"Statement of the ETS Executive Committee regarding Dr. Frank Beckwith’s Resignation as ETS President"
From Christianity Today:
ETS on Beckwith
Executive Committee: Wheaton's Bullock will serve as acting president.
Collin Hansen, May 8, 2007 10:36AM
Updates: Francis Beckwith, who rejoined the Roman Catholic Church and resigned over the weekend as president of the Evangelical Theological Society, has also withdrawn his membership. And moments ago the ETS executive committee released the following statement:
Statement of the ETS Executive Committee regarding Dr. Frank Beckwith’s Resignation as ETS President
On May 5, 2007, Dr. Frank Beckwith resigned as President of the Evangelical Theological Society. This resignation has come as a result of his decision to be received into full communion in the Roman Catholic Church, which he did on April 29, 2007. Dr. Beckwith has informed the Executive Committee that this was a decision he came to “after much prayer, counsel, and consideration.” Subsequently, after further prayer and reflection, Dr. Beckwith has voluntarily withdrawn his membership from the Society as well...
Labels:
ETS,
Evangelical Theological Society,
Frank Beckwith
16 comments:
Here is what I think is the more interesting part of the ETS statement:
"At the same time, the Executive Committee recognizes Dr. Beckwith’s resignation as President and subsequent withdrawal from membership as appropriate in light of the purpose and doctrinal basis of the Evangelical Theological Society and in light of the requirements of wholehearted confessional agreement with the Roman Catholic Church.
The work of the Evangelical Theological Society as a scholarly forum proceeds on the basis that “the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” This affirmation, together with the statement on the Trinity, forms the basis for membership in the ETS to which all members annually subscribe in writing. Confessional Catholicism, as defined by the Roman Catholic Church’s declarations from the Council of Trent to Vatican II, sets forth a more expansive view of verbal, infallible revelation.
Specifically, it posits a larger canon of Scripture than that recognized by evangelical Protestants, including in its canon several writings from the Apocrypha. It also extends the quality of infallibility to certain expressions of church dogma issued by the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church), as well as certain pronouncements of the pope, which are delivered ex cathedra, such as doctrines about the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary.
We recognize the right of Roman Catholic theologians to do their theological work on the basis of all the authorities they consider to be revelatory and infallible, even as we wholeheartedly affirm the distinctive contribution and convictional necessity of the work of the Evangelical Theological Society on the basis of the “Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety” as “the Word of God written and . . . inerrant.”"
So what do you all think? Based on what he know, could Dr. Beckwith have remained with ETS as he claims he could have? If not, why not?
It sounds like that though he could have remained with a clear conscience, they would have not been comfortable with him there.
Thus, he would have got/felt pressure at some point to mail it in.
In other words, "though you aren't necessarily in violation, you're not welcome here."
I think the original intent of the word "Bible" in the doc. statement as including a 39-book OT rather than a 47-book OT, precludes his being able to affirm the statement with a clear conscience.
He would have been welcome in my mind. Rather kick out an Open Theist than a Catholic. There needs to be some consideration of how tradition relates to evangelicalism. Maybe this with spur some of that conversation.
Bible was not defined. Just like with constitutional law, I am a textualist, not an Originalist.
Jared,
If Bible can mean any book, why then make a statement about it. Wouldn't no statement at all be just as effective?
In other words, if something is everything, then it may as well be nothing, right?
I can see the objection if someone was arguing for the Shepherd of Hermas to be New Testament canon or for the book of Mormon, but Old Testament canon is a little bit of a gray area. Should Anglicans and Orthodox really be excluded? The book of Tobit is ridiculous, but things like the diety of Christ, the Trinity, and substitutionary atonement rank higher.
I think it would be an interesting discussion in ETS to consider if Protestants should read, use and teach those books more than they do now. Maccabees is certainly helpful history and I would love to hear papers analyzing it at ETS.
"things like the diety of Christ, the Trinity, and substitutionary atonement rank higher."
According to what authority? The Bible?
Point taken. I'm 5 solas all the way. (look at my picture!) All traditions (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) affirm the same New Testament canon where those doctrines are found. In fact, Catholics have been better on the New Testament canon than, say, Luther who doubted 2 Peter and James. But the early church did have some difficulty on deciding some of the Old Testament canon. Look at Augustine, he said the Macabees should be considered canon in The City of God. He may be wrong, but I wouldn't ban him from ETS!
Augustine wouldn't touch ETS with a ten-foot pole! :-)
I do like that avatar! Sharp! Who is that Charles Finney?
Ouch. Hope you know it is the same guy as over your shoulder! Charles Finney is NOT my homeboy!:
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/calvinism/-/pv_design_details/pg_7/id_15060794/opt_/fpt_/c_360/
So ... could Charles Finney be in ETS?!
I think he could.
Finney could, but I might gather a collection of Calvinists to give him a swirley in the men's room.
A swirley? That doesn't sound good :-)
But it would be proper.
Post a Comment