[Alex Murphy]

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.

Sounds like a typical, ecumenical/evangelical squishy answer to me. I wonder how he explains away the anathemas, declared against these same Reformed "biblically and historically defensible" positions, by the Council of Trent?

[Mad Dawg]

Oh, I don’t know, he probably views bringing them up as changing of the subject. I know I do.

[Tax-chick]

I wonder how he explains away the anathemas, declared against these same Reformed "biblically and historically defensible" positions, by the Council of Trent?

You could ask him.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

typical, ecumenical/evangelical squishy answer

Amen! Says Beckwith...

"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..."

LOL. So both are right?!?

Nope. The RC view of justification is antithetical to Scripture and to the correct Reformed understanding as outlined in Scripture and here in Hebrews --

"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." -- Hebrews 10:12-14

If Beckwith gets the heart of Christianity wrong, he can't get much else right. He obviously prefers the yoke of Rome to the liberty of Christ.

SOLA FIDE: THE REFORMED DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

"...where Rome had taught a piecemeal salvation, to be gained by stages through working a sacramental treadmill, the Reformers now proclaimed a unitary salvation, to be received in its entirety here and now by self-abandoning faith in God's promise, and in the God and the Christ of that promise, as set forth in the pages of the Bible.

Thus the rediscovery of the gospel brought a rediscovery of evangelism, the task of summoning non-believers to faith. Rome had said, God's grace is great, for through Christ's cross and his Church salvation is possible for all who will work and suffer for it; so come to church, and toil! But the Reformers said, God's grace is greater, for through Christ's cross and his Spirit salvation, full and free, with its unlimited guarantee of eternal joy, is given once and forever to all who believe; so come to Christ, and trust and take!..."

[P-Marlowe]

I wonder how he explains away the anathemas, declared against these same Reformed "biblically and historically defensible" positions, by the Council of Trent?

I suspect the same way the Mormons explain away the everlasting commandment to commit polygamy. It's there, but they pretend it isn't.

[Gamecock]

Here's my fav:

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.

That would make me......

AN ANATHEMA!

[lastchance]

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.

[vladimir998]

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?

[ears_to_hear]

Sounds like a typical, ecumenical/evangelical squishy answer to me. I wonder how he explains away the anathemas, declared against these same Reformed "biblically and historically defensible" positions, by the Council of Trent?

I like the entire quote."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 did not know the "early church Fathers" were infallible . It seems to me that that period of time was time of the birth of heresies. Even many of the most quoted say things that contradict themselves and each other.

I do not know the author of this piece, his title does not impress me. All I would say to him is faith is not intellectual reasoning .