Doctrinal Wardrobe Malfunction?
7 comments | Permalink
A few years ago I read (and agreed with) this paper by Ray Van Neste regarding the need for ETS to have a more robust doctrinal statement. Carl Trueman recently mentioned this piece and provided a link. My favorite quote from it:
In the wardrobe of doctrinal statements the ETS statement is a bikini. The claim is that it covers only the essentials but I must say I think some important parts remain uncovered. We do not simply need a new swatch of material to cover this or that issue. There are simply too many areas where we are indecently exposed. If we add only one patch we will be annually adding more patches as different embarrassing gaps are revealed. No, the time has come to exchange our bikini for a full garment.Read the whole thing for Dr. Van Neste's proposal.
posted by JT at Monday, May 07, 2007
7 Comments:
Great to publicize this need. I have always thought the ETS statement was far too slim. Let's pray for progress on this.
Amen!
I see no problem in the ETS statement. It really doesn’t seem like it’s been much of a problem yet. In fact even with it as small as it is they’re still finding ways to try and kick people out. Admittedly it’s only been 3 but they were people who seemed pretty evangelical to me. Others are already leaving when they don’t feel welcome or they feel stifled and really how many people are actually trying to join that don’t fit the ETS mold?
Just some thoughts.
Blessings,
Bryan L
I don't see the problem with maintaining a purposely broad doctrinal statement. Such a stance doesn't necessarily imply that there aren't other theological issues of importance. Rather the objective is just to be more inclusive in the spirit of Christian theological dialogue.
Justin,
I appreciate your blog and desire to share relevant sites and articles for the edification of the church.
I share your thoughts for a robust statement by the ETS - but do you not think it is too late for that to happen? With Greg Boyd and other Open theists in the camp now?
in the king,
Coming up with a more detailed ETS statement that would be both sufficiently restrictive and inclusive would be a very difficult task. In the current post-modern environment, such statements seem to become more "elastic" as individuals assert a right to interpret particular words or phrases in whatever way they choose. Thus, for example, Roman Catholics (and other semi-Pelagians)affirm "justification by faith," though what they mean by that phrase is very different from a traditional evangelical understanding. Still, I would be very much in favor of expanding the ETS statement to include affirmations of "penal, subsitutionary atonement" and "justification by faith, alone."
Justification by faith is up for debate in a lot of Reformed circles. Just look at all the debates in the PCC. I think that if you narrow the doctrine statement too much, you end a lot of helpful dialogue.
The justification debates have improved the church's understanding of Pauline exegesis. Because of the NPP debate, even more traditional Reformed exegetes like Moo and Schreiner have emphasized the importance of understanding Paul in light of a clearer picture of what first century Judaism actually was like.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home