Posted on 05/08/2007 11:18:46 AM PDT by NYer
The return of Dr. Francis Beckwith, now the former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, to the Catholic Church, has, understandably, created a bit of a furor among some Evangelicals. I emphasize some because it is clear, in reading the now several dozens of comments left on Dr. Beckwith's post explaining his decision, that many non-Catholics are responding graciously and charitably to the news. It's equally clear that some are not; in fact, quite a few of the remarks are not simply harsh, but are even nasty and churlish. And some are, in my estimation, insulting. Perhaps most surprising to me was the comment left by Dr. Douglas Groothuis, a professor at Denver Seminary who has written some commendable works of apologetics (I own several of them):
Dear Frank:
This is a sad day for all true sons and daughters of the Protestant Reformation, for all who lived and died for its truths.
Having abandoned the distinctives of the Reformation (which are deeply rooted in Holy Scripture), you are embracing serious theological error. I wish I could say otherwise, but conscience-bound, I cannot.
By joining Rome, you are putting an institution above God; you are putting men (and I mean males) ahead of the pure gospel of Jesus Christ (See Galatians 1:6-11).
However, you are doing the right thing to resign from your position at ETS.
I have appreciated much of your writing over the years, but I lament what you have now done.
Sincerely,
Doug Groothuis
Dr. Groothuis offered similar thoughts on his own blog. Don't misunderstand: I hardly expect Groothuis or any other Evangelical to be happy about Dr. Beckwith's decision, nor do I expect them to refrain from expressing their puzzlement or frustration. But two things, at least, stand out to me.
First is the tone of angry condescension: "This is a sad day for all true sons and daughters of the Protestant Reformation" and "I wish I could say otherwise, but conscience-bound, I cannot" and "I lament what you have now done." Hey, why not just say what a former friend of mine—a pastor—told me when he found out I was Rome-ward bound: "Either come back to the true faith or face the possibility of eternal damnation!"? It seems evident to me that Groothuis cannot even begin to fathom why someone would willingly and knowingly become Catholic. Or, as a relative said to me: "Why would you join a Church that tells you what you have to think?" (All Catholics, feel free to burst into laughter now.)
Secondly, is Groothuis aware that Christianity did actually exist prior to the Protestant Reformation? Of course he is but his note raises the question: who should we trust more—the Church Fathers or the Protestant Fathers? Granting that neither were/are infallible and that they even disagreed amongst themselves from time to time on certain points, it's a viable, even vital, question. It's obvious that Dr. Beckwith wrestled with the question in some form, although he didn't provide details.
Again, I shamelessly harken back to personal experience. When the afore-mentioned Fundamentalist pastor and I had a six-hour conversation about these very points, I asked him: "How do you know that your understanding of the Christian Faith is correct?" His answer: "Because I have the Bible and the Holy Spirit!" But isn't that the sincere belief of an endless number of Christians who end up disagreeing on all sorts of essential topics? And, if put another way, isn't it another way of saying, "I understand the Bible and I have the Holy Spirit—and you don't!"? The pastor informed me that I needed to read the works of the Reformers (ironic, I suppose, since even Luther, Calvin, et al, couldn't agree on some significant issues, and the pastor certainly disagreed with them on several counts). So I told him, "I'm going with the Church Fathers," to which he responded: "They weren't infallible!"
Which gets to the point: authority. Who has it? Where is it? What is it? Key aspects of this point are taken up eloquently by Fr. Alvin Kimel over at Pontifications, in a post titled, "Does the Evangelical Theological Society Need an Infallible Magisterium?" He writes:
The situation is akin to the first century as the Church struggled to understand and appropriate the revelation of Christ bequeathed to the Apostles. No doubt there were many within the apostolic Church who remembered the words and teachings of Jesus, but the Apostles were the foundational repositories of these teachings, as well as their authoritative interpreters. If one had a question about the revelation of Christ, one went to an Apostle and asked him directly. “What did Jesus say?” “What did Jesus mean when he said this?” “What is the proper way for us to obey the teachings of Jesus?” “What is the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection?” Because the Apostles, with the exception of Paul, had known Jesus intimately and had been been taught directly by him, both before and after his resurrection, and because they had been commissioned by the risen Christ to teach in his name in the power of the Spirit, their word and judgment enjoyed a definitive and final authority. This definitive and final authority continues to the present. What the Apostles say, Christ says. We have no access to the revelation of Christ apart from the mediation of the Apostles.
But what happens when the Apostles die? Their testimony has been partially preserved for us in written documents, but the Apostles are no longer available to us to answer our questions. Their writings are now vulnerable to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Their texts stand apparently defenseless. As Luther often remarked, “Scripture has a wax nose.” How can the Bible function as authoritative guide for the Church when the Church is able to manipulate her interpretations of Bible at will? The scholars and critics are of only relative usefulness to us. They cannot agree among themselves on what words Jesus actually spoke or even what Paul meant by justification by faith.
Definitely read the entire post. And, for those who are Catholic, keep in mind that the entrance into the Church of Dr. Beckwith and others is not an occasion for strutting or making marks on a tally sheet, just as the departure of a fairly well-known Catholic blogger, Bill Cork, to Seventh-Day Adventism (which he left in his early twenties to become Catholic) is not an occasion for despair or anger. Both are, first and foremost, occasion for prayer and self-examination. Yes, there is a place for a careful assessment of a person's reasons, if they so choose to make them public. But an emphasis must be placed on careful, as well as charitable. And, in case there was any doubt, I write these words first for my own benefit, and then for others, if there is something beneficial contained therein.
• Dr. Philip Blosser recently wrote a related piece, "Protestant reverts: Catholic dishonesty in advertising?" that has several good insights.
And so the discussions continue.
Huh?
Unlike us Catholics who are always the models of charity and rationality.
Okay, maybe we like to throw a kidney punch every once in a while. Or a few times a day. Sling some mud. We're only human.
This is a divisive statement if I've ever seen one.
Spiritual growth is a co-operative phenomena. There will be Protestant ministers, who, cooperating with the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit, will become fierce Catholics. There will be those who convert, but stop cooperating with the grace gifted to them through the sacraments, and so, fall away. Until we can map the probability of the human will to cooperate or not cooperate, it’s impossible to get a handle on whether there is a trend in one direction or another.
Conversions are wonderful news. But it’s not jaw-dropping to me. Reason being, I know that as easy as the Holy Spirit beckoned to a man like Scott Hahn, and he cooperated, one day, theoretically, he could stop cooperating and revert as others have.
A fine priest once said to me, “Salvation is walking up a ‘down’ escalator to hell. Whatever you do, don’t stop.”
Huh? LOL... and I always get a chuckle when a catholic refers to MY faith as "manmade"..
Are you attempting to bludgeon people back into the Roman Catholic church? That will work, just like the good old days.
Even if you were right your tactics and commentary is caustic. And whose cause does that best serve?
You catch more flies with sugar than with vinegar. Think about it.
funny how the rest of the world see us as Christian and some of us consider a huge differance.
yeah...I’m still trying to figure that one out myself.
and now my head hurts.....
Maybe the writer feels it would be okay to put females ahead of Jesus Christ. I suppose that means he’s not gay ...
I posted this on another site in response to some of the very anti Catholic rhetoric.
Why is it acceptable for a discussion about one man’s entering the Catholic faith to become a place for hateful attacks against Catholicism?
I am Catholic and have never seen fit to slander a person who decides to leave the Church to become Protestant. I assume with all charity that he has good and godly reasons for doing so. That he believed the salvation of his soul was in danger and that in order to serve and love God he must reject Catholicism and some of its doctrines.
I also refrain from making false claims against Protestant teachings. And will gladly listen to corrections when I am mistaken. I believe even those who do not agree with me on all matters of doctrine are instruments of God’s grace in this world. That they strive to live out their love of Christ in all they do. I just don’t have the time to hate.
So the attacks against Catholicism, sadden me greatly. If you disagree with Beckwith’s decision I respect that. But answer his explanation with charity. Defend the reformation understanding of justification, of sola scriptura and other foundations of Protestant faith. Show how the creeds have helped form Protestant thought. How the fathers of the Church are incorporated into your beliefs.
It will not convert me, but it will give me a greater respect for our differences. One can be clearly Reformed in his faith and articulates his beliefs without resorting to “ whore of babylon” rhetoric.
It isn’t manmade?
Whose doctrine might you be following? That of Luther, Zwingli, Smyth, Calvin (Reformation), Campbell (pere et fils), Smith, Barton, Stone, (Restoration), or some of the more modern individuals?
Or might you be making it up as you go along? Catholics had their faith explained to the them by the Lord Jesus Christ in person, who then passes the faith along orally. The documentation that the Church then produced - the Bible, the Catechism, and so on - are a product of the Church. All those who have split away don’t have the Church; they only have some documentation that has been modified and mutilated from the original.
It’s simultaneously amusing and saddening to watch through the 2000 year old eyes of the Church the constant attempts to come up with new meaning for what the Church Fathers wrote. Every one of these denominations and non-denominational churches attempts to put their own spin and meaning on faith. Looking for loopholes, I’d say.
The Pharisees, reading the Law, following the letter and missing the spirit, kinda remind me of some of my more fervent Protestant friends. In spite of the noise, the fervour, the 4th grade level cheerleading, the mob emotion including swaying back and forth, or whichever way they choose to exercise their worship, they just seem to be missing the message. They say that they aren’t, but the tremendous number of conflicting doctrines and beliefs say that they are.
The message is Jesus Christ; the medium is His earthly Church. Rejecting the Church and substituting your own doctrines and beliefs is a man made exercise. With man made churches and organizations to support them. If you do not follow His Church, you do not follow His doctrines. If you do not follow His doctrines, then you are following man made ones.
Actually, it appears to me that you are.
just trying to wake folks up to the truth of his catholic church
As if they've never heard it before? Show a little respect.
You could even use your shift key appropriately. Reach out with the little finger of each hand, for the first letter of each sentence, and for the first letter of proper nouns, such as "Catholic Church."
I hate to say this in such a blunt way, but you're making the rest of us Catholics look bad.
Just because you posted that, I'm not going to flame any Catholics -- on this thread.
Kudos for an excellent post! Thank you!
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.