Dr. Francis Beckwith Returns To Full Communion With The Church

Typepad ^ | May 4, 2007 | Jimmy Akin

[NYer]

Dr. Francis Beckwith, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, has become Catholic. Dr. Beckwith was raised Catholic but became an Evangelical Protestant in youth. After a review of Catholic theology and its basis, however, he has been reconciled with the Church.

I recently learned of Dr. Beckwith's intention to pursue reconciliation. Apparently my own humble writings were of use to him in his journey, and he was kind enough to say so. In view of the sensitivity of the situation, however, I of course agreed to refrain from making the matter publicly known. He also was kind enough to let me know just before he went to the sacrament of reconciliation.

Last night I received a note from Dr. Beckwith indicating that the matter had become public, and so I would like to offer warm felicitations regarding his return to full communion with the Church.

The source through which the matter was made public happened to be James White's blog, and as you can imagine, Mr. White is not happy.

In particular Mr. White raises the question of what Dr. Beckwith will do given his present status as head of the Evangelical Theological Society.

Prior to his reconciliation, Dr. Beckwith shared his thoughts on that matter with me, and though I will let him speak for himself on the subject, I will say that he intends to handle the matter in a gracious and frank manner and has already taken steps in that direction.

On his blog, Mr. White questions whether Dr. Beckwith could remain a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, writing as follows:

Let's ponder the hypothetical situation of a President of the Evangelical Theological Society converting to Roman Catholicism in the midst of his tenure. In 1998 I attended the national meeting of the ETS in Orlando, Florida. At one of the sessions some of the founding members were being asked questions about why they did certain things, why they wrote the statement of faith as they did, etc. A woman asked a question of the panel. "Why did you write 'the Bible alone' in the statement of faith?" The ETS statement of faith is very, very short. It reads:

"The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."

Roger Nicole rose, slowly, and made his way to the podium. He looked out at the lady and said, "Because we didn't want any Roman Catholics in the group." He then turned around and went back to his seat. While most sat in stunned silence, I and a friend with me broke into wild applause. The brevity of the response, and Nicole's dead-pan look, was classic. Most looked at us like we were nuts, but we appreciated what he said. Here, one of the founding members made it clear that the ETS was founded as a Protestant organization and that primary to their own self-understanding was a belief in sola scriptura.

Mr. White is correct about the text of the ETS statement of faith or "doctrinal foundation." It's found online here.

While the ultimate interpretation of this statement is up to the ETS itself, I would point out two things:

1) The statement of a single founder, such as Dr. Nicole, regarding the interpretation of such a statement is analogous to that of a single founding father regarding the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, it is not of itself conclusive, however enthusiastically Mr. White and his friend might receive it.

2) If the founders of the ETS intended to exclude Catholics from the organization, they did not frame their doctrinal foundation in a way that would, in fact, block Catholics from being able to agree to it.

The Bible and the Bible alone is the word of God written (as opposed to the Word of God Incarnate, the word of God in nature, or the word of God handed on through the Church in parallel to Scripture). Only Scripture is divinely inspired such that every assertion of the sacred authors is asserted by the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the Bible is inerrant in the autographs. And, of course, God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.

There is thus nothing in the ETS doctrinal foundation that a Catholic could not agree to in good conscience and it is not an effective instrument for excluding Catholics from membership.

This situation will, of course, be very sensitive for members of the Evangelical Theological Society and its leadership, as well as for Dr. Beckwith and his family, and I ask readers to keep the matter in prayer.

At the hour I write, Dr. Beckwith has not posted on Right Reason, a blog in which he participates, regarding his return to full communion, and I do not know if he will do so, but I invite my readers to watch that blog for possible updates and to offer their felicitations to Dr. Beckwith in the combox below.

VISIT RIGHT REASON.

DR. BECKWITH'S HOME PAGE.

[Zionist Conspirator]

The controversy we had with Marlowe was whether something analogous to the Fifth Amendment is a part of the Law of Moses. Marlowe says, it is not a part of the written Torah, and I contend that the Law of Moses is not restricted to the written Torah, so the absence of such written commandment does not prove anything.

Oh. Okay. Glad I could help.

I apologize for my misunderstanding and my hostile tone.

[annalex]

You were hostile? You don’t know hostile! Grrrr.

[verga]

From Dr. White’s blog: Of course, folks like yours truly will ask all the boring questions, like, “How do you escape the circularity of the Roman claims regarding papal infallibility?” or “How can Rome’s claims, built as they were historically, upon such a wide variety of fraudulent documents, stand today in light of her own history?” And more to the point, “Do you really believe you can approach the Mass 20,000 times in your life and still die impure, and that this re-presentation is the same sacrifice as the perfect work you once professed to embrace?” Of course, those are the tough questions, which lead folks back to the inspired Scriptures, and that is the last place The Coming Home Network wants to go. Several years ago i had the pleasure of engaging Mr. White in an online debate about Sola Scriptura and kicking his butt (Ask him about the Bicycle shop). I refuse to call him Dr. since basically he purchased his degree. While I will be the first to admit that he did do a lot of reading, research, and writing in pursuit of his title his degree is not from an accreditied University and none of his papers was reviewed by a board. The "seminary" he "attended" is basically an office with a reception area and a computer. Every student is on line. The school has no class rooms, Library, bookstore etc.... You decide what you want to research and they create a syllabus for each student. I have asked him on several occasions to document his claims of fraudulent documents and every time the only thing he whines about is the "Donation of Constantine" I showed him letters of Clement and others proving Papal Primacy even documents from Eastern Fathers whcih have been copied and maintaned by a Calvanist Seminary (CCEL) and he refused to even address them. So much for scholarly integrity and rigor.

[melsec]

“Welcome Home! and back to the Sacraments.”

Bless you NYer

[big'ol_freeper]

BTTT

[RobbyS]

Whenever someone comes up with stuff about documents, I am ambivalent. I keep going back to Daniel Boone and his experience in Kentucky. He ended up being cheatted of all his claims in Kentucky because he didn’t have the documentation to prove ownership. Apparently, lots of early settlers got treated the same way. In part because no proper survey was ever done. Which is why, I suppose, that Congress man sure that the Northwest territory was surveyed and why, when one flies over it, one sees a perfect checkerboard pattern, but as soon as one crosses the Ohio and is over Kentucky, free form prevails. Relevance? Documents are instruments of government, and like so many tools, they tend to be discarded or put in the shed and forgotten. Van Sybel was given the task of cleaning up the Prussian archives—and this was the 19th Century—which were in a mess. Like archivists before him, he found state documents just heaped on shelves in a room and in no discernible order. The tidy results in print give no clue to the pieces he never found or found partly intact. History is sort of like that, even political history.

[MHGinTN]

I doubt that Dr. Beckwith’s salvation was at issue.