Thank you for your comment. I first heard about Open Theism when the controversy at ETS was reported in CT. I guess I don’t get out much. My understanding, however, is that Piper has had some conflict in the BGC over the issue but has been unable to effect change. My understanding is that following these efforts he has been content to maintain the status quo, somehow justifying continued association.

If my understanding is incorrect, please enlighten me.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

What are you talking about Don? What makes you think that Piper is not clearly fighting the battle against Open Theism? Most people — including most fundamentalists — wouldn’t even know there was a problem with Open Theism if it weren’t for the battles being waged by guys like Piper.

I am not sure how that works either. Your link does show up on my ‘dashboard’ page, but perhaps it isn’t enabled in the template somehow… I am not entirely sure how to check that either, but I’ll look around.

Thanks for the comments, I agree with your assessments over at your site.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I thought my link to this discussion would show up as a “trackback”, but I have never figured that aspect of blogging out, apparently.

I have made some initial comments and hope to have a chance to write more tonight.

Frank

Thanks for commenting here. I gave you a rather cryptic comment on your site regarding the Jehoshaphat illustration and Jerry Falwell. I am thinking there of the Moral Majority fiasco … one could easily have tied in the commercial/political aspects of it with the Jehoshaphat story which would make the illustration much more clear (I think!!! but I could be wrong).

I agree with your point #2. Much more could have been said here.

In my opinion, the reason there was little to convince a skeptic is that there was no ‘live’ application to the here and now. Dever (at least as far as the interview is concerned) is left with no clear notion of what he should do to become more acceptable to a fundamentalist. One would hope that in private perhaps more was said.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

2. I was a little frustrated with Minnick’s lack of acknowledgment of “different camps within Fundamentalism,” as you put it, Don. It seems to me that he must certainly have some familiarity with the issues in question (if not intimate acquaintance with the personalities), if for no other reasons than those whom he interacts with at BJU and the fact that he was a major contributor to a book responding to the KJVO issue. It does seem that it is a convenient way to pretend that the downsides aren’t there.

3. I also found it interesting that when queried about his “theological heroes” (or whatever), Minnick never listed anyone specifically Fundamentalist (not that I’m sure whom he could have named).

Overall, I’m not sure that the interview helped the Fundamentalist position all that much (though it didn’t change my mind about anything). I certainly don’t see that there was much useful in persuading a skeptic.

I agree that Dever in particular didn’t understand the Jehoshaphat passage. And I do think that the format wasn’t the best for addressing all Dever’s questions. Not only was the material being recorded but all of Dever’s young interns (apparently including Bruce McAlister’s son) were all eager observers as the audience. This is not the most conducive place for confrontation.

In fact, that observation by itself makes me think this was way too early for any kind of public back and forth.

It does seem to me that Minnick hopes to have further influence with Dever or others like him. I personally think this is a pipe dream. But if there is to be influence, let it be quiet, behind the scenes, and then let us see whether those being influenced actually do anything about it. There are many areas where change is needed on the conservative evangelical side, associations being only one of them.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

My first impressions:

1. Dever didn’t seem to understand the Jehoshaphat illustration at all. Or for that matter, what Minnick was driving at with the Galatians 2 passage.

2. A confrontation at this point with Dever, may not be very effective until he understands the substantial implications of those passages. I don’t fault Minnick for working slowly with him.

3. We fundamentalists need a good answer for why we separate over some clear positions in the Bible but not others. Dever kept bringing up the Lig Duncan question. For me the answer is that covenant theology does not teach a different gospel or impact fundamental truth. The whole point of Galatains 2 and other passages, is that actions and associations can impact the truth of the gospel.

4. I was surprised at Minnick’s non-familiarity with the different camps within Fundamentalism.

5. Minnick seemed very uncomfortable at the beginning and at times throughout the interview, probably not knowing how hard to press or how direct to be in his answers. This forum was probably not the best way to get the conversation going between two men who are just getting to know each other. It would have been better to have a knowledgeable moderator lead the discussions. Ben Wright probably would have been able to do a good job in that role.

6. I think it is a very positive sign for Dever to give Minnick a forum to present the Fundamentalist position to a largely non-fundamentalist audience.