Dennis, I don't believe that I said anything about anyone's orthodoxy myself, but snide comments like that about WSC certainly won't win you any friendships from our graduates (and I'm fairly certain that WSC grads are not bending over backwards to win the approval of Fuller grads, either).
That is, unless you forgot to include said smiley...
My, Adam. Even when people go out of their way to AGREE with you, you bite.
* My original point was to stand up for the fellow who started the thread by his simply asking a question. Sometimes we pile on in our zeal to dump on things not generally agreed to here.
* My secondary point was to oppose so narrow of a definition of orthodoxy that people listed as editors of the Reformation Study Bible get thrown under the bus because of their association with a particular dynamic equivalent translation, the TNIV.
The primary definition of "orthodox" has to do with the eastern wing of the church. The secondary definition denotes adherance to the first (3 or 7 depending on who you are talking to) ecumenical creeds of the church. Only the tertiary definition allows us to differentiate ourselves from other fellow evangelicals in matters of secondary disagreements over eschatological positions and the like.
Use of the term in conservative American Protestantism tends toward the second use. That is why the list of TNIV opponents I posted includes orthodox inerrantist evangelicals who are Calvinist, Arminian, Dispensational, and even Campellite! What they all agree to (despite their major disagreements on all sorts of important issues) is the opposition to the egalitarian gender inclusiveness of the TNIV.
But, if we are planning on judging everyone involved in the translation of the TNIV (including those who are not particularly egalitarian, but merely convinced on linguistic/translational grounds of the accuracy of rendering "anthropos" as humanity or mankind) as non-orthodox (Edward's charge that gave rise to this tangent of discussion), then we will be condemning people who are counted as orthodox by just about everyone, including Westminster Seminary and RTS and who were major editors of the Reformation Study Bible!
At some point, such constrictive definitions say nothing because they reduce to little more than solipsism. That is part of the reason why we cannot have a simple discussion of the EP on the PB. Partisans on both sides seem incapable of resisting the temptation to label, libel, and lambast one another until the moderators intervene to staunch the flow of blood. Hurling fighting terms like "unorthodox" at those who are in essential agreement with you strikes me as nutty and counterproductive. One need not be a "liberal" Fuller grad to consider such behavior sectarian.
BTW, as an inerrantist who has significant doubts about the superiority of the Alexandrian manuscript tradition, I am so far from the TNIV as to be mainly a New King James Reformation Study Bible user (although the ESV Study Bible would be my second favorite). But, maybe I'm just one of those "typical fundy" Fuller grads!
