Posted on 06/03/2007 2:32:29 PM PDT by NYer
Thank you for correcting the record. I do recall however that there was a bit of a hue and cry over your continued status as the President of ETS when it was unofficially noted that you had returned to the Catholic Church.
Also, IIRC, you continued in that position after you had privately returned the RCC and you did not (as the author of this article suggests, "quit the post to return to the faith of his childhood." I understand that you had already returned the the RCC before you quit the post.
I do not believe my Catholic faith is inconsistent with my membership or even presidency of ETS.
Do you agree that the Bible and the Bible Alone is the final authority on all matters of faith and morals. Or do you now believe that it is the Catholic Church?
Do you accept the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope?
Do you pray to Mary?
As for the Bible, here is a quote from the first blog link above: “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.”
Can you point me to one of your books or articles in which you do any theological exegesis of scripture? My understanding is that you are a philosopher and not a theologian.
Did you ever subscribe to the 5 solas?
Oh WOW, so evil prevailed over the Lord’s church for centuries before the protestants came on the scene. Hmm, thought that was not supposed to happen.
How different would things have been if every descendant of Abraham was like Abraham, if everyone who led Israel after Moses was like Moses or like David, after David?
And how different would things be if everyone who followed the apostles were like them?
Just as God’s will permitted the lineage of the Jews – whether genetic or by observance of the law or by raw faith – to be subject to the willful choices of men – likewise the body of Christians has been subjected over the millennia to willful choices of men – whether for good or for ill.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Thus, as a Christian plan and simple (raw faith) – who eschews all of the doctrines and traditions of men across the board – I strongly recommend to my brothers and sisters in Christ who have confidence in the chain of Christianity itself, to be ever aware that free will is a gift and a curse and resist being presumptuous about the quality of the chain of links. Because as Paul warned:
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee. – Romans 11:17-21
Proposition: The immaculate conception, the assumption, and the coredemption of Mary cannot be scripturally demonstrated from the old and new testaments.
Agree or disagree?
Duly noted.
Christian lineage is best traced via spiritual geneology.
Thank you so very much for your encouragements!
See #20, 21, & 24.
You are a blessing, sister.
And thank you for the ping, I'll be watching this sidebar with great interest.
I think the question may be unfair, xzins. We both know that if our newbie friend, Dr. Francis Beckwith, publicly disagrees with those doctrines, he could be declared a heretic by his current Church. He could be ineligible for the Eucharist (something that is not even denied to abortion proponents) and could lose his salvation (which, of course, is no longer contingent upon Christ alone, but on Christ + The [RC] Church).
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think that anyone converting to RC from whatever evangelical/protestant background would have to put those 3 to rest with some pretty strong arguments before ever making the move.
False. The last one listed is not Catholic dogma, but theological speculation.
And xzins didn't ask him whether he believed in them, he asked whether Dr. Beckwith thought they could be demonstrated from the scriptures.
For now. Give it a few years. The time is ripe for that one.
So Campion, are you willing to admit that there is no way to demonstrate those peculiar infallible doctrines from scripture?
The time will be ripe for that one in another thousand years or so. The Assumption was believed by everyone for (at least) ca. 1500 years before it was dogmatized.
The IC is implied by Augustine and others, and it took 500 years after it was fully explicated before it was dogmatized.
Given the opposition of the Orthodox to any Papal ex-cathedra definition ... don't hold your breath on this one.
However, every one of those can be defended and demonstrated from Scripture. Whether they can be demonstrated to your satisfaction or not, I really don't care.
If I thought the Catholic faith wasn't the faith founded by Christ and taught by the Scriptures, I wouldn't be here.
The first thing that comes to mind about Dr Beckwith (is it doctor?) is that he's a disadvantage regarding Free Republic html. That's just a side note, but it does mean that response time, style, etc. might be a bit shaky at first, and that like any newbie, he should receive the benefit of the doubt.
The 2nd is that for me, to say something cannot be demonstrated scripturally is to say that it is not part of the New Testament faith.
The 3rd is that a speculative doctrine being added to the mix would give some insight into why anyone would choose to stay/go from any denomination. If such a blatantly wrong doctrine as coredemption were added, would a convert be shocked into departing that new denomination?
It is true that they simply are not able to be demonstrated from scripture. They are in the realm of "made up."
You kiddin'? You guys break out the sharpies. :-)
"Cannot" be demonstrated? By whom? To whose satisfaction? Who gets to judge?
You make the utterly false assumption that the entirety of the Christian faith is contained in the NT in a form such that it can be "demonstrated" to you and to your satisfaction, making you the ultimate arbiter of truth.
Scripture makes no such claim. The men who canonized the NT made no such claim. No Catholic or Orthodox Christian can agree with you, and no Christian at all would have agreed with you prior to the Lollards of the 14th century.
My understanding of the ETS is that it held to the position that only the scriptures contained the inerrant word of God. If these doctrines are inerrant, then a member of the ETS would necessarily have to be able to demonstrate their inerrancy from scripture. If they could not be demonstrated as scriptural, then an ETS member could not assert them to be inerrant.
So perhaps the question we should ask Dr. Beckwith is not whether or not he simply believes them, but whether or not he believes them to be infallilble doctrine?
If so, then we would have to ask Dr. Beckwith to either demonstrate them from scripture or admit that his continued presidency and membership in the ETS would be counterindicated by his new found belief in the inerrancy of the church and the Pope.
It is true that you will simply reject our arguments for them from Scripture, so it is a waste of my time to present them to you.
As I said, sola scriptura sets up the guy you see in the mirror as the final arbiter of truth.
Get caught up. I know he's already resigned the presidency, and I believe he's also resigned his membership.
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.