ETS Statement
14 comments | PermalinkStatement of the ETS Executive Committee regarding
Dr. Frank Beckwith’s Resignation as ETS President
May 8, 2007On 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 Beckwith has voluntarily withdrawn his membership from the Society as well.
The members of the Executive Committee wish Dr. Beckwith well in his ongoing professional work. We have come to appreciate him as a scholar and a friend. On behalf of the Society, we want to express our gratitude for his work organizing and coordinating the 2006 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., with the theme, “Evangelicals in the Public Square.” No one, perhaps, appreciates how much labor is involved in such a task, except those who have undertaken it in the past, as is the case with most of the members of the Executive Committee. And so, we thank Dr. Beckwith for his service to the Society.
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.”
In recent years, Evangelicals and Roman Catholics have often labored together in common cause addressing some of the critical social and moral issues of our contemporary culture. We welcome this and fully expect it to continue. A number of publications have appeared comparing Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism. Certainly, the two traditions share many common Christian doctrines. However there are important theological differences as well. We expect that the events of these days will bring a renewed discussion of these matters. We welcome and encourage this as well.
Finally, regarding the Presidency of ETS, Dr. Hassell Bullock, President-elect will also serve as acting President until the annual meeting at which time elections for the officers for 2008 will take place.
We are grateful for Dr. Beckwith's past association with ETS, and we pray that God will continue to use his considerable gifts.
C. Hassell Bullock, President-Elect
(Wheaton College)Bruce A. Ware, Vice-President
(The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)Edwin M. Yamauchi, At-large member
(Miami University)Craig A. Blaising, At-large member
(Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)Gregory K. Beale, At-large member
(Wheaton College)David M. Howard, Jr., At-large member
(Bethel Seminary)James A. Borland, Secretary-Treasurer
Andreas J. Köstenberger, JETS Editor
(Liberty University)
(Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary)



14 Comments:
Might anybody have any information on how this letter is being disseminated by ETS? For example, do they plan to post it on their website? I was unable to locate it. Thanks!
Is it kind of remarkable that the EVANGELical Theological Society should not mention the stark difference on the nature of the EVANGEL, between Christians and Rome?
Or is that more fruit from their statement's lacunae?
Some upcoming themes at a future ETS should be:
1. Justification by faith alone --
2. why are Evangelicals turning away from the Evangelical understanding of justification and turning to the Roman Catholic Church?
3. The Early church Fathers and Sola Scriptura
Ken Temple
Given this statement by the executive committee, I don't understand how Beckwith can claim to affirm the doctrinal position of ETS in good conscience. How is it that Rome's teaching on authority doesn't clearly contradict the ETS doctrinal statement? I grant that Beckwith believes that a reconciliation is plausible; I would just be interested to know the arguments for such a stance.
djp: I do hope your other blog plans to comment on this.
We need to drop the whole celebrity mentality as it pertains to Beckwith. Let the RC's parade their latest reverts (it always reminds me of Ben and Leonardo threatening Americans with their latest reasons for expatriation). However, I do think the bigger problem for Evangelicals here might be how our actions cause some of these reversions (Romans 2:24). I pray Dr. Beckwith is restored to the faith and that his home church, wherever they are, intervenes. Who knows, perhaps endlessly examining writings that are now deuterocanonical candidates will cause a change of mind for him.
I pray that the dialogue that ETS hopes that this situation will fuel is one that creates clear distinction in the biblical gospel and a more defined doctrinal statement - which is so desperately needed.
Alex,
David Howard informed me that ETS does plan to post the letter to their website.
David,
In spite of this statement from the ETS exec committee, Beckwith (or any faithful Catholic) can easily sign the ETS statement in good conscience. The leter stresses different understandings of what is inspired and authoritative. Of course this is true. But look at the ETS statement. All it says is that Bible alone is the word of God written. This does not explicitly rule out other infallible sources of authority.
It is surely true that the intention of the drafters of the statement meant to exclude the Catholic position, but they have failed to do so if you simply take the words as they stand.
Ray,
So I take it that the ETS doctrinal statement only explicitly excludes those extra-biblical sources that take written form.
Is that the emphasis?
Or perhaps it is the distinction between something being the word of God, on the one hand, and being infallible, on the other.
Forgive my ignorance. But it's still not clear to me how a Catholic could affirm the statement.
The Beckwith situation does point to the serious limitations of any Statement of Faith, especially in this post-modern era where many people insist that "words can mean whatever I choose them to mean." New theological errors (which the 21st century will, no doubt, be very creative and prolific in developing) require new statements of denial by those committed to biblical orthodoxy. Perhaps the simple ETS statement would be adequate if it were augmented by regular statements of denial. E.g. "Open theism is not consistent with this Statement of Faith," "A Roman Catholic (or NPP?) understanding of justication is not consistent with this Statement of Faith." "Any view of the atonement which denies its (penal?)substituionary nature is not consistent with this Statement of Faith."
David,
The ETS statement says "“The Bible alone ...is the Word of God written" Catholics readily affirm this. They do not claim that anything else is the Word of God. They claim that other things are authoritative but they do not claim they are the Word of God. This is not merely semantics because the ETS statement is not worded so as to address other sources of authority.
This is one reason why the ETS statement needs an overhaul.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I responded to Kevin's note at my blog where he also posted this comment. I am concerned about this issue, but I do not find it problematic for ETS to be exclusively protestant, as the historic use of 'evangelical' would suggest. I think the Exec Comm is correct in saying this is what was intended by the doctrinal statement. The problem comes when a doctrinal statement is so vaguely worded that such interpretation is needed.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home