Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Two Steps for Beginning Your Examination of the Catholic Church
Catholic Defense ^ | March 12, 2015 | JOE HESCHMEYER

Posted on 03/13/2015 11:56:57 AM PDT by NYer

St. Peter's, Rome
In 2007, Dr. Francis Beckwith, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society -- the nation's largest Evangelical coalition of scholars, with over 4,000 members -- announced that he was converting (technically, reverting) to Roman Catholicism.

Last week, I had the opportunity of meeting Dr. Beckwith, and hearing his reversion story in person (I'd already read about it in his book, Return to RomeConfessions of an Evangelical Catholic). Two particular turning points that he described struck me as instructive for anyone honestly considering the Catholic-Protestant question today. Every conversion is unique, but the things that worked for him might be helpful for you, too.

I. Recognizing Roman Catholicism as the Default Position

The first of these points was his realization that Catholicism should be treated as normative, the starting place for any serious consideration about which Church or denomination to call home. This point was made, perhaps ironically, by the Evangelical Carl Trueman, in a book review he wrote for the reformation21, the online magazine of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. The review was of Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom's 2005 book Is the Reformation Over?: Noll and Nystrom argue in the affirmative; Trueman agrees, sort of. The entire review is worth reading, but it's the conclusion that packs the most powerful punch:
When I finished reading the book, I have to confess that I agreed with the authors, in that it does indeed seem that the Reformation is over for large tracts of evangelicalism; yet the authors themselves do not draw the obvious conclusion from their own arguments. Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being a Catholic should, in others words, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day. It would seem, however, that if Noll and Nystrom are correct, many who call themselves evangelical really lack any good reason for such an act of will; and the obvious conclusion, therefore, should be that they do the decent thing and rejoin the Roman Catholic Church. I cannot go down that path myself, primarily because of my view of justification by faith and because of my ecclesiology; but those who reject the former and lack the latter have no real basis upon which to perpetuate what is, in effect, an act of schism on their part. For such, the Reformation is over; for me, the fat lady has yet to sing; in fact, I am not sure at this time that she has even left her dressing room. 
What Trueman shows is that we need a Copernican shift in our thinking on Catholic-Protestant issues. Rather than starting with the presumption that Evangelicalism is right on every issue, and forcing Catholicism to prove otherwise, the presumptions should work just the other way around.

To see why, imagine approaching Christianity from the outside. Or, if you prefer, imagine approaching a different religion. If you discovered that Islam had, since its very beginning (or at least, as near to its beginning as there existed clear records) believed X, and that a minority position arose in recent centuries denying X, which would you assume was the more accurate interpretation of Qu'ran? Which would you presume was the more authentic expression of Islam? These presumptions wouldn't be insurmountable, but they would at least form a rational starting point for the investigation. And if that's true from a purely historical perspective, it's all the more true of Christianity, where we believe that the Founder is still alive, and has sent His Holy Spirit to guide His Church throughout history.

Many a Protestant delays becoming Catholic because he doesn't understand, or isn't entirely convinced of, every doctrine of the Catholic Church. A better standard would be to ask yourself: if you were already Catholic, would these questions, doubts, or objections be strong enough to justify leaving the Catholic Church? For some of you, as for Trueman, the answer is undoubtedly yes. But for many, that's not the case at all. In that case, by your own self-assessment, you lack a sufficient reason to not be Catholic. You might not fully understand why the Catholic position is true, you might see good arguments both for and against a certain teaching, but you don't have a positive reason to leave the Catholic Church, which is to say that you lack a positive reason for remaining Protestant.

Of course, this analysis risks overlooking the very real difference between those who are considering leaving the Catholic Church, and those who are considering (re)joining. In the case of the latter, there's a good deal of inertia that can hold you back. Not least of these considerations is that you might well already have a denomination or a local church that feels like home. Sometimes, it's even more than that: for example, the Protestant pastors who convert to Catholicism knowing that it'll cut them off from the only livelihood that they've ever known.

It can be an enormous personal sacrifice to put all of that on the line. But if we're going to be faithful to the Christ who prayed that we would all be one (John 17:20-23), and who called us to give up everything (including domestic tranquility, Matthew 10:34-38) to follow Him, it's a risk that we need to be willing to take. Anything less than that is a statement that we'll follow Christ, but only so long as He doesn't ask us to do anything hard, like leaving the comfort of our local church community.

II. This Creates a Duty to Investigate Catholicism Seriously

If the burden of proof in the Reformation debates lies on the side of those who reject the Catholic Church, this entails the need to take the Catholic position more seriously than it tends to be taken. If you're Evangelical because on such-and-such important doctrine, you've read only Evangelical authors, and know only the Evangelical position, you're not meeting that burden. If the only things you've read on the Catholic position on this doctrine are from authors arguing against Catholicism, you're not meeting that burden. Instead, you're declaring Catholicism guilty without permitting her a word in her own defense.

Beckwith took a different approach: he actually investigated what the early Church believed. Was it the case that the early Christians believed in sola fide, or in forensic justification? He started by reading Protestant authors who talked about the Church Fathers. But then he went to the Church Fathers collection over on New Advent, and read the Fathers for himself. He quickly discovered that while a particular passage, in isolation, might sound Protestant, the Fathers themselves sounded awfully Catholic (both on the issue of justification, and more broadly). It was through this honest exploration that he came to see the strength of the Catholic position, which helped to send him back home.

The ins-and-outs of that investigation will necessarily differ from believer to believer: different people struggle with different aspects of Catholicism. But whether your issue is the Eucharist, or the papacy, or Mary, or purgatory, or justification (or all of the above!), I want to propose a simple standard: you should be able to describe the Catholic position in a way that an orthodox, informed Catholic would recognize and agree with. That doesn't mean that you will necessarily agree with the Catholic position, but that you should at least understand the position well enough to disagree with it. If you can't do this, it may well be that your Protestantism is built upon protesting a strawman.

Of course, accepting these two principles won't immediately end the debate on Catholic-Protestant issues. But hopefully, it'll help to begin it afresh, framing the debates in a more accurate and reasonable way.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: beckwith; evangelical; willconvertforfood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

1 posted on 03/13/2015 11:56:57 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; GregB; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; tiki; Salvation; ...

Ping!

2 posted on 03/13/2015 11:58:07 AM PDT by NYer (Without justice - what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

30,000 Protestants can’t be wrong - or can they?


3 posted on 03/13/2015 12:01:45 PM PDT by ex-snook (God forgives because God is Love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; metmom; RnMomof7; HarleyD; daniel1212; BlueDragon; Mark17
In 2007, Dr. Francis Beckwith, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society -- the nation's largest Evangelical coalition of scholars, with over 4,000 members -- announced that he was converting (technically, reverting) to Roman Catholicism. Last week, I had the opportunity of meeting Dr. Beckwith, and hearing his reversion story in person (I'd already read about it in his book, Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic). Two particular turning points that he described struck me as instructive for anyone honestly considering the Catholic-Protestant question today. Every conversion is unique, but the things that worked for him might be helpful for you, too.

1) Are you sure you properly understand the theological views which you are about to abandon?

2) Are you comfortable with the political views you are about to accept?

Prior to 2007, I'd never even heard of the "Evangelical Theological Society", and I'm supposed to believe that the impact of Beckwith's conversion is equal to the Donut Repair Man's?

"Having read [Francis Beckwith]’s book, I am appalled at the blatant misrepresentation of both the Reformed teaching as well the teaching of Roman Catholicism. His lack of knowledge on historical issues is forgivable, given his ignorance, but to misrepresent and caricature the Reformed faith and to misrepresent the salvation teachings of Rome is simply irresponsible and dishonest..."
-- from the internet article Why Scripture and the Facts of History Compel Me, a Former Roman Catholic, to Remain a Committed Evangelical Protestant

4 posted on 03/13/2015 12:07:32 PM PDT by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

It would be my guess that more people have left the Church because of the divorce issue than for any other reason.

Although possible, that’s pretty hard to unwind in real life.


5 posted on 03/13/2015 12:12:35 PM PDT by babygene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I’m sprinkling you with Holy Water! I’ll try and come help later.


6 posted on 03/13/2015 12:20:23 PM PDT by defconw (If not now, WHEN?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Are you comfortable with the political views you are about to accept?

I must have missed that part of the liturgy where the new converts profess their newly-accepted political views.

7 posted on 03/13/2015 12:24:05 PM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
I never even considered that apostasy should be the default position on any matter of faith.

Makes sense ...

... not

8 posted on 03/13/2015 12:24:09 PM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: babygene
It would be my guess that more people have left the Church because of the divorce issue than for any other reason.

Noh, that's just wishful thinking on the part of RC's making them feel morally superior to everyone else.

Besides, there's no need to.

Just convince the RCC to give you an annulment, aka, church sanctioned divorce, and you're good to go.

So that speculation doesn't hold water.

9 posted on 03/13/2015 12:27:09 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Technically, a perversion...


10 posted on 03/13/2015 12:30:52 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I have a close friend who is a Calvinist and wrote a homeschooling curriculum based on the vast history of Western Civilization. It is well known in homeschooling circles. She spent many years reading history and writing her books. She told me that she discovered that all Protestants owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Catholic Church, because without it there would be no Bible, no universities, no Christian foundations of faith. She said everything we have the Catholic Church safeguarded for our use today.


11 posted on 03/13/2015 1:12:21 PM PDT by Slyfox (I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
If the burden of proof in the Reformation debates lies on the side of those who reject the Catholic Church, this entails the need to take the Catholic position more seriously than it tends to be taken.

In any debate situation, the author just provided a giant red-flag warning. This insistence that the other side has the burden of proof is a tacit admission that their own argument isn't very strong. The author is basically saying that a tie goes to us.

If you're Evangelical because on such-and-such important doctrine, you've read only Evangelical authors, and know only the Evangelical position, you're not meeting that burden.

How about those evangelicals who know the Biblical position and find the RCC position wanting without reliance on these evangelical writings? As evidenced by the discussions on the FR, it is the Catholics who are far more likely to appeal to a human authority than the Protestants.

12 posted on 03/13/2015 1:16:40 PM PDT by CommerceComet (Ignore the GOP-e. Cruz to victory in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
And now for an alternative point of view...and I'll do my best to present it without rancor, in the spirit of Christian co-operation.

I am reminded of the straw-man argument that was often presented against Darwinian evolution [full disclosure: I am not an evolutionist in anything approaching the general sense that it is taught in secular school textbooks]. Low-information opponents of evolution would straw-man assert that evolution had to be wrong, because they did not descend from monkeys--but that was not the assertion of Darwinists nor their successors. Rather, the assertion was that present-day monkeys and present-day humans evolved from a proto-simian, some of whose descendants became chimps and some of whose descendants became us.

To assert that the Catholic church as it exists today is the normative model to which all other denominations should be compared is a bit like saying that we evolved from monkeys--that the Catholic church has remained as it always has been, while other denominations have "evolved" from it. The Catholic church as it exists today is the product of numerous reformations and alterations in both doctrine and practice that could very well set it apart from the first generation church, perhaps as much as, or even more than, the Orthodox, the Copts, and of course the various flavors of Protestantism.

When I find myself disagreeing with a doctrine or practice in the Catholic church, it is not because I feel more comfortable with my home church, but because I do not find the doctrine or practice in the early church as it is described in Scripture. I am 60, and I left my home denomination (UMC) almost 30 years ago, in large part because I became convinced that the denomination with which I have since been associated for those last 30 years (LCMS) embodies the doctrines and practices which most emulate those of the early church--with the perhaps-exception of the Orthodox.

Beckwith is correct that there are church fathers whose approach to justification is similar to present-day Catholic teaching, but it is also true that those fathers in most cases were just as temporally removed from the early church as we are from, say, George III--and the reason the NT canon contains the books it does is in large part because the writers were among the first generation of Christians, and when there is a question of doctrine, they are more likely to reflect what Christ taught than those a number of centuries removed would have taught...

...unless the later authors base their teachings on the first-generation writers. But that is simply another way of saying sola scriptura. To the extent that something is affirmed in Scripture, it is orthodoxy; to the extent that it is neither affirmed nor denied in Scripture, it is adiaphora; to the extent that it is denied in Scripture, it is heresy.

That was the approach that Luther wanted to return to the church, not in order to split the church, but in order to unite the church in the truth of Christ. (The 95 Theses were not a Declaration of Independence, but a request for theological consideration.)

And that is how I read the writings of the church fathers. When they align with Scripture, I want to align with Scripture. When they do not align with Scripture, I think three things: first, that these are the teachings of men, which is why they are not in Scripture; second, that no one man can speak the whole truth of the Word of God except the Word of God, meaning both Christ and Scripture; third, that includes me, and I must in humility admit that I need to examine myself on a perpetual basis, not only for sin, but also for heresy, including and especially unintentional heresy.

Could this perpetual examination eventually lead me to the Catholic church? It is possible; it is also possible that it could lead me to the Orthodox church, though it is unlikely to lead me back to another form of Protestantism. Nevertheless, I am comfortable worshipping with anyone who seeks to worship God in Spirit and in truth: some of my most powerful worship experiences have taken place in Pentecostal services in Kingston, and Greek Orthodox liturgies in Ohio, not because I was there, but because Christ was there--and wherever Christ is, that is my home.

13 posted on 03/13/2015 1:53:45 PM PDT by chajin ("There is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chajin; NYer

Chahin,

And you did present it without rancor. Thank you.

And for both sides, I appreciate your point about Martin Luther: That was the approach that Luther wanted to return to the church, not in order to split the church, but in order to unite the church in the truth of Christ. (The 95 Theses were not a Declaration of Independence, but a request for theological consideration.)” It is something that we Protestants have forgotten about. & of course, the political princes of the 1500s got involved and....

As Fr. Shea said in the college Western civ 102 I took so many years ago, “Luther was right that the Church needed reforming; unfortunately it took over 100 years to accomplish that reform.”


14 posted on 03/13/2015 3:10:54 PM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: chajin
Could this perpetual examination eventually lead me to the Catholic church? It is possible; it is also possible that it could lead me to the Orthodox church, though it is unlikely to lead me back to another form of Protestantism. Nevertheless, I am comfortable worshipping with anyone who seeks to worship God in Spirit and in truth: some of my most powerful worship experiences have taken place in Pentecostal services in Kingston, and Greek Orthodox liturgies in Ohio, not because I was there, but because Christ was there--and wherever Christ is, that is my home.

Visit any Catholic Church and you will see a red lamp burning near a Tabernacle.

The sanctuary lamp reminds Catholics that Jesus is present in the tabernacle, and churchgoers often pray before the tabernacle and reflect on the mystery of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.

I know a priest who did prison ministry. With permission, he brought the Eucharist to the prison, set up a table and chairs in a room, placed the consecrated host into a monstrance and placed it on the table. A group of prisoners were invited to sit quietly in that room for one hour. They were given no information about the monstrance, much less the host. They all expressed an immense sense of peace; some broke down in tears they could not explain. In many parts of the country, there are perpetual adoration chapels where anyone can go, at any time of day, and sit quietly in the presence of the Lord.

No appointment is necessary, no list need be signed, anyone can enter one of these chapels at any time of day to spend time with our Lord. Find a Chapel.

15 posted on 03/13/2015 3:12:47 PM PDT by NYer (Without justice - what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Step one: Paul said anyone who taught what they didn't should be considered accursed.

Step two: Does the Catholic Church teach things the apostles didn't. - Yes,

Conclusion - The Catholic Church should be considered accursed.

16 posted on 03/13/2015 3:30:56 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

>>>>>>>>>30,000 Protestants can’t be wrong - or can they?<<<<<

Just one more lie of Rome.. My friend it is the TRUTH that sets you free...

In an article entitled “30,000 Protestant Denominations?”, Evangelical apologist Eric Svendsen exposes the falsehood of this fabrication. Briefly:

Svendsen shows that the source of this figure is the World Christian Encyclopedia (David A. Barrett; Oxford University Press, 1982).

Barrett cites a figure of 20,780 denominations. However not all of them are Protestants. According to Barrett, Protestants account for 8,196 (and incidentally, Roman Catholics account for 223).

However, even this figure of eight thousand Protestant denominations is misleading, for Barrett defines “distinct denominations” as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another group. The distinction is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices.

Barrett breaks down the Protestant bloc into twenty-one major “traditions” which are much closer to what we usually mean by the word “denominations.” It is interesting that Roman Catholics are subdivided into sixteen such “traditions.”

Svendsen concludes, “In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly - and, as a result, irresponsibly - glanced at Barrett’s work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded.”

.


17 posted on 03/13/2015 3:35:41 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I do not need a “red candle” to show me my omnipresent God is there . Jesus lives in me and I in Him


18 posted on 03/13/2015 3:41:06 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Founded in 1949, the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) is a group of scholars, teachers, pastors, students, and others dedicated to the oral exchange and written expression of theological thought and research. The ETS is devoted to the inerrancy and inspiration of the Scriptures and the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Society publishes a quarterly journal, the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS), an academic periodical featuring peer reviewed articles, as well as extended book reviews, in the biblical and theological disciplines. ETS also holds national and regional meetings across the United States and in Canada. (http://www.etsjets.org/about)
19 posted on 03/13/2015 8:52:23 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; ex-snook
Just one more lie of Rome...

Svendsen shows that the source of this figure is the World Christian Encyclopedia (David A. Barrett; Oxford University Press, 1982)

It was Dr. David B. Barrett, and he was a Protestant.

My friend it is the TRUTH that sets you free...

Which one of the many?


20 posted on 03/13/2015 11:16:15 PM PDT by Al Hitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson