Posted on 05/06/2007 11:58:17 AM PDT by NYer
Most of the post centers on the tussle over ETS matters and leadership, (he has resigned from the presidency) but:
There is a conversation in ETS that must take place, a conversation about the relationship between Evangelicalism and what is called the “Great Tradition,” a tradition from which all Christians can trace their spiritual and ecclesiastical paternity. It is a conversation that I welcome, and it is one in which I hope to be a participant. But my presence as ETS president, I have concluded, diminishes the chances of this conversation occurring. It would merely exacerbate the disunity among Christians that needs to be remedied.
The past four months have moved quickly for me and my wife. As you probably know, my work in philosophy, ethics, and theology has always been Catholic friendly, but I would have never predicted that I would return to the Church, for there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable. However, in January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries. Moreover, much of what I have taken for granted as a Protestant—e.g., the catholic creeds, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Christian understanding of man, and the canon of Scripture—is the result of a Church that made judgments about these matters and on which non-Catholics, including Evangelicals, have declared and grounded their Christian orthodoxy in a world hostile to it. Given these considerations, I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles.
(Comments are open over there, btw. Worth a visit to add your support, if you like!)
Thanks for the link, NYer. As another has asked, how are you?
Hmm, how did that happen?
Should have read:
New Perspectives on Paul rings the bell as a current attempt at such...
Dear Dr. Beckwith:
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
(Galatians 1:6-8 KJV)
Paul
You sure are...You are missing eternal security...
catholics have the scripture, the church, and the historical witness of the early church fathers.
We all have the scriptures...
You have a religion...With ceremonies, rituals and some beliefs that don't line up with the written word of God...
Your historical witnesses are only as good as the integrity of those charged with accurately preserving those historical records...
Me, I'll walk by faith and not by sight...Besides, I have living in me the One who started the early church...
Likely you don't believe that...Could be you don't even understand that...
I think this is the gentleman’s kind way of saying he no longer believes in Sola Scriptura.
Catholics do believe in those doctrines of Protestants that are found in Scripture and declared in the creeds.
Obviously the reformers used the Bible to support their doctrines that differed from Catholic teaching. However Catholics also use the Bible to support their doctrines. But Catholics also believe in the authority of Apostolic tradition.
This tradition does not refute or reject scripture. It takes into account the oral teachings of the Apostles that have been handed down through the Church. These teachings along with careful study of Scripture have been used to declare certain teachings of the Church as binding on the faithful.
The Church can never say that Christ did not rise from the dead or deny the Trinity. She may declare that the Virgin Mary was bodily assumed into heaven or that the Pope is infallible when speaking as leader of the Church in matters of faith and morals.
This difference in views is why Catholics sometimes refer to the Church as having the fullness of Truth. We do not believe that Protestants do not have any truth. Actually they a lot of truth and many live that Truth in ways Catholics would do well to emulate. So the statement by Beckwith is not a contradiction.
***********
Catholics and Protestants share much, it is true.
P.S. - "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" -- 1 Timothy 2:5
You wrote:
“I wonder how he explains away the anathemas, declared against these same Reformed “biblically and historically defensible” positions, by the Council of Trent?”
1) Such as?
2) Why would he have to “explain away” anything from Trent?
Yeah, I’ve been trying to get a grasp on all that. I haven’t quite got it yet and all the players still seem a little hazy.
So, does this mean that this Beckwith fellow is now an evolutionist who believes the Bible is full of errors?
oh, can someone explain this odd behavior i note on many of these threads from the usual protestant suspects, to whit:
catholics have the
scripture, the church, and the historical witness of the early church fathers.
these same early church fathers had the scriptures, the church, and in some cases, access to the apostles themselves, etc....
but, according to the protestants, the testimony of these ecf’s, the church and the scriptures, are somehow not valid because protestants have:
the scriptures alone.....and their own view of them (which can differ greatly on important salvation subjects).....
and that is it...
am i the only missing something here?
The Catholic Church also has the idea that the church fathers can be overruled by modern science and textual criticism. Fundamentalist Protestants do indeed disagree on any number of things, but they all insist the Bible is wholly inerrant (though they can't agree on what it says). Most Catholics (very much including the over-educated hyper-intellectual clergy and theologians) insist that "we now know" that the Bible is full of mistakes.
Does that help?
I'm sure that it's not that it's full of errors, but that parts are easily misunderstood by common folk. Common folk then become needful of smart folk who study it in depth to splain it all to them.
Hmmm, I'm thinking of the whole friend and cliff saying. It doesn't matter what "most" Catholics insist.
"The inspired books teach the truth. 'Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.'" - Catechism of the Catholic Church
Every genuine Christian has historical and theological continuity with the Apostles and early Christians by way of the teachings of the Apostles recorded in the NT Scriptures, as well as the OT Scriptures since the very first Christians were Jews.
Dear Sister, It seems you don,t understand how the Catholic Church applied "anathema" at the Council of Trent
John Henry Cardinal Newman explains this well
"The vivid Greek term anathema, meaning "accursed," is directed by the Council of Trent and other Catholic ecumenical councils primarily towards doctrines, rather than persons, based on the ancient practice in the Church of condemning heretical teachings -- a procedure itself derived biblically from passages such as Galatians 1:8-9 and 1 Corinthians 16:22 (the latter has anathema both in Greek and in many English versions). There is nothing improper whatsoever in defining correct doctrine and rejecting contrary notions. St. Paul does this constantly. The Catholic Church, however, makes no presumption as to the eternal destiny of any individual whatsoever (not even Martin Luther, whom many Protestants might suspect was on our "damned" list). Most emphatically: neither anathema nor excommunication means "proclaimed damned (by the Church)," as many Protestants mistakenly suppose. The more literal meanings are "out of the Church" (in the sense of divergence from its doctrines) or "out of communion" (with the sacraments and the Christian fellowship of believers). Excommunication is perfectly in accord with Pauline practices and teachings as expounded in, e.g., 1 Corinthians 5:3-5, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 1:19-20, 2 Timothy 2:14-19, 4:14-15, as well as our Lord's express injunction in Matthew 18:15-18. "
I wish you a Blessed Evening!
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.