Evangelical Leader Returns To Catholicism

http://www.washingtonpost.com ^ | May 12, 2007 | Alan Cooperman

[NKP_Vet]

The president of the Evangelical Theological Society, an association of 4,300 Protestant theologians, resigned this month because he has joined the Roman Catholic Church.

The May 5 announcement by Francis J. Beckwith, a tenured associate professor at Baptist-affiliated Baylor University in Waco, Tex., has left colleagues gasping for breath and commentators grasping for analogies.

One blogger likened it to Hulk Hogan's defection from the World Wrestling Federation to the rival World Championship Wrestling league.

[boatbums]

Boy, you sure nailed that one! ;o)

[boatbums]

"We are Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."

Can't help but think how closely that DOES mirror the view of Roman Catholicism. All the talk of ecumenicalism and reuniting the Anglicans, Lutherans and Orthodox with Rome IS dependent, of course, on them being assimilated into Rome and pledging to be in submission to the Borg Queen, uh, I mean, the Pope. ;o)

[JPX2011]

You can always count on protestants to reach into popular culture to analogize their understanding of things. So wedded they are to the church of What’s Happening now.

God forbid a protestant should not be hip to the latest cultural trends. How else would the be able to evangelize without their wrist bands, rock concerts, and t-shirts. Sad and pathetic really.

[boatbums]

If you are talking about my comments to the two I pinged, you will notice that it WAS the two I was responding to. Christian love shouldn't be measured by how many people are "pinged" to a thread anyway, but what comments are made, don't you think? If you are feeling cheated because nobody is letting you know about threads, either ask those who post to ping lists of interest to Catholics to add your screen name. They aren't there to "gang up" on "get in jabs" but to notify others that one knows may be interested in the topic. Though, I know of a few who are so long no one knows who all is getting pinged and they actually ARE like a posse.

Or you can do like most of us and look at the threads in the Religion Forum. And one last thing...there are PLENTY of your Catholic peeps who LIVE to gang up on and get in their jabs towards those "Protestants". Many actually POST threads that start out that way as provocative. Maybe you ought to look at the threads more often. There actually are many devotional, edifying and uplifting for ALL Christians. That WOULD be genuine fellowship for Freepers.

[boatbums]

What a slow night? Can't get to sleep? Did you fail to notice I was responding to another person's use of the jargon - though it is at least two decades old! Star Trek: Next Generation strike a bell?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek):

Borg is a collective proper noun for a fictional alien race that appears as recurring antagonists in various incarnations of the American television and film Star Trek franchise. The Borg are a collection of species that have been turned into cybernetic organisms functioning as drones of the Collective, or the hive. A pseudo-race, dwelling in the Star Trek universe, the Borg force other species into their collective and connect them to "the hive mind"; the act is called assimilation and entails violence, abductions, and injections of microscopic machines called nanoprobes. The Borg's ultimate goal is "achieving perfection".

Maybe the sad and pathetic thing is NOT being able to utilize cultural things to get across a concept. Kinda like Jesus did, oh, with stuff like a camel through the eye of a needle, or sheep and goats, maybe? Lighten up, dude.

[JPX2011]

I guess it is a slow night if we're down to describing the Roman Catholic Church as the Borg (not that I need any explanation on the subject but thanks anyway). But it is an interesting phenomenon nonetheless how protestants have this deep-seated need to be identified with the secular culture. The Cool Christians Club.

Maybe the sad and pathetic thing is NOT being able to utilize cultural things to get across a concept.

If that's all it was there wouldn't be a problem. It's not like we're talking about the Pope using twitter from an iPad to tweet a Truth of the Faith. Or when I used the movie inception in another thread to describe an exchange I had with another freeper but when the worship is designed to accomodate modern secular attitudes, well...you get the picture.

[BlueDragon]

It's not like we're talking about the Pope using twitter from an iPad to tweet a Truth of the Faith.

I wasn't promising "indulgences" be granted anyone following all my "tweets" either, but instead still was effectively enough expressing myself. Is that somehow not allowed in your world?

It is allowed on this forum, though you can shoot spit-wads at it's gen-ur-i'll direction (but at risk of proving yourself juvenile) if you like.

BB saw what I meant, precisely;

Can't help but think how closely that DOES mirror the view of Roman Catholicism. All the talk of ecumenicalism and reuniting the Anglicans, Lutherans and Orthodox with Rome IS dependent, of course, on them being assimilated into Rome and pledging to be in submission to the Borg Queen, uh, I mean, the Pope. ;o)

Tell us, how are we wrong in this?

And no...I'm not requesting any lectures on how "right" Romanism is thought by yourself or any other to be (so must be agreed with) for I have heard it all before a thousand times over (and still find the assorted Romish demands execrable) but instead the question is what is wrong with how boatbums properly interpreted my intended meaning.

Can you show us in any way, shape, or form that it not be TRUE? (setting her own expression of humor aside, of course).

As a warning...don't get me started on "Ordinariates" for I understand well enough how those function.

The "Ordinary" is appointed ---- wait for it --- directly ---- by the Pope, amid other noise of allowing Anglicans to retain some of their liturgical traditions --- but --- that only spoken of AFTER demand for acceptance of Roman Catholic liturgy must be accepted also, leaving myself and others to wonder how long the Anglican flavored liturgy would not at some later time be supplanted, for there is absolutely nothing stopping that from occurring if but some time in the future.

Of course if it were changed...it might go downhill even from a traditionalist [Roman] Catholic's perspective, being that what is called High Anglican liturgy is more "Catholic" than that which is found in some novus ordo parishes. Fancy monstrances to which all [reverently] turn towards, lots of incense waved over the wafers during consecration, statuary of "Mary" ("Our Lady of Walsingham" being a favorite), communion offered most days of the week, and on some days more than once -- on Sundays at least three times, possibly more(?) for one High Anglican church nearby myself-- which I occasionally have visited.

About all I can see is that since Vatican II there has been some explicit acknowledgement that there are those whom they accept as being regarded as "Christian" in *some* sense, which are not formally and "visibly" a part of the [Roman] Catholic Church, but this said while pope & magesterium also declared some sort of spiritual jurisdiction over those souls at the same time.

And those...the Roman Catholic Church has dreams of swallowing whole if such could be managed, but bit-by-bit, person by family otherwise, amid all the advertisement that those Christians are said to be "missing out on the fullness" of Christ -- if not under and submitted to the tender mercies of the RCC, it's Pope, "Magesterium" (what a self-reverential name!) and it's sacerdotal priesthood.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Not interested any more than I would request some Mormon to be "baptized" for me, to baptize myself into "their" church so-called.

[BlueDragon]

That was an excellent response --- cutting through multiple layers of "blarney" (to put it politely).

Where's the attempt towards refutation of it?

It can't be honestly done, hence the turn towards picking at nits or shooting spitwads at the usage of pop-culture references.

Bracelets? I don't have to show 'em no stinkin' bracelets --cuz I don't have any, and have only seen them on the internets, anyway.

But if they want stink, I could mail 'em some of my old t-shirts, none of which have "Jesus" junk slogans on them, but are, uh, "holey" in their own oh so special way...

[JPX2011]

Sigh. The inveitable refuge of a protestant: "Who are you...", "You can't tell me..." etc. In the end it's always the autonomy. How tedious. Talk about being juvenile. Not my problem you can't take criticism. Maybe this is not the place for you then.

Can you show us in any way, shape, or form that it not be TRUE? (setting her own expression of humor aside, of course).

Well if you consider being united in Christ in His Church as some sort of Ray Kurtzweil-inspired hive mind/singularity/transhumanistic experience then I suppose your understanding is not wrong. Of course I'd then have to ask what are you doing over here on the RF. But have fun with it. That's why protestantism ultimately fails. It relies too much on secular philosophical understanding. You think The Trinity is as conflicted as you are about the matter?

As a warning...don't get me started on "Ordinariates" for I understand well enough how those function.

Well let's talk about that for a moment. Like I said in another thread: lex orandi, lex credendi: how we pray is how we belive. What is the purpose of the liturgy? To confect the Eucharist. The source and summit of Christian life as St. Pope John Paul II said. I'm supposing it's unreasonable that those who join the Church reflect this truth in their liturgy? Ordinariates, ancient rites etc. One truth, many expressions. I wonder what our friends in the Eastern Rites would say about the borg-like tendencies of Rome with regard to their liturgies.

About all I can see is that since Vatican II there has been some explicit acknowledgement that there are those whom they accept as being regarded as "Christian" in *some* sense, which are not formally and "visibly" a part of the [Roman] Catholic Church, but this said while pope & magesterium also declared some sort of spiritual jurisdiction over those souls at the same time.

There is but one Church. One Truth. To believe otherwise is to call the Holy Spirit a schitzophrenic liar. That Church is the Roman Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. With Christ as its head and the Pope as the head of the visible Church. Yes, the Pope does have jurisdiction over our separated brethern who reside in the Body of Christ although they are joined imperfectly.

Unfortunately the protestant does damage to the Body of Christ in their disobedience. It's a scandal that the Body of Christ is divided. But make no mistake it is not the Catholic Church that separated. So until there can be genuine unity it is the responsibility of the Pope to instruct the faithful on the protestant error and to keep the door open and welcome home those brothers and sisters who realize their error.

[daniel1212]

Thus the protestant has set themselves up as the arbiter by which only they can promulgate(based on private interpretation) scriptural challenges of an authoritative nature. This presupposes that the protestant has a correct understanding of the scriptural passage in all manner of comprehension:

That is a false presupposition. The veracity of a claim being based upon Scriptural substantiation is not claiming personal infallibility, but is seeking to persuade others by "manifestation of the truth." (2Cor. 4:2)

That a person can have a correct understanding of scriptural passages is the correct position, not that any man has all manner of comprehension, or otherwise possesses assured veracity, the latter of which is the RC claim for herself.

That this magisterium is essential for assurance of Truth, such as in recognizing what writings are of God and what they mean, is what i constantly see being claimed, or required as a premise for RC assertions.

That's quite a, "in a word" statement.

What is the problem here in my making an accurate statement? You do not hold that all RC teaching is infallible do you, yet that religious assent of the mind and will is enjoined for such teachings as papal encyclicals?

I don't know what unadulterated intellectual assent means. Is that a fancy word for Faith? Are we engaging in a purely intellectual exercise?

No, unadulterated means without qualification, and i am again engaging in the use of argumentation by Catholic apologists, with this one coming from a paper i had come accross, "Religious Assent in Roman Catholicism," by (http://www.academia.edu/1982786/Religious_Assent_in_Roman_Catholicism)

If you think his understanding of religious assent of mind required by Obsequium religiosum is to be otherwise you should state this.

If the basis for your assurance of Truth is the assured veracity of the Latin church, then it would seem that the RC argument is that an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth, since without it how you say the basis for your assurance of Truth are the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which is free from error?

I'm sorry and I say this in all charity but this writing style leaves something to be desired. It obfuscates and impairs the ability to communicate. The interrogatories are too agenda driven to be of value. The questions become statements.

I'm sorry but i honestly see this as due to superficial RC reasoning. You claimed the basis for your assurance of Truth was "the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which is free from error." Then what is difficult with my assumption that this means an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth? Or is this magisterium simply optional in your view? Why then would we need an infallible magisterium?

Thus i have simply stated clauses and presuppositions which it seems are foundational to your assertion.

In that case feel free to agree or disagree with those "foundational presuppositions" or the entirety of the assertion itself but do something with it. If it is comprehended so thoroughly then one should be able to make a definitive statement.

Whether you agree or disagree on these foundational presuppositions is yet the issue, which thus requires questions, which will enable a definitive statement with which to deal with. Claiming obfuscation testifies to superficial reasoning behind the RC claims for the absolute need for the infallible magisterium of Rome. Or avoidance.

[daniel1212]

People who think and research gravitate to the true Church.

Rather, mere thinking and researching can equate to "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 3:7) But if true searching leads souls to the true Church, then Rome cannot be it, as not only does this mean that souls come to know Truth by the evangelical means of objective examination of the evidence - which honestly brings me to see more certainly the critical contrast btwn the NT church and Rome - but this is not what a faithful RC is to engage in so as to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching.

Or are you advocating an evangelical means of obtaining assurance of Truth which Truth means rejecting that means of assurance of Truth?

Meanwhile, it is also rare to see notable Mormon leaders or JW's becoming evangelicals, are like leaders in Rome, they have chosen deception over Truth. while it was the learned who mostly rejected the Lord Jesus, while "the common people heard him gladly." (Mark 12:37)

[Elsie]

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Then He's a flip-flopper - according to John 6:28.

And them folks who wrote the letter to the Gentiles in Acts 15; well... they are just a bunch of deceptive jerks!

[Elsie]

Even the Vatican II documents do not speak of it the same way as previous popes.

Don't worry; for the Magisterium ALWAYS votes in the direction GOD leads them.

(Most of them anyway...)

[Elsie]

But then we don't go around inventing new scriptural constructs to accomodate them unlike protestantism.

Oh?

Did Mary EVER finally have sex with her husband, Joseph?

[Elsie]

I don’t like welfare freeloaders and that sums up the Mexicans that are “converting” to protestantism.

A lot of black folks get welfare.

Are you a racist?

[Elsie]

When would you say the Roman Catholic Church was founded? It certainly predates the creation of any protestant church.

Thanks be to GOD for the Catholics!

They gave us the Bible and Gave us Protestantism; too!

HR>

After all; if all their popes had been good little boys, the COUNTER Reformation would have NEVER been needed.

[JPX2011]

Did Mary EVER finally have sex with her husband, Joseph?

Nope. And that's scriptural. Check it out.

[Elsie]

Thus the protestant has set themselves up as the arbiter by which only they can promulgate(based on private interpretation) scriptural challenges of an authoritative nature.

The Catholic Church has set itself up as the ONLY authoritative body that has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to 'interpret' Scripture.

[Elsie]

We did give you the bible.

Why; if you don't want anyone to read it?

[Elsie]

I always find it interesting that even though I’m on like three different Catholic ping lists I’m always stumbling onto these threads by accident.

Seems you have a self control problem.