Michael Haykin has reviewed Francis Beckwith’s book Return to Rome.
One of the reasons I think that the ETS needs to do what Denny Burk and Ray Van Neste are proposing is to help people like Beckwith understand that the founders of the society did not mean to welcome “evangelical” Roman Catholics. The proposed amendment is actually rendering a service to such people. Otherwise they think they can sign on . . . So unless the ETS wants to let them sign on, in my view, we have a responsibility to make our views clear so that they understand that we don’t mean the word “evangelical” the way they are using it.
I linked your review on my blog. Thanks for getting it out.
i could not help but notice that it seems as though the majority of supporters for the amendment of ETS are from southern baptist schools (and if not southern baptist, then very reformed). just thought that was interesting.
i personally dont think that ets needs amending, but especially not with the detail being proposed, which would almost limit theological discussion to whether one is a four point or five point calvinist (kidding). perhaps you should also kick out people like bock who voted democrat in this past election (again, kidding). or maybe you guys can start your own society (if the sbc and cbmw arent already satisfying enough as theological outlets).
one last thing… what do the founders of ets have to do with much of anything? just because someone founded a society doesnt meant that all their theological beliefs should be the continual standard for that society. the founders of sbts did not mean for their school to be used for the education of black students, but we all now know that it was certainly necessary to move away from the position of the founders. while this is a bit of a false analogy, it nevertheless gets the point across.
Derek,
I want you to know that in taking precious time to respond to your comment, I am trying to show love to you. Please view this response as my attempt to lay down my life in an effort to serve you. I say this to try to communicate kindness in what might otherwise appear to be an abrupt response.
Your first sentence commits the logical fallacy of guilt by association.
Your second sentence/paragraph is uninformed, sarcastic, and disrespectful. The UCCF statement has not stifled theological discussion in the Tyndale Fellowship, nor has it excluded left wing evangelicals.
On your third paragraph, the founders of the society are relevant because when they spoke of “Scripture alone” they meant Sola Scriptura, which is an evangelical and not a Roman Catholic idea. Are you sure that the founders of SBTS did not mean for the school to educate blacks? I think the historical record is otherwise. The evidence I’m aware of indicates (1) that the founders of the school made diligent efforts to evangelize and teach blacks, and (2) that they wanted SBTS to be a place where even people without college degrees could be educated (thus Boyce College today).
I don’t know how you will receive this email, but I assure you that I mean these words with humility, gentleness, kindness, and sincere love: if you would like for me to interact with you in the future, please demonstrate a willingness to understand those with whom you disagree and an ability to treat them fairly. Should you fail to do these things, please don’t be surprised if I don’t bother to respond to you.
Trying to speak the truth in love,
JMH
dr. hamilton,
ouch!
i would also like you to know that i am trying to show love to you by taking time (all of which i consider precious) to respond to your comments.
i want you to know that i was in no way trying to be disrespectful. i am sorry that you took such offense to the things i said. i guess what you found most disrespectful was the second paragraph. i was being sarcastic, but i did not think it would be taken in such offense since i made it clear that i was not being serious. i made my attempts at humor obvious by explicitly stating that i was kidding. my intent was in no way malicious. however, i will never again attempt humor through a sarcastic straw man while in conversation with you. i find these caricatures extremely humorous (even when the caricatures are of my own positions) as long as they are not meant in all seriousness. i suppose we simply do not enjoy the same sorts of humor. so, i am very sorry to offend you.
as for the first paragraph being guilt by association, i can see how it could be taken as such. however, there was no actual “guilt” that i announced (again, since the second paragraph was not a genuine attempt at representing those who supprt the ammendment). i only observed association. i was NOT being sarcastic when i stated “just thought that was interesting.” i genuinely found this interesting and did not mean it to be understood as a guilt by association. it was the first time i had seen the list of supporters and could not help but notice the number of reformed persons on the list.
with my third paragraph, i am sorry if i misrepresented the founders of sbts, but i was stating the information as i understood it. i am very confident that, if nothing else, the sbc could hardly be considered anything close to a strong voice for civil rights during a very dark time in our nations history. so, while i am sorry if i misrepresented the founders of sbts as you understand them, the thrust of my argument remains the same. i do understand your argument from the principle of sola scriptura, but why then the detail of the proposed amendment? why not simply add another part to the statement of faith that includes the principle of sola scriptura (as was done with the Trinity)?
i likewise, am not sure how you will receive these comments, particularly given the unexpected response to my previous post. however, i wish for you to know that i am trying to speak in love. i would like to again state my deepest regrets for the ways that i offended you in my previous post and i pray that i have not again offended in this one. i would also like you to know that i have the utmost respect for you and your work to advance the gospel. i enjoy your teaching and have grown as a result of it. i never meant to be disrespectful.
as i have tried to state above, i was not attempting to misrepresent the views of those i disagree with. there is honestly not a great deal to disagree on. you think ets should be amended and i disagree. again, my attempts at humor in the previous post were not meant to be taken seriously as my understanding of your (or anyone else’s) actual position. other than those attempts at humor, is there anything else that you wish for me to understand that i have misrepresented? i am deeply hurt by your accusation that i do not have a willingness to understand those with whom i disagree, and i would like you to clarify anything pertaining to this conversation that you do not feel i understand. i trust you will respond since i have not failed to attempt fairness in this response.
Godspeed.
Derek
Thanks for pointing out this review. Steve at triablogue has also reviews this book.
Mark
Derek,
Thanks for your note. It seems to me that the proposed amendment actually takes a broadly Christian doctrinal statement from an organization that, as I see it, is actually less conservative than ETS, yet still evangelical. The rationale for this is simply to fill out the broadly protestant/evangelical theological perspective in an attempt to benefit both those inside the society and those outside it.
I apologize for the ways I misread your initial comment.
Thanks for your kind words,
JMH
dr. hamilton,
i again apologize for having offended you with my initial post.
thank you for your clarifying statement. i suppose we wont have to wait too much longer before updates regarding this amendment are announced. safe travels as you attend the conference.
thank you for your teaching. i look forward to experiencing a great deal more of it.
Godspeed.
derek
Thanks Derek!
My apologies for my part in the misunderstanding.
See you soon,
JMH