Return to Romanist Francis Beckwith approvingly posted the following remarks by John Stackhouse on the “the RTS/Waltke fiasco”:
“What’s pathetic about this action is that those points weren’t even radical in the nineteenth century, when when Darwin himself had a number of orthodox defenders. So RTS apparently is not quite ready to catch up with almost two centuries of theology/science dialogue.”
For the moment I’m not going to debate the merits of the case. That’s another argument for another day.
For now, I’ll content myself by drawing attention to the duplicity of Beckwith’s criticism–via Stackhouse.
Here’s a 21C Catholic epologist (teaching at a nominally Protestant university) who presumes to attack a 21C Protestant institution because that institution is doing things differently than its 19C counterpart might have.
Yet it’s not as though there haven’t been sea-changes between 19C Catholicism and 21C Catholicism–not least of which its reversal on Darwinism.
So, for Beckwith, if, in the development of doctrine, a Catholic institution (i.e. the whole church of Rome) moves to left, that’s a commendable turn of events–but if, on the other hand, a Protestant institution (i.e. RTS) moves to the right, that’s a “pathetic fiasco.”