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.
No Guinness, although I think there’s a bottle of Michelob left from the last time my father visited. And the nap was Overtaken By Events ... just as I dozed off, I heard one of my sons moving a chair into the kitchen so he could rummage the freezer :-). Life is like that sometimes.
My point, such as it is, is that without more information, such as who are the Lemann Brothers, and on what they base their interpretation, we’re not going to have any useful discussion of what is actually an interesting question.
Maybe NYer can help with this. I don’t have Mr. Schoeman’s book, so I can’t add anything.
NYer made two obvious errors in his post. The first was that Jesus kept silent before the High Priest. He didn't. Once he was ordered under oath, he gave an answer (As was required of him under Mosaic Law).
The second glaring error was his assertion that Mosaic Law prohibits a man from being compelled to testify. Leviticus 5:1 suggests otherwise and I can find no such prohibition in the Torah.
And then he used both of those errors as substantiation of how some Jewish Rabbi came to be a catholic. Well we have yet to hear from NYer on this subject. He has posted this RUMOR on several threads now. I'd just like to see someone substantiate it. Otherwise it remains a rumor.
"The second glaring error was his assertion that Mosaic Law prohibits a man from being compelled to testify. " to:
The second glaring error was his assertion that Mosaic Law prohibits a man from being compelled to testify against himself.
I hope your nap went better than mine. Boys!
The boys are long gone, Tax-chick.
Things change radically when you are finally “left alone”.
Endure and enjoy while you can, because there is nothing so permanent as change.
In Him,
ROE
Again, professor, your argument is with Shoeman. Write to him.
People keep saying that, and I’m sure it’s true :-).
Maybe people should check their facts before they quote him.
Another one swims back across the Tiber!
Welcome home, Dr. Beckwith!
What facts? Rabbinical Judaism is not Sola Scriptura. You check your facts.
Mosaic Law is sola scriptura.
Dr. Francis Beckwith Returns To Full Communion With The Church
Catholic Converts - Stephen K. Ray (former Evangelical)
Catholic Converts - Malcolm Muggeridge
Catholic Converts - Richard John Neuhaus
Catholic Converts - Avery Cardinal Dulles
Catholic Converts - Israel (Eugenio) Zolli - Chief Rabbi of Rome
Catholic Converts - Robert H. Bork , American Jurist (Catholic Caucus)
Catholic Converts - Marcus Grodi
**************
Agreed, and well said. Welcome home, Dr. Beckwith!
Mr. Conspirator,
How would you characterize the relationship between the Torah, the rabbinical teaching and the Tradition in Judaism, especially around 1c, in general?
More specifically, how accurate would be the contention that the Law of Moses prohibited forcing a self-incriminating testimony?
Okay ... I have the book and here is what Roy Schoeman has written.
Both Matthew and Mark explicitly mention Jesus' silence as well as the underlying motive of envy. From Matthew 27:12-18.
But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he made no answer. Then Pilate said to him, "Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?" But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge; so that the governor wondered greatly .... For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up.
The Leman brothers made the touching point that Jesus' silence before the High Priest was motivated by His profound respect for the office of the Jewish Priesthood. 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 (John 18:19-23).
The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly. Why to you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said." When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?" Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?"
Jesus acquiesced only when the High Priest ordered Him to answer in the name of God.
Hope that clarifies your question.
With a little research, I came across the following, written by a lawyer. Perhaps this will resolve that question, as well.
Under Mosaic law an accused could not be required to testify against himself. This is the soul of our 5th Amendment, "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Here is the concept of "taking the fifth", part of criminal justice since the time of Moses!
My friend didn’t like Scott Hahn very much. Too much in common, I think :-).
That’s informative, thanks!
************
Wow. I had no idea. Thanks, NYer.
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.