calling for a hermeneutic of charity. Usually there is
a reason why positions are advanced. [back to text]