Posted on 05/04/2007 8:40:45 AM PDT by NYer
Dr. Francis Beckwith, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, has become Catholic. Dr. Beckwith was raised Catholic but became an Evangelical Protestant in youth. After a review of Catholic theology and its basis, however, he has been reconciled with the Church.
I recently learned of Dr. Beckwith's intention to pursue reconciliation. Apparently my own humble writings were of use to him in his journey, and he was kind enough to say so. In view of the sensitivity of the situation, however, I of course agreed to refrain from making the matter publicly known. He also was kind enough to let me know just before he went to the sacrament of reconciliation.
Last night I received a note from Dr. Beckwith indicating that the matter had become public, and so I would like to offer warm felicitations regarding his return to full communion with the Church.
The source through which the matter was made public happened to be James White's blog, and as you can imagine, Mr. White is not happy.
In particular Mr. White raises the question of what Dr. Beckwith will do given his present status as head of the Evangelical Theological Society.
Prior to his reconciliation, Dr. Beckwith shared his thoughts on that matter with me, and though I will let him speak for himself on the subject, I will say that he intends to handle the matter in a gracious and frank manner and has already taken steps in that direction.
On his blog, Mr. White questions whether Dr. Beckwith could remain a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, writing as follows:
Let's ponder the hypothetical situation of a President of the Evangelical Theological Society converting to Roman Catholicism in the midst of his tenure. In 1998 I attended the national meeting of the ETS in Orlando, Florida. At one of the sessions some of the founding members were being asked questions about why they did certain things, why they wrote the statement of faith as they did, etc. A woman asked a question of the panel. "Why did you write 'the Bible alone' in the statement of faith?" The ETS statement of faith is very, very short. It reads:
"The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."
Roger Nicole rose, slowly, and made his way to the podium. He looked out at the lady and said, "Because we didn't want any Roman Catholics in the group." He then turned around and went back to his seat. While most sat in stunned silence, I and a friend with me broke into wild applause. The brevity of the response, and Nicole's dead-pan look, was classic. Most looked at us like we were nuts, but we appreciated what he said. Here, one of the founding members made it clear that the ETS was founded as a Protestant organization and that primary to their own self-understanding was a belief in sola scriptura.
Mr. White is correct about the text of the ETS statement of faith or "doctrinal foundation." It's found online here.
While the ultimate interpretation of this statement is up to the ETS itself, I would point out two things:
1) The statement of a single founder, such as Dr. Nicole, regarding the interpretation of such a statement is analogous to that of a single founding father regarding the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, it is not of itself conclusive, however enthusiastically Mr. White and his friend might receive it.
2) If the founders of the ETS intended to exclude Catholics from the organization, they did not frame their doctrinal foundation in a way that would, in fact, block Catholics from being able to agree to it.
The Bible and the Bible alone is the word of God written (as opposed to the Word of God Incarnate, the word of God in nature, or the word of God handed on through the Church in parallel to Scripture). Only Scripture is divinely inspired such that every assertion of the sacred authors is asserted by the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the Bible is inerrant in the autographs. And, of course, God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.
There is thus nothing in the ETS doctrinal foundation that a Catholic could not agree to in good conscience and it is not an effective instrument for excluding Catholics from membership.
This situation will, of course, be very sensitive for members of the Evangelical Theological Society and its leadership, as well as for Dr. Beckwith and his family, and I ask readers to keep the matter in prayer.
At the hour I write, Dr. Beckwith has not posted on Right Reason, a blog in which he participates, regarding his return to full communion, and I do not know if he will do so, but I invite my readers to watch that blog for possible updates and to offer their felicitations to Dr. Beckwith in the combox below.
VISIT RIGHT REASON.
White must not have seen this.
-A8
Yes; my memory was faulty. My apologies to everyone involved.
See post #36.
Unfair comparison that only makes our Church look spineless. If our bishops took the trouble to throw out all the heretics in Catholic universities who still call themselves Catholic theologians, the Protestants would have plenty of folks to point to.
Well, since ya pinged me over..
Theres' ........... ONE.
In all seriousness.. he has a right to choose to stay or go wherever he wants. The statement that "Catholics who join the Evangelical Church eventually return to their roots" is FALSE.
SOME do .. not all. And I know MANY personally.
Thanks for the ping .. I think.
I went and read Schoeman’s story and all I can say is WOW!
Amazing, isn't it! He has appeared twice as a guest on The Journey Home.
I am not a great reader but I could not put down his book, Salvation is from the Jews. Highly recommend it.
Do you have a Biblical cite for that statement?
Thanks for putting up the link - that’s a tremendous story!
Mr. Schoeman is of course speaking from a rabbinical perspective, not a sola scriptura one.
Torah requires two or three witnesses to condemn someone a capital offense (Dt 17:6), and there's no indication that the testimony of the offender (obtained under compulsion) "counts" as one of the two or three.
I'm sure White has nothing good to say about Dr. Hahn, but I think it's really hard to argue that Scripture is the "last place" Hahn wants Catholics to go, based on his website. And the same is true of Mr. Grodi.
I don't think the full version is available online.
Then NYer Is wrong. The quote I was referencing from NYer was as follows:
Mosaic law forbids compelling a witness to testify against himself.
The fact is that MOSAIC LAW does not forbid any such thing! In fact MOSAIC LAW specifically states that anyone who refuses to testify after being placed under oath is deemed guilty of the crime (Leviticus 5:1).
Jesus did, in fact, answer the High Priest. He answered "Thou hast said", and in fact, by that statement he used the High Priest to act as a false witness against him!
So this whole nonsense that "Mosaic law forbids compelling a witness to testify against himself. It was because Jesus did not want to put the High Priest in the position of sinning against that law that He refused to answer the High Priest's questions even though beaten for it. " is just that, nonsense.
Jesus did not keep his silence. When called under oath (Matthew 26:63), he did not keep silent, but instead He named the high priest as a witness.
Additionally this nonsense about "Mosaic Law forbidding compelling a witness to testify against himself" is also nonsense. There may be some "tradition" that nobody seems to have ever heard of, but "Mosaic Law" is entirely found within the first five books of the Bible and this "Law" does not appear to be found within those books. When you reference "Mosaic Law" you are relying upon "sola scriptura". When you reference tradition, it is not Mosaic Law.
This is why SOLA SCRIPTURA is so important. If I am wrong, prove it by scripture.
You seem upset. I always say, “When the colored text comes out, it’s time for a Guinness.”
Well, at least I’ve said it now ... and as I’m out of Guinness, I’ll have a nap, instead.
The colored text was the quote from Nyer.
There is no colored text in NYer’s post that I can see. But I haven’t been myself since I got my bifocals.
As far as I can tell, NYer was paraphrasing an discussion in a book, in which the book’s author mentioned an interpretation attributed to someone else. (Some “Lemann Brothers,” whoever they are.) Since none of us has the exact words of the interpretation from its source, it seems a bit dubious to argue over it.
Always glad for a reasoned response.
I think I’ll have a nap, too. :-)
I was then told by Campion that the reference really wasn't "Mosaic Law" but may have been some Rabbincal tradition or some such nonsense.
The Mosaic Law is scripture not tradition. If you want to rely on tradition, don't call it Mosaic Law, call it oral tradition or speculation.
What NYer is doing on this thread is spreading RUMOR and pretending it is fact. I've noticed he's used this same quote on other threads. Well if the prohibition against self incrimination is in the Mosaic Law, then prove it. It shouldn't be hard. If it is Mosaic Law, it is in the scriptures. If it isn't in the scriptures, then it isn't Mosaic Law.
I thought you were taking a nap? Did you find some Guinness in the back of the fridge?
None here claims to be an expert on Judaism, and NYer cited one earstwhile Jew agreeing with another that the prohibition in question is Mosaic Law. Now, Mosaic Law to a Jew is what the body of rabbinical thought teaches, and not what is directly in the Bible. This has always been my understanding. Do you claim a better understanding of Judaism than Shoeman, or do you wish to argue with what Judaism teaches about the Law? In either case your question would be better addressed to a Jew on a thread dedicated to Judaism. For this thread the question is marginal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.