Is KALLISTOS Ware secretly a Thomist?

Somewhere on the Internet or in Itunes is a series of talks Metr. Ware did on Salvation in Christ.   At the very end of the talks is the Q and A.   While it wasn’t related to the theme, one of the members of the audience asked about evolution and Darwin.  Ware’s answer is very revealing, both of his own theology and relating to the recent Protestant converts’ use of Ware’s material.

In short, he answered that there is no contradiction between faith and science because they talk about two different forms of knowledge.  Faith talks about God-stuff and science talks about science stuff (which usually means, “real stuff”).   Whether he is right or not, I ca’nt help but point out this is old-school Christian Century liberalism, or at least the two-storeyed universe that critics of Thomism liked to point out.   And he thinks this is a good thing.

As many others have noted, the most Protestant people on the planet are the Protestant converts to Orthodoxy (compare Hyperdox Herman to Cradle Christopher).  To their credit, these Protestant converts are very conservative in worldview and theology.   They also endorse Ware, whose theological foundations are very liberal, even if he tweaks his conclusions to be very conservative.

Advertisements

9 comments on “Is KALLISTOS Ware secretly a Thomist?

  1. William Tighe says:

    I do not know of a single Stuart, Catholic or Protestant, who “butchered Protestants by the thousands?” Do you.

    James V (d. 1542) did indeed authorize the execution of some tens of early Protestants. His daughter, Mary, none; James VI and I, none; Charles I, none; Charles II — perhaps the Covenanters, the Taliban of 17th Century Scotland? — but they were killed as rebels, rebels for their religion, perhaps, but most certainly rebels; James VII and II, the friend of William Penn, who protested Louis XIV’s revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 — few people would say that the execution of some scores of Monmouth’s followers in England, or Argyll’s in Scotland, constituted religious persecution. So what Stuarts are left?

  2. William Tighe says:

    I mistakenly placed this comment here, rather than on your previous posting, for which I express my regret. However, the previous posting is dated August 23, 2012, and there is nothing to indicate that it pertains to “a post on another blog some months ago.”

  3. olivianus says:

    William Tighe,

    For a general history of the 50 Million people your church killed giving emphasis primarily on the 500 years or so before the revocation of the Edict of Nantes you can read,

    The History of Romanism By John Dowling

    http://books.google.com/books?id=1Cxz4YK60hQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

    ” Charles II — perhaps the Covenanters, the Taliban of 17th Century Scotland? — but they were killed as rebels, rebels for their religion, perhaps, but most certainly rebels;”

    Seeing that he had sworn to uphold the reformed religion and lawful oaths had been sworn espousing the reformed religion, the religion of the united kingdom (solemn league and covenant) it was Charles II who was the rebel. The Covenanters were the ones who had the right by lawful oaths and covenants on their side.

  4. Not to mention all of Charles II”s dragoons who hunted down women and children covenanters and placed thumbscrews into said women and children.

  5. jnorm says:

    Jacob,

    I thought the original protestants in general believed that science didn’t contradict divine revelation until the rise of geology and the whole Old Earth creationism thing and Darwinian Evolution? This is when I start to see a split of protestant fundamentalists on one side being very skeptical of science and higher education in general on one end and modernist/liberal protestants on the other end who thought it was a good thing to edit their christianity according to the modern findings of scientific advancement.

    And so I thought he was simply using a protestant argument common among many educated Anglicans. But just because he makes use of protestant and Roman Catholic arguments from time to time doesn’t mean that he personally adheres to the source of those arguments.

    There have been a number of Orthodox throughout the past 5 centuries that either borrowed Roman Catholic arguments to use against protestants and protestant arguments to use against Roman Catholics. And so you shouldn’t be surprised to see an Orthodox Christian borrow something from a different christian tradition. But just because some do that doesn’t mean they totally adhere to everything about it.

    Like for instance, the same person said we are Arminians, but it should be obvious that we differ from Arminianism, but the audience may not know of any other non-calvinistic system and so the word arminian is used. And so one can only go but so far with such comparisons and arguments.

Comments are closed.