The journey back - Dr. Beckwith explains his reasons for returning to the Catholic Church

Open Book ^ | May 6, 2007 | Amy Wellborn

[NYer]

Dr. Francis Beckwith explains his reasons for returning to the Catholic Church. (He was raised Catholic and received the sacraments of initiation as a child and young person). 

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!)

[AnalogReigns]

I think ETS statement is flawed. It doesn’t say the bible alone is the one, final inerrant authority. It merely says the bible alone is God’s word WRITTEN.

Romanists believe this, they just add that Tradition is God’s unwritten word passed down orally, and communicated authoritatively by the Church.

I’m sure that’s the loophole Catholics like Beckwith can find.

Although it’s a sorry loophole, I believe Open Theists are even (far) more in error than devout Catholics—and these have been allowed to stay in ETS.

So much for ecumenical evangelicalism....it, like the magazine Christianity Today, been in decline for a long time.

[Campion]

I was a member of your church for six years and was finally asked to leave or my "un-Catholic" beliefs

Since you keep making this claim, you ought to be upfront about who "asked you to leave" and under what circumstances, instead of repeating vague hearsay.

If it was a bishop, then let's hear his name.

If it wasn't a bishop, then the person had no authority to do any such "asking".

[P-Marlowe]

Once the Word of G-d is translated it is no longer the Word of G-d--it is merely a translation of the Word of G-d.

Whether you translate it from Hebrew to an idea in your head or from Hebrew to English to an idea in your head, you are translating it in your mind. Letters are a translation of the oral word into symbols. The ideas expressed on paper must be translated one way or another in order to bring the transmission of the idea conveyed on paper into your head. So whether or not you are reading from a translation or the original manuscript, you must translate the words into ideas and therefore even the original is a translation.

What you are reading here is a translation of the thoughts in my head onto the screen. A word that I use to convey an idea may convey an entirely different idea to you than I actually meant to convey.

[P-Marlowe]

I think ETS statement is flawed. It doesn’t say the bible alone is the one, final inerrant authority. It merely says the bible alone is God’s word WRITTEN.

But it does say "The bible alone". Therefore any ex-cathedra declaration of the Pope would only be valid as long as he spoke it. Since all the Popes who have spoken ex-cathedra are dead, then their proclamations could not be considered equal to or superior to the Scripture. If the Pope is dead, then his ex-cathedra proclamation would be void under Beckwith's duplicitous theology.

The Catholics condemn anyone who contradicts an ex-cathedra proclamation of the Pope. They do not, however, condemn anyone who contradicts scripture. Indeed, in many cases (i.e., Council of Trent) they specifically condemn those who agree with the scripture.

How does Beckwith reconcile that?

[Zionist Conspirator]

No, it's very different from that. The Torah was written before the world was created and in fact is the very blueprint of creation. Everything in it has a meaning: the letters, the spaces between the letters, the sizes and shapes of the letters, the names of the letters, the numerical values of the letters, etc. There is absolutely no way whatsoever to translate any of these things.

The unfolding of history is merely the unfolding of the Torah. Plus the coded references to future events and to the details of the life of every individual exist only in the original Hebrew. Once again, these cannot be translated.

G-d spoke the world into existence with the Torah. Everything is literally made up of the Hebrew alphabet.

Please note that while I am the number one defender of total Biblical inerrancy on this forum that I do not (as foolish Catholics assume) therefore believe that the only sense possessed by the Bible is the simple surface sense. Catholics seem incapable of understanding that to believe in senses beyond the surface does not turn the surface into mythology any more than total Biblical inerrancy implies "sola scriptura" (another mistake most Catholics make and one reason they feel compelled to turn the scriptures into mythology).

[P-Marlowe]

Although it’s a sorry loophole, I believe Open Theists are even (far) more in error than devout Catholics—and these have been allowed to stay in ETS.

With a duplicitous philospher/theologian like Beckwith as their president, it is no wonder that an Open Theology heresy has been allowed to creep into the ETS.

[P-Marlowe]

The Torah was written before the world was created and in fact is the very blueprint of creation....G-d spoke the world into existence with the Torah.

I don't believe you got that idea from the Torah. Undoubtedly you are some kind of Jewish Mystic.

Everything in it has a meaning: the letters, the spaces between the letters, the sizes and shapes of the letters, the names of the letters, the numerical values of the letters, etc. There is absolutely no way whatsoever to translate any of these things.

Apparently you were able to translate that idea from the letters and the spaces between the letters into some idea in your head. You mind giving us all some insight into your mystical abilities?

[Campion]

Since all the Popes who have spoken ex-cathedra are dead, then their proclamations could not be considered equal to or superior to the Scripture.

[heavy sigh] It is not Catholic belief that ex cathedra Papal teachings are "equal to or superior to" Scripture. Such teachings are infallible (divinely preserved from error); Scripture is inspired (divinely guided, not merely such that it contains no error, but also to contain precisely what God wishes to say).

You're providing us with a fine example of what Catholic apologists mean when they accuse Protestants of rejecting a caricature of Catholic teaching, not the real thing.

They do not, however, condemn anyone who contradicts scripture. Indeed, in many cases (i.e., Council of Trent) they specifically condemn those who agree with the scripture.

I wasn't aware that your understanding of Scripture was identical to Scripture itself. Do you seriously think that Trent believed the Reformers agreed with Scripture and condemned them for it, or do you permit yourself to consider that perhaps Trent thought the Reformers guilty of twisting and misinterpreting Scripture?

[P-Marlowe]

It is not Catholic belief that ex cathedra Papal teachings are "equal to or superior to" Scripture.

Do they not carry with them Anathemas to all who reject such declarations? There is no Catholic Anathema to those who reject the plain language of scripture. The anathemas only attach to rejection of the traditional teachings of the Church and the ex-cathedra proclamations of the Popes and the declarations of the Councils such as Trent.

So you can argue till you are blue in the face that the ex-cathedra Papal teachings are not considered superior to scripture. Objectively they are.

I wasn't aware that your understanding of Scripture was identical to Scripture itself. Do you seriously think that Trent believed the Reformers agreed with Scripture and condemned them for it, or do you permit yourself to consider that perhaps Trent thought the Reformers guilty of twisting and misinterpreting Scripture?

The Reformers were a threat to the political power of the Church and the Bishops. The Catholic Church had long been guilty of twisting the scripture to give more power to the Priesthood and less power to the laity. When the scriptures were translated for the laity, the cat was out of the bag. The Reformers were guilty of untwisting the scripture from the knots that the power hungry catholic priesthood had twisted them into.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Hey, I'm not even Jewish! (I'm just a Noachide.)

Again, "sola scriptura" (which is false) and Biblical inerrancy (which is true) are two different things. I accept and defend the latter. I reject the former.

The Torah is not read from a machine-printed book. It is read from a scroll which is hand-written according to ancient rules (which are not included in the text of the Torah!) that assure that the Sifrei-Torah or our day are identical to the one written by Moses at HaShem's dictation. Furthermore, the written text contains no punctuation, vowels, or cantillation. These are part of the Oral Tradition, which means that without the Oral Tradition not only could the Written Torah never have been preserved, it could not even be read! This is a far superior argument against "sola scriptura" than liturgical chr*stians have.

I have long noted that Catholics tend to assume that a rejection of "sola scriptura" necessarily means a rejection of Biblical inerrancy. I see now that many Protestants also want to insist that Biblical inerrancy demands "sola scriptura." I'm sorry, but you're both wrong.

As to "Jewish mysticism," perhaps you've noticed that the written text of the TaNa"KH says almost nothing about the afterlife and actually has very little theology. This means that all Jewish doctrines of the afterlife and most theology has always come from Oral Tradition. You may believe that these teachings were finally confided to scripture in the "new testament," but if you reject the "new testament," there is nowhere to get these things but Oral Tradition. Besides, I could say that the "new testament" got many of its teachings (such as the resurrection of the dead) from the Jewish Oral Tradition rather than from the TaNa"KH.

All Jews should be mystics!

[AnalogReigns]

Again, I'd be careful about being rash in calling Beckwith duplicitous. I am not familiar with the man, but it sounds like among some I respect he has lots of respect. I'm perfectly willing to accept he's being honest in how he understands things... It's a matter of defining terms.

Let me repeat that Catholics do believe scripture alone is God's word written. They ADD to that though, that oral Tradition also contains God's word, which was subsequently passed down, interpreted and applied by Rome alone... So yes there is at least a dual, if not a triple authority...(Scripture and Tradition, or really, Scripture, Tradition, and finally the Magisterium (Scripture and Tradition, as interpreted by the current pope....).

The distortions, corruptions and inconsistencies wreaked by such a system are why the Reformation occured in he first place. One bad pope can wreak havoc...as by his authority he can preside over scripture, even while claiming fealty to it....(eg. Innocent III declaring Transubstantiation dogma....) and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Trent too was a disaster (and was not at all representative of all the Roman church either...80%+ of the delegates were Italian, and go figure since it was held in Italy...)

If ETS had said that scipture alone is God's word AND it is the final authority for the Church, inerrant in the authographs, this could have been avoided. But like I said above, ETS already failed to eject claimed "evangelicals" who openly deny plain sciptural teaching by the sophisms of Open Theology--so why not have Roman Catholics (or a few JW's or Mormons?) too?

Another group needs to become an alternative to ETS--as it really is, and has been for a while, NOT truly evangelical.

[Campion]

Do they not carry with them Anathemas to all who reject such declarations? There is no Catholic Anathema to those who reject the plain language of scripture.

"Rejecting the plain language of scripture" is not a doctrinal position. Specify the doctrinal position you're talking about.

When Arius "rejected the plain language of scripture" and held that Jesus was a creature, he was anathematized. When the Pelagians "rejected the plain language of scripture" and held that one could be saved by his own good works and that the crucifixion was merely to set a good example, not a propitiatory sacrifice, they too were anathematized. And so on.

So you can argue till you are blue in the face that the ex-cathedra Papal teachings are not considered superior to scripture. Objectively they are.

No, objectively, the explicit teaching of the church (cf Dei Verbum, Vatican II; repeated in the catechism) is that they are not equal or superior to scripture.

Subjectively, you think our actions belie that. I think you're wrong.

The Reformers were a threat to the political power of the Church and the Bishops. The Catholic Church had long been guilty of twisting the scripture to give more power to the Priesthood and less power to the laity. When the scriptures were translated for the laity, the cat was out of the bag. The Reformers were guilty of untwisting the scripture from the knots that the power hungry catholic priesthood had twisted them into.

Protestant mythology ... it just never dies.

Read Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars and Hillaire Belloc's Characters of the Reformation and get back to me.

[AnalogReigns]

Keep in mind that the Reformation term “sola scriptura” is OFTEN misunderstood, both by it’s Protestant defenders and it’s Roman Catholic attackers.

Luther & Calvin et al. never said the ONLY authority in an individual Christian’s life, or in the Church’s life as a body was scripture. There are plenty of other authorities—and tradition and and common sense are among them.

Sola sciptura to the Reformers though meant Scripture alone was the FINAL and INERRANT authority—checking and keeping under it tradition and the human mind. Scipture if you will is the top dog in a hierarchy...and all lower authorities, while having real authority over churches, families and individuals, still must be submissive to scripture, God’s very word on things.

The baptism of infants for example is a tradition never mentioned explicitly in scripture. However, it is not banned in scripture either....and a reasonable scripturally based theology can be understood to defend it (as analogous to circumcision, under the New Testament economy). Hence we can have an extra-biblical tradition, still under the authority of biblical theology.

More radical protestants though took Sola Scriptura to mean SOLO Sciptura—that traditions, practices and reasoning not explicitly found in scripture are totally verbotten and unacceptable. This is one reason Baptist theology came about....through a radicalization of the sola scriptura principle.

This more radical SOLO Scriptura idea, not advocated by Luther or Calvin, is often what today in America especially, is defended or attacked in debates over the bible.

[adiaireton8]

Luther & Calvin et al. never said the ONLY authority in an individual Christian’s life, or in the Church’s life as a body was scripture. There are plenty of other authorities—and tradition and and common sense are among them. Sola sciptura to the Reformers though meant Scripture alone was the FINAL and INERRANT authority—checking and keeping under it tradition and the human mind. Scipture if you will is the top dog in a hierarchy...and all lower authorities, while having real authority over churches, families and individuals, still must be submissive to scripture, God’s very word on things.

Unfortunately, there is no middle position between individualism on the one hand, and on the other hand the Magisterium having the authority to provide the authoritative interpretation of Scripture. Any attempt to make a book be the highest (of "final) authority reduces to individualism, because books must be interpreted, and therefore cannot (by their very nature as books) be final.

-A8

[Mad Dawg]

How dare you imply that I have never given your church a chance?

Wha'?

Your yelling at me and telling me I "dare" imply stuff and that I'm criticizing you surely is not going to make me think you're any less angry, okay?

If you were to read what I wrote you'd see I was talking about my impression. I have an impression that there are a lot of angry Protestants, who come out of the gate disagreeing before they trouble to find out wht they are disagreeing with. I could be wrong, but I have the impression. I not only didn't say you, I wasn't even thinking of you when I formed that impression.

You say you're not a Christian, so I think I can conclude you're not a Protestant. But you're saying that I am criticizing you. Life is full of sorrows.

Also it doesn't sound to me like you submitted. You can say you did but I hear you saying that you held onto some belief about how to approach Scripture which is not a Catholic belief. That's not submission, as far as I can tell. You're saying something like,"I'll agree with you about YOUR stuff, if' you'll agree with me about mine," and the Church said, "No, we don't agree with your approach to Scripture," so you said, "Oh, no deal, I'm outta here." -- or something like that. If that's anywhere near the truth, it's sure not submission, it's bargaining, or what am I missing?

I don't think I have an argument with you. I'm not sure what the big deal is here. I certainly was not thinking about you when I made my comment about "blessed assurance". I didn't know where yhou stood or didn't stand on that.

[adiaireton8]

the Catholic Church is the number one publicizer and facilitator of higher Biblical criticism.

I think you are confusing 'scholars who are Catholic' with "the Catholic Church". The two are not the same. When the Church makes *dogmatic* some claim of higher criticism, then you'll have a point.

-A8

[Mad Dawg]

Go back to your blasphemous mythologizing.

And you have nice day too, bless your heart!

As long as we're hurling bouquets at one another, I note that the post which prompted your strong response was not addressed to you.

---

[adiaireton8]

With a duplicitous philospher/theologian like Beckwith as their president, it is no wonder that an Open Theology heresy has been allowed to creep into the ETS.

Openness theology was already in the ETS back in the mid 90s when I attended, (long before Beckwith's presidency).

-A8

[adiaireton8]

Nope, you're a Catholic, which means I expect you to reject the inerrancy of the "old testament" while hypocritically believing that a dead man came up out of the ground or that bread and wine becomes this man's body and blood. Never mind that science says both of these things are an impossibility;

Enough with the hand-waving. Please name the scientific experiment proving that bread and wine cannot become flesh and blood. Please name the scientific experiment proving that the resurrection of the dead is impossible. Please name the scientific experiment showing that scientific experiments alone provide knowledge of the world.

It appears that you have failed to distinguish science from scientism.

BTW, those scientists you think so much of would gladly tell you that there is no such being as "St. Michael the Archangel."

Again, please name the scientific experiment that shows that there are no angels.

-A8

[P-Marlowe]

Openness theology was already in the ETS back in the mid 90s when I attended, (long before Beckwith's presidency).

Then Beckwith was the perfect guy to run it.