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.”
http://romereturn.blogspot.com/2010/04/john-stackhouses-take-on-waltke.html
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.”
I wonder whether we can pin-point the time when the RCC really sold out on the evolution question.
ReplyDeleteWere the late 19th century RC theologians allowed to agree with Darwin?
I didn't approve of Stackhouse comments. I posted them followed by my own comments about the board's magisterial function in assessing the institution's documents. If you had been reading my blog, you would know that I had posted previously on the matter as well as links to my own contributions on BioLogos and the ID movement.
ReplyDeleteThe criticisms you mention are Stackhouse's not mine. They are not my criticisms via Stackhouse (whatever the hell that means). The quote republished here is from Stackhouse, not me. I can't speak for John, but I suspect he is alluding to Warfield's peace with Darwinism that did not impede his status as a Reformed hero. Couple that with Calvin's claim that geocentricity is required by Scripture, you then have a theological issue that must be resolved. (On this matter, Bernard Ramm has some real insight).
I'm not even particularly fond of Stackhouse's approach to Christian theology, though he seems to be a nice enough guy. His comments, however, should not be dismissed lightly. The relationship between the deliverances of science and theology is a serious one, since, as we have seen with Calvin and geocentricity, cannot be resolved by mere appeals to innerancy or sola scriptura.
Where I teach is irrelevant to the quality of the cases you, me, or someone else may offer on this matter. In fact, to make that a point in a discussion of theological issue is in fact to commit the ad hominem fallacy (Now that my friend Ron Nash is not with us at RTS, I am sure it does not mean that this fallacy is no longer thought to be something RTS students should avoid. Perish the thought!). However, I am proud of being a faculty member at Baylor University, a Christian university in the Baptist tradition! Sic 'em Bears!
""A pathetic fiasco""
ReplyDeleteThose were John Stackhouse's words, not Francis Beckwith's.
"Return to Romanist Francis Beckwith approvingly posted the following remarks by John Stackhouse on the “the RTS/Waltke fiasco”:"
I'm not sure that it's safe or appropriate to use the adverb "approvingly" in your statement above.
Dr. Beckwith cited Stackhouse's remarks so as to launch his observation that RTS's board is functioning like the RCC Magisterium in this case.
"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.”
No, that's not a good or valid interpretation of Dr. Beckwith's remarks at all.
Sorry Steve, but a genuine mea culpa should be offered to Dr. Beckwith.
And I write this as a sincere friend of the Triablogue team.
Pax.
No mea culpa is in order. Beckwith didn't quote Stackhouse to then take issue with the quote. To the contrary, Beckwith made positive use of the Stackhouse quote.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't get to backdate his ex post facto disclaimer as if that's what he said all along.
Moreover, this is part of his modus operandi. He attacks Evangelicalism at every opportunity. And this is no exception. He is trying to turn the Stackhouse quote against Evangelicalism. But he can hardly do that if he distances himself from the quote.
Indeed, in his subsequent (pseudo)disclaimer, Beckwith says "His [Stackhouse's] comments, however, should not be dismissed lightly." That's an endorsement, not a demurral.