Return to Rome
75 comments | Permalink
Francis Beckwith's book describing his return to Rome will be published this winter by Brazos.From Baker's website:
What does it mean to be evangelical? What does it mean to be Catholic? Can one consider oneself both simultaneously? Francis Beckwith has wrestled with these questions personally and professionally. He was baptized a Catholic, but his faith journey led him to Protestant evangelicalism. He became a philosophy professor at Baylor University and president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). And then, in 2007, after much prayer, counsel, and consideration, Beckwith decided to return to the Catholic church and step down as ETS president.This provocative book details Beckwith's journey, focusing on his internal dialogue between the Protestant theology he embraced for most of his adult life and Catholicism. He seeks to explain what prompted his decision and offers theological reflection on whether one can be evangelical and Catholic, affirming his belief that one can be both.HT: First Things
posted by JT at Wednesday, July 16, 2008
75 Comments:
Thanks for the heads up on the book. I too grew up Catholic but have since become a 'Protestant evangelist', so I'm excited to read this book and see what led him back.
What a tragedy...
Very sad.
Also, too bad there isn't some control on language. "Evangelical (Roman) Catholic" is a genuine contradiction in terms.
My brother is a (unknown to him) member of this "home to Rome" movement.
I find it a bit ironic because Mr. Beckwith and others are returning to the Catholic church armed with the knowledge they've received from the evangelical church.
So, of course they can understand Catholic worship correctly and can "filter" out perhaps some of the troublesome parts of Roman Catholicism.
(i know the substantive, important differences in the worship practices of Catholics and protestants, and I know that you can't really "disagree" when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra, as a Catholic. . . but many Catholics do, so I'm speaking practically here. . not dogmatically)
So, its really as if their evangelicalism has prepared them to be the "right kind of Catholic".
We, as protestants should do better at understanding Trent and staying away from pithy, broad brush accusations (i.e. faith vs. works nuance). After doing that, we will be strengthened in our understanding of the important differences between us, and also able to have a reasonable dialogue with an R.C. member.
I just wish Mr. Beckwith and others would see that their Evangelical background is coloring their "new" understanding of Catholicism (in a positive way). Unfortunately, this new understanding isn't shared by life-long Catholics, and the R.C. church leadership.
Aaron
Aaron: i know the substantive, important differences in the worship practices of Catholics and protestants, and I know that you can't really "disagree" when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra, as a Catholic
The Catholic mass is not just a "difference" in worship but (since you bring up Trent) is the same sacrifice as Calvary offered in an "unbloody manner."
This is an affront to Jesus own's words when he said telois which as has already been discussed means paid in full.
The faith vs. works is not just a "nuance." It is such a great distinction that the apostle Paul in his letter to the Galations says, cursed is anyone who teaches a different gospel, which Roman Catholics do.
As you may recall, the apostle Paul was harshly criticizing and discerning (judging)...gasp... the Judaizers for trying to get these Gentiles to observe the law as a way and means to salvation. These passages have implications to us today because that is exactly what Roman Catholicism teaches today. It teaches that you are infused with grace when you are baptized, partake of the Lord's Supper. The RC also teaches justification by faith and works.
There is no reasonable dialogue with a RC except that we proclaim the gospel to them.
Carlo,
You are speaking dogmatically. . I was speaking practically.
I, of course, agree with your assessment of Catholicism. However, the nominal Catholic, and the ex-evangelical Catholic are often either a) not aware of these issues or b) have found a way (through their ex-evangelicalism, I argue) to explain them away.
You're right. . . its just that so many in the R.C. do not operate out of these assumptions, or, for whatever reason are harmonizing their evangelicalism with the R.C. doctrine.
You're arguing that its impossible to do so. I"m arguing that even the Red Sox can win the World Series :) . Folks are doing this, so we need to be able to speak charitably into their tradtion, and as you say, speak the gospel to them.
Aaron
Aaron: Folks are doing this, so we need to be able to speak charitably into their tradtion, and as you say, speak the gospel to them.
I don't know what you mean by "speaking into their tradition."
When I share the gospel with a Mormon or a Catholic or JW, invariably, they are depending on their works for salvation. (Like I said in another thread post, there are only two religions in the world - a religion of being saved by works or through faith).
So, I don't need to speak "into" their tradition nor do I even need to bring it up. The gospel message is that Heaven is free gift, it cannot be earned or deserved, we are sinners, we cannot save ourselves, God is merciful, but He is also just and must punish sin, Christ is the God-man, He rose died, rose from the dead and ascended to Heaven to pay the penalty of our sins and to purchase a place for us in Heaven. This gift is received by faith.
I don't need to speak into their "tradition." If the Spirit is truly working in their lives they will see that the religion they are in is an oxymoron. This happened to me when God was saving me and I left Catholicism.
Bechwith is actually going through a process of de-evolution and apostasy. He has tasted the one true gospel and now he is denying it by returning to Rome.
As the writer of Hebrews tells us, I would not even retrace the elementary things of the gospel with the likes of him because as the writer of Hebrews tells us, it will do no good. That doesn't mean the Lord cannot save him from his apostasy. So, yes, as with the writers of Hebrew I am arguing it is impossible to retrace the elementary things with a person like Beckwith who is apostasizing and returning to Rome.
But with a Roman Catholic who has never been exposed to the gospel or even tasted it (this is true of pretty much all Catholics who grow up in that faith) the hope and the power of the gospel is what will save them. I don't need to speak into their tradition.
Aaron's comments are good. I think there needs to be a little more nuance from some commenters about Catholicism.
Yes, absolutely: Rome's doctrine has many serious errors. If I knew a professing Christian in the Catholic church, I would urge them to leave. But there's a difference in what the Council of Trent says and what some people in the pew might believe. There are some Catholics who trust in Christ for their salvation. Are they inconsistent in some of their beliefs? Absolutely, and we should be glad for their inconsistency.
I have created web site for the book that includes excerpts, table of contents, etc. You can find it here: http://returntorome.com
For some of the commentators here, you will find chapters 5, 6, and 7 particularly illuminating.
FJB
Carlo,
you seem intent on fighting. I am sorry for your terrible experience in the R.C. We are in agreement on this. . . we just disagree on our communication as we move forward with Catholics. I'll leave that issue for now, I think we understand each other.
Well said, JMH, Thank God for inconsistency in that tradition! :)
Aaron
JMH: Yes, absolutely: Rome's doctrine has many serious errors. If I knew a professing Christian in the Catholic church, I would urge them to leave.
I would not just say "errors", but actually heresies.
Also, I think your methodology is wrong if you knew them and just ask them to leave.
My question would be how do you know them to be Christians. There are two very simple questions you could ask them.
1)Have they come to a place in their spiritual life where they know for certain they are going to heaven or is it something they would say they are still working on.
The emphasis on the "for certain" part.
2)If they were to die and stand before God, and He were to say why should He let them into Heaven, what would they tell Him.
Without exception, every single Catholic would say, sure they are trusting in Christ and some works they are performing. You know the montra, "well, I've tried to the do right things, the best I can", "I try to be good to my neighbor", "I try to do this and to do that."
If they are trusting in Christ alone, you wouldn't have to tell them to leave JMH because the Spirit is working on them and they are probably struggling with some things Rome is teaching and are on their way out.
Aaron: you seem intent on fighting. I am sorry for your terrible experience in the R.C. We are in agreement on this. . . we just disagree on our communication as we move forward with Catholics. I'll leave that issue for now, I think we understand each other.
Aaron, I don't think you understand me at all especially if you characterize what happened to in the RC as a "terrible experience." (Or maybe I'm just a terrible communicator). It was a wonderful experience to be lifted from doubt on knowing whether I had eternal life and know that it was by grace alone that I was saved and not by my works.
Things are worth "fighting" and contending for Aaron and knowing that I don't have to speak "into" a tradition is uplifting and to know that the gospel has power to save and rips through any tradition whatsoever is freedom.
It appears I am at least a bad Greek speller. To correct the record Jesus said tetelestai, not teleois or whatever it is I wrote.
Thanks again Dan.
Carlo does not understand one iota of what Catholicism teaches. I am afraid this can be blamed on no one but us Catholics, so I apologize, Carlo, for the lack of teaching you received.
But thinking that Catholics believe that we are saved by our own works is just plain wacky:
Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon I:
"If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema."
Carlo, as to your absolute assurance of your salvation, I would take care that I not presume upon the grace of God. A little "fear and trembling" never hurt anyone.
Your other critiques of the teachings of the Church show a complete lack of understanding about what those teachings are. I respect your individual beliefs, but if you are going to spend time and energy criticizing the Church you might as well learn what she actually teaches, not what you read in Loraine Boettner's "Roman Catholicism" or Jack Chick tracts.
Aaron,
I think you are having a level-headed discussion. You say, though:
"I just wish Mr. Beckwith and others would see that their Evangelical background is coloring their "new" understanding of Catholicism (in a positive way). Unfortunately, this new understanding isn't shared by life-long Catholics, and the R.C. church leadership."
This is not strictly true. When I was a Protestant, I always had the image of Catholics languishing in Mass, not knowing or sharing their faith, and just itching to get out of Church to go live their un-Christian lifestyles. Now as a Catholic I see this to be not true of many more Catholics than I thought. It is a problem, though, no doubt, which has been caused by a liberal/modernist element that is destroying all catechesis. Protestantism, unfortunately, is not immune from this. The Evangelical Theological Society was put together to combat this beast within Protestantism. Just as there are good and bad Protestant parishes, there are good and bad Catholic parishes (in the sense you mean...I know you would say all Catholic parishes lack the truth of the Gospel and therefore are "bad"...I respect that even if I disagree).
So my "Evangelical-ish" take on Catholicism is not something that I brought with me from Protestantism: I found it alive and well within the Church when I arrived.
Blessings,
Philip
great conversation!
Philip,
I appreciate your nuance, and I agree with you.
I don't say that "all Catholic parishes don't speak the gospel", don't hear me say that.
Carlo and others are taking church documents/creeds and even mistakes/missteps and applying them to all Catholics.
I am not doing this and see the diversity in Catholicism and protestantism, as you do.
(ironically enough, many "home to rome" folks are drawn by the seemingly unified and unchanging R.C. church. . . this is just not a reality,. . as it is not in Protestantism either)
I"m glad you have found a parish that preaches the gospel to you and you can flourish within.
I will say that your experience in Protestantism probably just causes you to hear certain Catholic doctrines in a different way than someone who has been in the R.C. their whole life. That's what I meant before.
I feel like Beckwith and many more are able to reconcile themselves to the Catholic church because they are seeing the teaching through a different lens than most Catholics.
Aaron
From the Catechism of the CC, which I happened to have copy still for years and referred many times up until I did my spring cleaning:
From Article II Justification and Grace, 1993: Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent...
1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:48 (note that baptism is a work)
2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"50
Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.51
2003 Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit."53 Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.54
Rome believes in justification by faith and works. Now, let me quote Canon IV of Trent of anyone who does not believe justification is by faith and works (which Philip conveniently left out):
CANON IV. If any one shall affirm, that man’s freewill, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification; if moreover, anyone shall say, that the human will cannot refuse complying, if it pleases, but that it is inactive, and merely passive; let such an one be accursed"!
Philip, your quotation of Trent simply demonstrates the point of divide. Neither Carlo nor anyone else has said that Catholicism teaches that salvation is by works apart from grace. Anyone who would say such a thing clearly does not understand Catholicism. But your quotation of Trent does not exclude works. It presents works as a cooperating factor with grace as the basis of justification.
"If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works...without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema."
It is quite clear that Rome joins works to grace as the basis of justification. It is that which Trent plainly states that Protestants take issue with, not some uninformed caricature.
Do people exist who do not know any better and therefore argue against strawmen? Sure. They exist on both sides. But the differences are real differences. Works plus grace is not grace alone.
So save your comments about Jack Chick. I seriously doubt that there is anyone who both takes his stuff seriously and reads this blog.
Aaron,
Thank you for your charitable correspondence. It is refreshing and is evidence of the grace of God in your life.
“Carlo and others are taking church documents/creeds and even mistakes/missteps and applying them to all Catholics.”
As he should, but I understand that you are speaking in the practical realm, not the dogmatic. But this is where I think I might disagree with you. As a Protestant you obviously create a dichotomy between Evangelical fervor for the Gospel and Catholic Tradition. No such dichotomy exists for me, however. I am not sitting in my parish pew reading the Scriptures and ignoring things like Papal Infallibility, Apostolic Succession, and a rejection of sola fide and sola scriptura. I as a Catholic am passionate about those issues, and do not see them as conflicting at all with my Evangelical love of the Scripures.
From my perspective (and no doubt the perspective of other converts to Catholicism), the teachings of the Church fulfill the wonderful things I always held dear as an Evangelical Protestant. That is why many of us argue that we are in fact Evangelicals.
“(ironically enough, many "home to rome" folks are drawn by the seemingly unified and unchanging R.C. church. . . this is just not a reality,. . as it is not in Protestantism either)”
Formal changelessness, no, you’re right. Substantive changelessness, however, yes. It is true that the doctrines of Christianity undergo formal developments. If you asked a first century Christian if they believed in “the Trinity”, they would probably ask you what you mean. But this is where substantive changelessness does come in. The first century Christian would tell you that he believes in “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” So calling this “the Trinity” (along with the philosophical definitions of consubstantiation and other doctrines) is the development, while the belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the substantive belief which has always existed in the Church.
This is the astonishing thing that one finds: I asked first and second century Christians what they believed by reading the Early Church Fathers. What I saw there were the divinely revealed beginnings of what we now call “Roman Catholic Doctrines”. Were all of them (including many of them who were disciples of the Apostles themselves) categorically wrong? If so, then why do we trust the canon of Scripture they gave us, and the early Councils which Protestants accept (incarnation, hypostatic union, trinity, etc.)? Why do we cherry-pick traditions?
So I would argue that I am not at all seeing Catholicism through an Evangelical lens, which is unknown to the bishops or to the popes. I am seeing the Christian faith as it has always been believed since the time of Christ, and I am seeking to submit myself to it.
“I will say that your experience in Protestantism probably just causes you to hear certain Catholic doctrines in a different way than someone who has been in the R.C. their whole life. That's what I meant before.”
I agree that this is the case, but the question remains, which of us (the “cradle-Catholic” who sees things differently, or me) is the “real” Catholic. I am sorry to say that a vast number of cradle-Catholics have not been properly taught their own faith. So if they see it differently from me, I would argue they are seeing it incorrectly. In my RCIA program, there was some guy there who liked to “help”, and he practically denied the Trinity. I almost slapped him.
Who is more of a true Catholic? Him or me? With the resounding support of Saints, Doctors of the Church, bishops and popes, I say that I am. Now I have to start praying for that man!
“I feel like Beckwith and many more are able to reconcile themselves to the Catholic church because they are seeing the teaching through a different lens than most Catholics.”
I would love to discuss this more with you if you are willing. I am interested to know more about your perspective.
God bless, Aaron.
Philip
Carlo and Spurgeonite,
Notice how I did not say that Rome does not teach that works are involved (incidentally, that is what Scripture teaches in Galatians 5.6, James 2.24, and in countless places in the Gospels). What I take issue with is when someone says that Rome teaches that we are saved by our own works.
The works we do as Christians are the fruits of God's grace, just as much as faith is.
I am well aware of what divides us, Spurgeonite. I think you misinterpreted me.
Carlo, to deny Canon IV which you quoted would be to insist that we humans do not have free will. To say that we do not have free will is to say that God's will is the only will in existence. If God's will is the only will in existence, then God is directly responsible for all the evil in the world. I do not worship a devil.
Praying for unity in truth,
Philip
Philip: Carlo and others are taking church documents/creeds and even mistakes/missteps and applying them to all Catholics.”
Well, creeds and church doctrines are important Philip because they tell people what the church believes in. How is someone to know what a church believes in if it is not written down?
So, I wanted to ask you a few questions for clarification. Because you are saying I am misapplying them to all Catholics. I'll ask them in separate posts.
Do you deny and reject Roman Catholic teaching (that's what the Catechism is, Roman Catholic teaching) of salvation by faith and works? Do you deny the pope's sanction and affirmation of the doctrine of salvation by faith and works? I'm not asking what Rome believes since we already know, but what Philip believes.
One more question, do you deny that there are other Catholics who accept and embrace Rome's teaching of salvation by faith and works?
Carlo,
I was quoting Aaron in that statement. That statement is not mine.
I believe what the Catholic Church teaches.
God bless,
Philip
Philip: What I take issue with is when someone says that Rome teaches that we are saved by our own works.
Catechism from Article 2 Justification and Grace, 2001:
Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us.
The "we" referred to Philip, is we, my own, works.
Do you reject this teaching of Rome that with your own works you cooperate with the Holy Spirit for your salvation?
Philip: I believe what the Catholic Church teaches.
Thank you for the clarification Philip.
Aaron previously wrote to Philip: I"m glad you have found a parish that preaches the gospel to you and you can flourish within.
Aaron, I have a question for you? What do you believe? Do you believe a salvation by faith and works?
Hi guys! What Carlo and Phillip are discussing I cover in some detail in my book. Without giving away too much, the conceptual key to understanding the faith/works issue, for me, was to not think of either forensically. If one uses an imputation model, then works turn out to be acts in exchange for some good. That sense of "works" is clearly unbiblical, as Trent rightfully points out. But if one thinks of grace as infused, then works are not against grace or faith but the work of grace itself in helping us to conform to the image of Christ. Just as God taking on a human nature did not diminish his divinity, grace working through us with our cooperation does not diminish that grace and efficacy.
Read it when the book comes out. I simply can't do it justice here.
"The "we" referred to Philip, is we, my own, works."
Carlo,
You are not allowing for valid distinctions between types of causes, which is a basic component of ontology.
God is the efficient cause of our works, that is why our works are now, as the products of grace, no longer filthy rags like those of the Parisees who were doing works to try and merit heaven.
But God as the efficient cause does not preclude the reality of secondary causes. I, as a person who has to say "yes" to God and his ways every single day, am a secondary cause. But without the merits of the Christ on the Cross, my works, with me as the efficient cause, are absolutely powerless to merit anything before God.
Incidentally, my saying "yes" to God every day is itself a fruit of God's grace. You create sharp distinctions because you believe that grace dominates nature, and that therefore it must be either God working or man working. I share the view of the ancient Church (and the Scriptures no less) which teach that grace perfects nature. God's declarative word upon me acts upon me by perfecting me (a process which is far from over!), not irradicating my will.
God bless, Carlo. I appreciate your enthusiasm for Christ and the Gospel of Salvation by grace alone.
Philip: Carlo, to deny Canon IV which you quoted would be to insist that we humans do not have free will. To say that we do not have free will is to say that God's will is the only will in existence. If God's will is the only will in existence, then God is directly responsible for all the evil in the world. I do not worship a devil.
Christians don't reject free will Philip we just reject the free will defined by the ancient Greek mythologies. We do have free will (I prefer free agency) but that free will is restricted by the sovereignty of God. Free is not the will do anything I want. God doesn't even have that kind of free will. God is not free to lie, or sin any other way. God is not free in any way whatsoever to act in contrary to his own character and attributes.
Why is it always the philosophy professors?
Thank you for your input, Dr. Beckwith. Your point about infused grace helped me understand the Catholic position on justification much better when I began my journey.
Incidentally, Carlo, Catholics and Protestants necessarily believe in infused grace at some point. Protestants separate this process out and call it "sanctification" only. Catholics say that this is part of justification proper. But both say it is necessary for every Christian.
Dr. Beckwith, I greatly look forward to the release of your book. I will most certainly read it.
Thanks and God bless,
Philip
"Why is it always the philosophy professors?"
We're all just peeping Thomists. :-)
Carlo: Christians don't reject free will Philip we just reject the free will defined by the ancient Greek mythologies. We do have free will (I prefer free agency) but that free will is restricted by the sovereignty of God. Free is not the will do anything I want. God doesn't even have that kind of free will. God is not free to lie, or sin any other way. God is not free in any way whatsoever to act in contrary to his own character and attributes.
Then why do you disagree with Canon IV? Neither I nor the Catholic Church say that free will is license to "do whatever one wants." That discussion has no bearing on what we are talking about.
Just a question: are you Arminian or Calvinist (or neither)?
Blessings,
Philip
Francis: Without giving away too much, the conceptual key to understanding the faith/works issue, for me, was to not think of either forensically. If one uses an imputation model, then works turn out to be acts in exchange for some good.
That is in essence at the very heart of the heresy of Roman Catholic teaching. The righteousness that was accounted to Abraham was a forensic righteousness. Abraham believed and it was counted to him as righteousness. You can not add to that righteousness. It is a righteousness that cannot be taken away or dilute through time where you have to replenish through observation of ordinances.
The heresy of Roman Catholic teaching is that you're on this performance treadmill all the time. You have to be baptized, you have to take the Lord's Supper, you have to do confession and all of that stuff.
In order to keep favor with God, Roman Catholics believe, or avoid displeasure from God, you have to participate in these so-called infused grace of works. You don't do things out of gratitude for what God has already done but you do things to keep within the favor of God.
That is what is so damning about RC teaching. Everytime I talk to RCs and I ask if they are still working on receiving eternal life or what they would tell God, they will save I'm trying to do good things, I've been baptized, I've gone to confession, I've taken communion. They stand before God and they might say, well, Jesus, I trusted you, BUT I also did this, I did that, I, I, I, I, I, I, I.
That's why when you talk to RCs w/o/e they have no assurance of salvation because, well, they don't have it, but because they are taught by the RC they need to run on this performance treadmill and participate in infusion of grace to keep their salvation.
Phillip and Dr. Beckwith,
I know that you guys respect and value the fact that others have read the "early church fathers" as being more protestant than the early Catholic church. Then, Luther, Calvin, et. al, were trying to return the church to where it was in the early centuries.
This is diametrically opposed to your reading of history, . . but is an equally valid and defendable reading of it.
I just want to say that, personally, I have major differences with Catholic doctrine (and the "harmonizing" of those doctrines with some evangelical doctrines by Philip and others).
But, I also have a great affection for all of you and respect and see the process of your argument.
Dr. Beckwith and Philip,
I hope you have felt like I see you as brothers and not heretics. I hope you see the differences between the historic reformed doctrines and the Catholic doctrines as real. And, I hope you know that your eternity is sealed in heaven by God's grace, which manifests itself within you by good works.
If you find that assurance and "good news" within Roman Catholicism, than I rejoice for you.
Aaron
Carlo: That's why when you talk to RCs w/o/e they have no assurance of salvation because, well, they don't have it, but because they are taught by the RC they need to run on this performance treadmill and participate in infusion of grace to keep their salvation.
Catholics believe salvation does not take place until God weighs in, on, you know, Judgment Day. So there's nothing to "keep" and it is most certainly possible to fall from grace:
Heb.12:15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
Aaron: I know that you guys respect and value the fact that others have read the "early church fathers" as being more protestant than the early Catholic church. Then, Luther, Calvin, et. al, were trying to return the church to where it was in the early centuries.
snip snip
I just want to say that, personally, I have major differences with Catholic doctrine (and the "harmonizing" of those doctrines with some evangelical doctrines by Philip and others).
Translation: The Catholic gospel is different from the Reformed gospel. This is what this is all about and all I'm trying to get Philip to admit. We have a different gospel. The gospel of the Reformers is that, we believe, the teaching of the Bible, a salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
The gospel of Rome is a salvation of faith and works cooperating with the Holy Spirit of infusion of grace.
Aaron:I hope you have felt like I see you as brothers and not heretics.
You know what Aaron, what you say here is actually something more offensive than even what Francis or Philip have done. Assuming you at least intellectually assent to what the gospel is, the apostle Paul actually just doesn't call people who teach a different gospel heretics, he says they are cursed. What is offensive to me and I think to Christ and should be to all Christians, especially if you at least intellectually assent to what the gospel says, is that you are calling them brothers.
And I trust that you are not naive to believe that Rome's gospel is the same as the Reformed gospel so one of us is cursed. For you to call these men "brothers" adds to this travesty of apostasy.
Dr. Beckwith,
I apologize for many of the comments and readers on this blog. I have been coming here for months (though not posting much) and have found uncharitable remarks, unfair mischaracterizations, dogmatism, and a downright exclusive attitude quite common.
I am glad you have documented your journey and look forward to the release of your book. Although one may label me as a "Protestant," I by no means would ever say, think, or believe that all Catholics or any other branch of Christianity is lost and destined for hell. I am quite sure the Protestant tradition has its fair share of heresies, so many are trying to remove the speck when they have logs.
Please take no insult to the immaturity of many of these people. I assure you that there are at least a few civil evangelicals.
Carlo: One more question, do you deny that there are other Catholics who accept and embrace Rome's teaching of salvation by faith and works?
More precisely, we believe we are saved by the kind of faith that also produces works.
James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Teresita:Catholics believe salvation does not take place until God weighs in, on, you know, Judgment Day. So there's nothing to "keep" and it is most certainly possible to fall from grace:
Christ said to the thief on the cross that today he (the thief) would be with Him in paradise. That's way before Judgment Day Teresita.
I'm not sure how the passage you quote really applies to this?
djp: Also, too bad there isn't some control on language. "Evangelical (Roman) Catholic" is a genuine contradiction in terms.
On the contrary, you find Catholics evangelizing in Communist China and sub-Saharan Africa, and even in the unchurched regions of the Pacific Northwest, while many "Evangelicals" think they serve the Great Commission by stealing sheep (who already live the gospel) from St. Thomas Aquinas Church in Palo Alto, California.
Carlo: Christ said to the thief on the cross that today he (the thief) would be with Him in paradise. That's way before Judgment Day Teresita.
I have lost count of how many times the incident of the Good Thief has been used to refute this or that doctrine, most notably the necessity of baptism. For one thing, Christ is our Judge, second it was the end of the Thief's life, so there would be no time to fall from grace, third, you can't apply a single extraordinary anecdote as normative for the Church.
Carlo: God is not free to lie, or sin any other way.
On the contrary, it is written:
Ezek.14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
And in another place:
Isa.45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Teresita: More precisely, we believe we are saved by the kind of faith that also produces works.
James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
A common refrain from Reformers is that we believed that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone - but it is a faith that is not alone.
And I assure that, that many RCs will jump at the opportunity as they have for years and use the James passage to defend their doctrine of salvation by faith and works.
It's important to understand Teresita that the only righteousness that God will accept when you stand before Him is a righteousness that He cannnot reject. And the only righteousness that He cannot reject is His own righteousness and that is the righteousness that He puts to the account of those that believe and trust in Him.
And you see the problem with RC doctrine is that this righteousness cannot be a righteousness that God "infuses." Because even if it were true, that He infused grace for salvation, it is a woefully inadequate grace. For believers, we do not pray like we should every day, we do not read the Bible like we should every day, we do not give thanks like we should every day, we do not treat each other like we should every day.
For Christians, as we become more mature in the faith (and yes, sin less quanity wise in more areas and grow in holiness) the more and more we hate our sin because we become more sensitive to our sins.
This is not the gospel of Rome Teresita. The gospel of Rome is an actual performance treadmill. Actually, for many professing evangelicals, their gospel, at least how they live out, is a performance treadmill (they're legalists - i.e. living to gain favor with God or avoid displeasure instead of living in obedience to what He commands out of sheer gratitude).
I tell you Teresita if you stand before the judgment seat of God (and I say this to Aaron, Philip and Francis and Luke) and try to offer your cooperation of works with God for salvation, Teresita, hear me, God will reject that. Okay, you've been warned. God will not accept your righteousness. He will not accept His righteousness mixed with your cooperation because your cooperation mixed with God's righteousness is an imperfect righteousness. The only righteousness that God will accept is His own Son's perfect righteousness and that is a righteousness that is imputed to the account of those that trust and believe in Him.
The only righteousness that God will accept is His righteousness not man's (however Rome wants to label it cooperation, etc. etc.)
Carlo:
You seem like an enthusiastic young man with a real hunger to learn. For that reason, may I suggest you better acquaint yourself with the theological grammar and vocabulary of the Catholic point of view. You seem to be reading Catholic thought as if it were written with Protestant categories in mind. It is not.
This is something that I spend some time explaining in my book, and use some examples to make my point. In fact, in order to make my point I interact with a widely-known Reformed Christian writer and friend (whose name I intentionally leave out) in order to show the reader how not to read Catholic theology.
Carlo: God will not accept your righteousness. He will not accept His righteousness mixed with your cooperation because your cooperation mixed with God's righteousness is an imperfect righteousness.
Well, we are all redeemed by Christ's death on the cross, but there must be some process by which this righteousness is applied to us, otherwise we would be born saved. So we must repent and truly make Christ our Lord. That means obedience, otherwise we just mouth the words "Lord, Lord" but we not do what he says, and he will tell us to depart from his presence.
Philippians 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Session 6, CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
Philip: you have to read more than one canon to get to all the offenses of Trent. And let's be clear: Trent is offensive.
Dr. Beckwith --
The problem with your views as I have understood them by listening to the various interviews you have done since your return to Rome is that they seem to say that there's not really any disagreement between Rome and the Reformation -- just semantics. If we would only listen to each other -- particularly, if the Protestants would listen to what Rome has said, particularly post V-II -- most of the problems would fall away or be resolved.
I think that's wishful thinking at best -- because there is a huge void between infusion and imputation which, it appears to me, you downplay.
I am a fairly voracious reader, and I look forward to reading your book. However, unless it's a significant improvement over (for example) the reasoning you demonstrated on the STR podcast about a year ago, it's not going to change my mind about the problems the Roman Catholic church presents in the face of what the Bible teaches.
My suggestion is that readers of your book also read Goldsworthy's Gospel-centered Hermeneutics and compare your reasoning to the reasoning found there. It would be an interesting contrast for people to weigh in their own minds to see what type of reasoning is necessary to reach the conclusions you are reaching for.
I wish you the best, and I think you're a brave man to wade out into the blogosphere, given your reputation (which, in spite of how one might disagree with you, is generally a good one).
The offense of Trent was to reconcile the Epistle of James with the gospel, rather than deprecate it as an "epistle of straw".
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
But I am given to understand that the Lutherans eventually came around in their Joint Declaration on Justification.
37.We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit. Since Christians struggle against sin their entire lives, this consequence of justification is also for them an obligation they must fulfill.
carlo: "you have to participate in these so-called infused grace of works... they will save I'm trying to do good things, I've been baptized, I've gone to confession, I've taken communion."
Not trying to be offensive, but for a faithful Catholic that's kinda like saying, if I'm going to marry my wife I'll be forced to make love to her and tell her 'I Love You'. Not to mention I may even have to kiss her and bring her roses once in a while.
"Peeping Thomists"
Oh Man.
Okay, I can't say I won't use it...
Frank (Great name, by the way):
I can undertstand why you have heard me that way. But, as I make clear in the book, there is a big difference between Reformed and Catholic views of salvation, but not at the level of abstraction you may think. I argue in the book that the disagreement is on the question of the ontological status of grace, whether its real stuff that changes nature. It's at the the infusion v. imputation debate where the action is. And, as I argue in the book, the embracing of the forensic view (or the view that justification is merely forensic, for Catholics do not deny that justification as juridical aspect to it but that it is not the whole of it) was the consequence of the Reformers, either through their Catholic teachers or the general academic culture, the view known as nominalism.
Here's a nice article on this, if you are interested in nomnalism: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0097.html
Coincidentally, I just received the copy edits today. So, I have to put my nose to the grindstone and get them done by next Tuesday. (Mr. Taylor knows what's that about, to be sure).
Blessings to all.
FJB
Great thread. And I have read a good number of blog threads that fight the Reformation all over again.
I don't have a problem at all with Carlo's comments. But then again, I'm a 5-Sola Protestant. So, to address that built-in bias, I'll also say that I have no problem with staunch Catholics who hold that Protestant doctrine is grossly deficient. I'd have no problem at all with a Feeneyite Catholic.
I simply respect those who have the courage of your convictions. The respect is not necessarily for the content of those convictions, but rather that you possess the virtue of courage.
Bro. Carlo is right. Rome's gospel is another gospel, and therefore no gospel of Jesus Christ at all.
St. Paul announced that we have all died in our Baptism. Grace is eschatological. The Old is no more and has passed away, the New is here, has arrived. The sinner is not continuous existing subject. He dies and is raised again. Under this scheme, grace is not infused to be re-claimed by the sinner. But grace is imputed as the effective legal word of the gospel which kills and make alive - death and resurrection. It is grace which re-claims the sinner and hence it is down-to-earth movement, which is what the Incarnation was, i.e. the movement of the Kingdom of God upon the sinner and not the sinner's immanent moral progression towards beatific vision.
Baptism is therefore the whole of the Christian life - the justified life. I have been baptised, therefore I am justified - sola fide.
Teresita:Well, we are all redeemed by Christ's death on the cross, but there must be some process by which this righteousness is applied to us, otherwise we would be born saved. So we must repent and truly make Christ our Lord. That means obedience, otherwise we just mouth the words "Lord, Lord" but we not do what he says, and he will tell us to depart from his presence.
I think you have mentioned some very important points of clarification of what saving faith involves. What it is: trusting in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life. You mentioned receiving Christ as Lord. That is absolutely correct. You mentioned repentance. That is also what saving faith involves.
Here is what it also involves which Rome categorically denies: it involves a complete transfer of trust to Christ alone. You can't trust in this infusion that Rome has invented to which you cooperate with. Why? Because it involves you.
I mean, everything we touch, is tainted with sin (missing the mark which is perfection). Our prayers are tainted, our devotions our tainted, every single one of our good deeds are tainted. This is what makes Romes doctrine of infusion so disgusting, not because I think it is, because God thinks it. And that is, anything I do even to cooperate with grace and I try to add that or mix that with the perfect righteousness of God, would taint the perfect righteousness of God. That's why Rome's doctrine of infusion makes no sense notwithstanding the fact that it would so offensive to God Himself.
Cooperating still partly involves trusting in yourself.
So, I think you're getting close to understanding what the gospel is but the difficulty is on the trust issue. Catholics are trained to trust in their own works and their also trained to trust other created beings like Mary and some of the other saints that have gone before us.
And I just want to say again Teresita, the only righteousness that God cannot and will not reject when people appear before Him, is His righteousness which is a divine righteousness. As I'm sure you know, none of us actually become divine. I mean Christians don't become divine beings at salvation. So, the righteousness that He imputes on us is not a righteousness that is infused. It is righteousness that is put to our account. It is a legal declaration.
You recall at the shipwreck which Paul was in, God granted the other shipmates rescue for Paul's sake.
Salvation is from God - salvation from His judgment, from His wrath, and why are we saved? Is it because of Mary interceding? No. Is is because of your cooperation with the grace of God? No. Is it because we live a good life? No. Is because we merited a place in Heaven? No.
The only reason under Heaven why any of us are saved is for Christ's sake.
The Father will look at Jesus, Teresita, and say, and for His sake is giving Him an inheritance of people who will be called by Jesus' name, just as David honored Mephibosheth for Jonathon's sake (not because David loved Mephibosheth but David loved Jonathon), but for Jonathon's sake Mephibosheth was saved. As it will be for Christians, the Father, for Jesus' sake, we are saved.
Key point here is God saving for His Son's sake and not Christ saving for Mary's sake. I think that's an important aside and another of one Rome's hellish doctrines. The offended party is not Mary, but God. It was not God the Father's plan for Mary to intercede. Mary could not have nor could ever intercede now or ever. It was the Father's plan to sacrifice His Son, which Christ willingly did. It is for Christ's sake that the Father saved us.
This is all a complete antithesis to Rome's teaching.
"Here is what it also involves which Rome categorically denies: it involves a complete transfer of trust to Christ alone."
Amen.
Carlo: Here is what it also involves which Rome categorically denies: it involves a complete transfer of trust to Christ alone.
That is not correct. Paul indicated his own cooperation with grace in Colossians 1:24 in a remarkable passage that makes him essentially a co-redeemer with Christ: Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
You can't trust in this infusion that Rome has invented to which you cooperate with. Why? Because it involves you.
Yet that is precisely what you've done by making your own faith the object of your faith. Instead of making Christ the object of your faith, you make this complete emptying of trust in yourself necessary for salvation. Then you must attend most carefully that you have not the smallest trust in yourself, lest that tiny scrap be sufficient to bust the deal and condemn you to eternal fire. And you're back on your metaphorical treadmill again.
This is what makes Romes doctrine of infusion so disgusting, not because I think it is, because God thinks it.
Infusion simply means that God's grace makes us objectively holy to him, rather than a whitewash by fiat. Imagine spending eternity knowing that inside you are really a pile of crap, but you have a coating of white paint called "imputed grace" covering you to make you look good to God and the other saints. It would be an eternity of living a lie.
An Evangelical Catholic "rejoices in being able to feed at both the table of the Eucharist and from the sacred text. He loves both the sacred liturgy and the message boldly preached, rejoicing in both the sacramental ministry of the priest and the evangelical work of the prophet. Moreover, in both his sorrow and rejoicing the Evangelical Catholic remains hopeful and committed to bringing about evangelical renewal in both his personal life and in the life of the Catholic Church. "
Indeed. I am actually also a "Francis", but I am a better man for it.
BTW, for those who are befuddled by Dr. Beckwith's link, copy it and paste it into your URL.
I can't believe he thinks that's the high water mark for this discussion, but you should read it for yourself.
Carlo,
Thanks for your love for the gospel and love for people. I am tired of people who think that love is to be wishy washy. You have shown grace to the people you interact with and you have shown genuine love for them. Intellectuals tend to stand above the entire argument and look down upon it as though they are removed from the personal implications of each line of thought. You on the other hand, know the gospel of Christ in your soul and that leads you to intellectual endeavor, however far you are capable of it. Brothers, at the end of the day Carlo is right. You do not need a PhD to know the difference between salvation by grace alone and salvation by grace and the works resultant of infused grace. You only need to know yourself as you really are, and then see that you have nothing to offer God. This knowledge is the only thing that will lead to true sanctification. May God grant that his gospel weed its way through all our facades, be they personal or intellectual.
Teresita wrote:
"Infusion simply means that God's grace makes us objectively holy to him, rather than a whitewash by fiat. Imagine spending eternity knowing that inside you are really a pile of crap, but you have a coating of white paint called "imputed grace" covering you to make you look good to God and the other saints. It would be an eternity of living a lie."
Actually, Evangelical Protestantism, (Biblical Christianity) does not deny that we are also changed (conformed to the image of Christ - Romans 8:29; I John 3:2-3; Philippians 3:20-21); we only deny that that change (infusion of grace; sanctification or practical righteousness) is the basis or ground for our being able to stand before holy God and being counted "not guilty" or "justified" (declared righteous). We are also changed and sanctified; and do good works and bear fruit; but those are results of true justifying faith, not the conditions for finally getting to heaven or to be with God. God in Christ, did the work; we trust in His work on the cross.
James White has a great summary of the justification issue and the bottom line and its relation to purgatory in his debate with Peter Stravinskas.
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2780
This is the bottom line:
Romans 4:1-8; especially verses 5, 6, and 8
Hebrews 10:10-13
Teresita:
Am curious about how your strong defense of Roman Catholicism in this thread relates to your philosophical alignment with daojia Taoism (I refer to your blog)? I would have thought that these belief systems would be in conflict. From a practical standpoint, how do you weave them together into a coherent worldview?
Susan
sbg: Am curious about how your strong defense of Roman Catholicism in this thread relates to your philosophical alignment with daojia Taoism (I refer to your blog)? I would have thought that these belief systems would be in conflict. From a practical standpoint, how do you weave them together into a coherent worldview?
Master Je Tzu taught that the first would be last, and the last first, and the greatest would be the servant of all. He taught that it is better to take a lower position and be exalted, than to presumptuously take the higher position and be asked to step down in shame. Master Lao Tzu said the sage is outside herself and therefore her self lasts. Master Je Tzu taught that we are to forsake earthly treasure and seek treasure in heaven, which never decays or is stolen. Master Lao Tzu said it was through the sage's selflessness that she is able to perfect herself. The essence of Master Je Tzu's gospel is that we are called to put the selfish, sinful, imperfect ego to death, and allow Master Je Tzu's to live within us for the sanctification of our soul.
Bible - Matthew 26:52 Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.
Tao Te Ching - Chapter 74 People who try to take the executioner's place are like people that try to take the Master Carpenter's place. If you use the Master's tools, you just cut your own hands.
Bible - Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Tao Te Ching- Chapter 76 The soft and yielding will prevail.
Bible - Proverbs 10:19 The more you talk, the more you are likely to sin. If you are wise, you will keep quiet.
Tao Te Ching - Chapter 5 The mouth, on the other hand, becomes exhausted if you talk too much. Better to keep your thoughts inside you.
Teresita,
Are you in good standing with the Roman Catholic church? If so, does your priest approve of such a position on Taoism?
It doesn't seem as though you answered sbg's question. You just asserted what you believe is apparent with proof texts. This is similar to those who claim that Christianity stole their religious beliefs from Mithra.
IOW, it doesn't work.
Mark
Are you in good standing with the Roman Catholic church? If so, does your priest approve of such a position on Taoism?
If you understood more about Taoism, you would know that daojiao is not compatible with Western religion because it is itself a religion, while daojia is merely a philosophy, something along the lines of Ayn Rand's objectivism, or pragmatism. This is not the forum to discuss this in depth. Besides, Taoism is the least of the things about me that would potentially put me out of good standing with Rome. It is possible to be a lapsed Catholic in practice while defending Catholic beliefs on a purely intellectual basis.
Dr. Beckwith, Philip, and Teresita,
Can we put aside the doctinal/theoretical debate for a moment, and ask a more practical question, "What's the fruit?"
I live in a country that's...
~80% Roman Catholics
~95% liars
~50% adulterers
~20% thieves
~10% alcoholics
The vast majority of R.C.s here are no different than Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or atheists. They go to church once/year, offer some money, then go back and live like the Devil for another year.
In contrast to that, I attend a non-R.C. church which seeks to accept only regenerate members who love God and obey Him (no adulterers, alcoholics, etc.) And, if any of our members ever fall into sin (adultery, alcoholism, etc.), and refuse to repent, we will ex-communicate them.
So, here is my question for you...
"Do you think I should leave my church to join the R.C. church?"
Are you in good standing with the Roman Catholic church? If so, does your priest approve of such a position on Taoism?
How about her self proclaimed "Lesbianism"
Greg Gibson: "Do you think I should leave my church to join the R.C. church?"
By all means please stay in the church you are, where you can fast twice a week, give tithes on all that you possess, and thank God that you are not as we Catholics are, extortioners, unjust, and adulterers.
Greg Gibson: "Do you think I should leave my church to join the R.C. church?"
That ultimately is between you and Jesus, but I would highly recommend it. If they let me in they’ll let anybody in. Be forewarned though that the RC church is made up 100% of sinners. Hopefully you wouldn’t have to lose Christian fellowship with your current church.
My local parish contains many hypocrites that show up to mass on Sunday (once in a while) with the attitude that they are doing God a favor by allowing him to bless them. There are also many good souls that give of themselves teaching bible school and catechism, building homes for the poor, delivering food to old folks, and visiting nursing homes.
One thing that may be different in my church is that if one falls into those nasty sins (adultery, alcoholism, etc.), he ex-communicates himself. The institutional church is never quick to pronounce ex-communications because repentance is always the call of our savior (as much as seventy times seven anyway).
It sounds like you belong to a beautiful Christian community and I would say, God Bless You! Objectively speaking though something exists in a Catholic community that does not exist in yours; not because of the goodness of the people gathered there, but because of the goodness of Christ that gave it to the church once and for all.
James White's commentary on this blog thread is worthy of a note. You can find it here: Frank Beckwith Promotes "Return" to Rome: Again Shows a Naive Understanding of the Key Issues
This post has been removed by the author.
Bretts: The institutional church is never quick to pronounce ex-communications
Greg: The Vatican only excommunicates members who refuse to repent of which 2 of these 7 sins...
1. Adultery?
2. Alcoholism?
3. Homosexuality?
4. Prostitution?
5. Mafia membership?
6. Publicly criticizing the Pope?
7. Teaching Protestantism?
From my personal observation, I estimate that only ~1-2% of RCs are regenerate (know the Lord). The other 98-99% appear to be lost, unbelievers, and on the road to Hell.
They need to hear the good news about the Son of God whose sacrifice for sins once for all time is ENOUGH.
Greg Gibson: From my personal observation, I estimate that only ~1-2% of RCs are regenerate (know the Lord). The other 98-99% appear to be lost, unbelievers, and on the road to Hell.
I thank my lucky stars that I will be standing before my Maker, who sees all, rather than Greg, who estimates what percentage of 1.2 billion people should go to eternal damnation based on his personal observation. I know with gas prices being what they are he doesn't get around as much as God does.
Teresita,
For what it's worth, most Protestants also don't show the signs of new birth by God's Spirit.
Coming to Christ and coming to a church are 2 different things. Salvation isn't by church membership. It's by knowing Jesus Christ the Savior.
Thanks for posting the link to White's comments. Don't you think, though, that they are a little strange? Professor Beckwith's book has not even been published and White is relying exclusively on brief comments Beckwith wrote here. And Frank even said that his comments cannot do justice to what he says in his book. Don't you think Christian charity demands that one wait until the book comes out?
As JT pointed out, Brazos (a division of Baker) is publishing Beckwith's book. It is not Ignatius or Ave Maria.
Full disclosure: I am, like Beckwith, a professor at Baylor, and have read the manuscript. Let me be brutally candid: White is being highly presumptuous. The book is far from a Catholic apologetic. Frank is critical of American Catholicism in some places and offers high praise to many, many Evangelical scholars.
This book is not like Rome Sweet Home or Crossing the Tiber. This is an intellectual-spiritual autobiography that Beckwith vetted with about 20 of us at Baylor and other Evangelical theologians and biblical scholars that out-credential White by light years.
The great thing about Beckwith's book is that he is so transparent in how he thought through these issues. Because Frank is a philosopher, he is able to crystallize some of the Protestant-Catholic disagreements with utmost clarity. And in one place he even says that Luther and Calvin correctly diagnosed some of the problems with Rome, though Frank thinks their cures were only partly right (no surprise there!).
This book is written by a man with a teachable spirit who shares with the rest of us what went on his mind over the past couple of years.
For the record, some of us at Baylor--both Catholics and Protestants--discouraged Frank from writing this book. But he did it anyways, because, as he told us, he wanted to tell people exactly why the president of ETS became Catholic rather than people relying on brief interviews and wild speculations.
There is a lot of tenderness in this book. Beckwith shows devotion to his wife, family, and friends, and most especially to Jesus Christ.
So, here’s my advice: read the book when it comes out, and then comment.
Carlo,
What if the "cooperation" which disturbs you was in fact a result, an effect, of God's grace? What if it was simply the way in which God allows us to participate or even become aware of His eternal plan of election which we had no role in "meriting" whatsoever?
What would you think of that?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home