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.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
See post #77
Not really. I just asked for a biblical cite to the assertion that "Mosaic law forbids compelling a witness to testify against himself."
I could not find such a reference and in fact Mosaic Law seems to contradict that statement, since anyone called to testify under oath is required to answer pursuant to Leviticus 5:1.
Now can you show me anywhere in scriptural law where there is statement that "Mosaic law forbids compelling a witness to testify against himself."????
If not, then will you admit that Roy Schoeman doesn't know what he is talking about.
I cannot find any scriptural references to that assertion. I therefore believe it to be false.
Can you show me anywhere in scripture where Moses taught that particular "Law"?
Jesus seemed to be rather hostile towards Rabbinical "tradition". Don't you think?
Again there is no cite to any scripture. If someone has the scripture, please produce it. Leviticus 5:1 seems to require that the accused testify, and a failure to testify after being sworn was an implication of guilt.
If anyone comes up with the "Mosaic Law", then I'll be happy to retract all my statements on this thread.
That's one reason why many of us conservative Protestants are offended at the language of "conversion" to mean when one chooses to become Roman Catholic coming from another Christian denomination.
Unless the individual who became Roman Catholic uses the word "conversion" for his choice to cross the Tiber, the word conversion is wholly inappropriate. The word conversion implies someone becoming a Christian, or to use the evangelical term, "getting saved."
It is my understanding that the current magisterium emanating from Vatican II and the current Catechism acknowledges that there are indeed authentic Christians who do not acknowledge the authority of the Roman Pontiff over them. Given that, the idea of "conversion" from evangelical Protestant faith is not correct. "Transference" may be a better term. If you acknowledge serious conservative evangelicals like Beckwith was as Christian before, than he never "converted" to Roman Catholicism, rather he chose to join your Church.
It seems not to have worked on Mr. P-Marlowe. (Who was, oddly, assassinated partly because he was inclined to Catholicism.)
"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."
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?
I'm not sure why you're asking me these questions or how you want them answered. Are you wanting some sort of "higher critical" answer that confirms that Jewish Oral Tradition is not authentic? You won't get any such answer from me.
I am neither a scholar nor even Jewish but a simple Noachide. All I know is that the Torah--Written and Oral--was given by G-d to Israel on Mt. Sinai. If you're seeking some sort of answer to a problem you're having reconciling "the new testament" with the Oral Torah then you have come to the wrong person, since I accept the Oral Torah and reject "the new testament" completely and utterly (which means contradictions between Oral Torah or Rabbinic rulings and the "word of G-d" in the NT don't bother me in the least).
I am sure any of the Orthodox Jewish FReepers could answer your question(s) better than I if you give them a better idea of what you are asking about.
I know that a lot of people have heard the saying that there is no salvation outside the church but as followers of Christ you are part of the Universal church and a part of the body of Christ. There are some diehards full of pride who think that all the Protestants are going straight to...well you know where, just as there are Protestants who think the same of Catholics. But they haven't reckoned with the Mercy of Christ. I'm sure you've heard the old joke about the Catholics dying and going to heaven and God tells them to go down the hall to a certain room to join the other Catholics and tells them to be quiet because the (put any denomination here) don't think there are any Catholics in heaven.
It is useless to try to figure out who's going where and besides, God has said that He is the Judge and I figure I can let Him be God. If everyone lived their faith and quit nitpicking, the world would be a much better place.
The reason Catholic conversion? stories are so interesting is that it so often happens to people who were anti-Catholic and found themselves drawn there against their own will and reasoning. I, myself, was raised with a lot of anti-Catholicism and my husband was raised to be anti-religious, so you can imagine the puzzlement I felt when I felt this strong pull to the Catholic Church. But I put myself in God's hands and I have never regreted it.
Jewish law is contained in the Torah
“Here is an excellent example of what I meant when I said that Catholics who join the Evangelical Church eventually return to their roots. It is the Sacraments conferred by Jesus Christ, that draw them back home.”
For myself It was not the reason. It is the Catholic Chuch’s refusal to bend to societal norms that is still leading me back. It seems as if the Catholic Church is the only Church that continues to hold to the truth about human relationships, human rights (as they pertain to the unborn) and many other moral issues. Most Protestant Churches I have been involved with have opened the front doors and invited the devil in by deserting foundational moral truths to please the world and seem “reasonable”.
Blessings
Mel
That might have been funny if it were “C-Marlowe.” Ooops.
Why can't you just admit that you are wrong. Mosaic Law is specifically that Law which is found in the Five Books of Moses. There is no prohibition against a witness testifying against himself in the SCriptures or the first five books of the Bible. Maybe it is part of some later Jewish tradition, but it is not in the 5 Books of Moses and it is not "Mosaic Law."
When you find a scripture in the first 5 Books of the Bible that prohibits it, then call me. I'll retract everything I said as soon as you show me the scripture.
No scripture, No retraction.
Are you willing to retract your statement?
The 5 Books of Moses are the base on which the Torah is built! Just as the US Constitution is based on Judeo-Christian laws. Ultimately ALL laws stem from the 10 Commandments. Get it? That's like me asking you to show me where in Scripture it says it is illegal to drive drunk.
I trust that you are correct, and the Mosaic equivalent of the Fifth Amendment is not in the Bible. Nevertheless, as Schoeman and the Leman brothers, people with knowledge of Judaism tell us, it is a part of the law as taught in Judaism.
Jesus seemed to be rather hostile towards Rabbinical "tradition". Don't you think?
I don't think He was hostile to all tradition. It is certainly inaccurate to say that He was hostile to unwritten tradition as opposed to the written tradition. There is nothing to indicate He was hostile to the office of High Priest, the point of contention on hand.
This is the point I wanted confirmed, thank you.
The controversy we had with Marlowe was whether something analogous to the Fifth Amendment is a part of the Law of Moses. Marlowe says, it is not a part of the written Torah, and I contend that the Law of Moses is not restricted to the written Torah, so the absence of such written commandment does not prove anything.
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.