Evangelical Leader Returns To Catholicism

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

[metmom]

I look to the Church fathers for my guidance on scripture, starting with Paul, and not a one of them thought Jesus was speaking symbolically at the Last Supper.

I look to the Holy Spirit who was promised to guide us into all truth.

If Catholics are looking to men, it's no wonder they are so confused and buy any fairy tale their church puts out.

The disbelievers are outnumbered for a reason and it’s about time they accept reality.

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

If you're in with the majority, you're in with the wrong crowd.

[Elsie]

Mangling and twisting and trying to make St. Paul’s words into something they are not does not change them.

Matthew 16:13-18

 

 

   When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"   They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."   "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"  Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,  the Son of the living God."   Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.   And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades  will not overcome it.    I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be  bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

 

 

 

 

[boatbums]

A Catholic becoming Protestant or Protestant becoming Catholic these days is not news. What IS news is when the head of the Evangelical Theological Society becomes RC. It’d be comparable to a RC Archbishop becoming Protestant. Not too sure we’ve heard of any higher ranked RC clergy at all becoming Protestant in this time period.

Do you even know what the Evangelical Theological Society is? I've never heard of it before. Have you? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Theological_Society:

When it was initially formed, the society had a single doctrinal basis - biblical inerrancy. Thus, the original doctrinal statement was limited to one sentence: "The Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety is the word of God written, and therefore inerrant in the autographs."[1] However, it was amended in 1990 to require Trinitarian belief, and now includes a second sentence: "God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."[3]

Full, voting membership is available to anyone with a Master of Theology (Th.M.) degree or its equivalent, and who subscribe to the above doctrinal statements. Interested evangelicals who do not have such a degree can apply for associate membership, but do not have voting rights. There is also a student membership. Members are not limited to specific denominational or theological traditions, and not required to be affiliated with particular schools or seminaries. The number of full members in 2010 was nearly 4,200.[4]

The society produces a quarterly journal which contains scholarly articles and book reviews from various evangelical perspectives. First published in 1958 as the Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, it subsequently was changed in 1969 to the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS).[1]

Several times during its history, the society has been faced with doctrinal controversy. In the 1970s, members became polarized over the precise definition of "inerrancy" (including questions about literal vs. non-literal language, and the possibility of scribal errors).[1] In 1983, the society voted to expel Robert Gundry for his views on the historicity of some of the events in the Gospel of Matthew.[5][6] In 2003, the society was divided over whether to expel Clark Pinnock and John Sanders for their beliefs about open theism.[6][7] In 2007, Francis Beckwith resigned as president following his decision to be received into full communion in the Catholic Church.[8] In 2008, Ray Van Neste and Dennis Burk introduced a proposal to further expand the doctrinal statement to include eleven points;[9] the motion ultimately failed.[10]

They claim their Doctrinal Basis is, "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." Can you, first of all, determine if this would be something Beckwith would have decided to go Catholic over? Don't Catholics believe this "officially" too?

Nope, sorry, being the "head" of the ETS is certainly NOT equivalent to an archbishop becoming Protestant. And...you HAVE heard of "higher ranking RC clergy" becoming Protestant...i.e., Martin Luther, for example. Some others are discussed HERE.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Another group, like MENSA, that I’m eligible to join but have no interest in.

[boatbums]

That's assuming you HAVE a rat's patootie to give!

As I have repeatedly said, you can believe whatever you want. And others have that SAME right to believe as God has led us through His sacred word. Why you keep ignoring the history of how it came to be that Catholics today presume they know the TRUTH about the Lord's Supper and the further presumption of mandating to EVERY Christian that they have to also believe whatever it decides to teach today, is evidence to me of a spiritual blindness. Look to yourself and trust that the Holy Spirit is at work in the lives and hearts of the children of God. It will definitely help your blood pressure.

[NKP_Vet]

The Holy Spirit has not told anyone else that Jesus was just talking to hear himself talk at the Last Supper.
The sheer arrogance of some to try and twist the words of Jesus Christ around to come up with what THEY WANTED him to say. Your great hero Luther believed in the Real Presence and so did every Christian that walked this earth for the first 1,500 years after the death of Christ on the cross. Ans so do the VAST MAJORITY of Christians in the world today. Now the pesty little barkers come along to to say “oh, well, he didn’t really mean that, he must have been talking out of his head, didn’t know what he really meant, oh you know that Jesus guy, he was always making jokes, you couldn’t believe a word he said”. If that ain’t pathetic and delusional I don’t what is.

[NKP_Vet]

“And that doesn’t prove anything! They didn’t even agree with each other about many important topics”

But you and the naysayers have it all figured out 2,000 years after the fact.

[EDINVA]

Cute. But I’m not going to get into your and/or the “religious” threads’ endless little pi$$ing contest. I would wager that the Jesus Christ whom the posters all claim to believe in - while holding the ONLY true understanding of His Word - would weep were He to read them.

2dVet asked a question referring to ‘in the same time period’ and I included the phrase “same time period” in my reply. Martin Luther just doesn’t fit, sorry.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

"But you and the naysayers have it all figured out 2,000 years after the fact."

If the Church Fathers didn't agree on everything - and you follow them - why would you express surprise that Christians today don't always agree?

They do agree on everything in the Nicene Creed.

Here it is...

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

NK, this is a hugely important summary of Christianity in 325 AD.

Would you please point out the "real presence"?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

"The Holy Spirit has not told anyone else that Jesus was just talking to hear himself talk at the Last Supper. The sheer arrogance of some to try and twist the words of Jesus Christ around to come up with what THEY WANTED him to say. Your great hero Luther believed in the Real Presence and so did every Christian that walked this earth for the first 1,500 years after the death of Christ on the cross. Ans so do the VAST MAJORITY of Christians in the world today. Now the pesty little barkers come along to to say “oh, well, he didn’t really mean that, he must have been talking out of his head, didn’t know what he really meant, oh you know that Jesus guy, he was always making jokes, you couldn’t believe a word he said”. If that ain’t pathetic and delusional I don’t what is."

I highlighted the bogus parts of your post:

typical mindreading
purported omniscience
refuted number argument

[boatbums]

Yet, here you are!

[Elsie]

They invited me to join; but when I discovered the COST; I turned into a Marxist!

"I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member".
Groucho

---

I also found out that I was MUCH smarter than your average MENSA person; as I could brag about my grey matter for FREE!

[metmom]

The sheer arrogance of some to try and twist the words of Jesus Christ around to come up with what THEY WANTED him to say.

So when Jesus called the cup the *fruit of the vine*, why don't Catholics take THAT literally?

[metmom]

Your great hero Luther believed in the Real Presence

Whose great hero? Whoever said that Luther was their hero?

and so did every Christian that walked this earth for the first 1,500 years after the death of Christ on the cross.

Prove it. Prove that every Christian who walked the earth believed as you claim they did.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“So when Jesus called the cup the *fruit of the vine*, why don’t Catholics take THAT literally? “

The human mind likes a “clean” story. It throws out everything that it perceives as not contributing to that clean story. In this case, the story romans buy is that there is a real presence of Christ at the Lord’s supper. As they look at Scripture, they do not want to examine context or language. They want to seize on specific words that support the clean story... and of course ignore everything that doesn’t fit that story.

It is not specific to romans. We all suffer whenever our mind latches onto a favored story.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I hope you have better luck than I’ve had over the past 6 months.

The best you get is typically blustery statements
—> then insults
—> then complaints that you are making it personal
—> then mindreading posts
—> then silence.
—>For good measure, you will be introduced to Luther, Billy Graham and Joel Olsteen (among others). All apparently living full-time and rent free upstairs. Oh, what parties they have!

What you will likely never get is evidence, factual support, etc. It doesn’t exist.

[boatbums]

And let us not forget the common habit of retrofitting current doctrines to those in the past. Many forget that the writings which we have today were written in languages from thousands of years ago and are being translated into a language (i.e., English) that didn't even exist until five or so hundred years ago. Some like to pull a phrase out of context and just presume it means the same thing today, and often times, it doesn't. That is where a study in Biblical Textual Criticism comes in handy.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

” That is where a study in Biblical Textual Criticism comes in handy.”

Oh, no! Once you outsource your mind, you don’t need that. One poster told me she had a life and didn’t have time to do real Bible study.

[BlueDragon]

Cute. But I’m not going to get into your and/or the “religious” threads’ endless little pi$$ing contest.

So now you say...after having already done so, having jumped in at comment #2, then again at #308 (but without reading the thread through?)

Did you notice that the article itself is dated 2007, but it was posted [again] here on FR just recently.

When I first saw this thread, it said May 12, 2014 in the article's own initial publication dateline, causing myself and others to wonder if this thread itself, from it's very inception, was thematic "contest" as you described, not on boatbum's part, but on part of the OP, with the date having been apparently, initially fudged (if not some unexplained accident or mistake occurred -- which was inquired concerning -- but the answer was a confusion of mis-direction & denial) to better make it more into that longed-for "these days" category which you seemed to have required -- for comparison or "contest", which all-of-a-sudden there is now less interest for.

A moderator changed the date adjacent to the article's by-line from what is was as initially posted -- if you are wondering why the article itself now shows 2007 while having always shown to have been posted here 5/30/2014.

As for recent comparison (if one was looking for that sort of thing) almost any ol' Roman Catholic "priest" could fit the bill for comparison -- unless one wishes to confess that their theological training is poor, leaving scarcely any of those be comparable to this oh so studied quasi-evangelical "philosopher".

As boatbums explained, this Beckwith guy --- what of "rank"?

There is little of that sort of firm stratification of hierarchical layers among other-than-"Catholic" persons, though Beckwith did hold (obviously must have been elected to) top administrative position (some time in November 2006- early May 2007) of what is a far-flung association of "evangelical" scholars.

Noodling around, I see he is listed now as a Resident Scholar, Philosophy & Church-State Studies at Baylor University.

His conversion to Roman Catholicism was a a return to what he grew up with, was raised as, with himself having attended Notre Dame and Fordham, both "Catholic" colleges, though both being secular also in that neither are exactly Seminaries -- but then neither is the Evangelical Association Beckwith briefly served a elected President of either.

I don't know if his wife was of one faith or another, in that she may or may not have been raised as RC herself and felt some pull to return, though near the end of the article there is;

He said he and his wife prayed for guidance and received an answer when a 16-year-old nephew asked him to take part in his Catholic confirmation ceremony tomorrow. "I could not do that unless I was in full communion with the church," Beckwith said.

All he had to do was "go to confession", for the most part -- and he at least was "good to go".

What if it had been the other way around...and he could not have attended a baptism in a Baptist church, if not himself a Baptist (or gasp! he was a Roman Catholic omg! the horror!) but had been leaning towards wishing to be a Baptist? .. wishing to "return" to the faith of his own parents (and other relatives) he was raised under, went to colleges which were ostensibly "Baptist" in nature, etc...

How might that aspect (of "return") have been looked upon or characterized as by Roman Catholics, if things were to have been reversed? What would have been your own first reaction?

A bit further up in the article Beckwith shows some confusion on his part as to the meaning of "justification".

But then again he had just read a bunch of Ratzinger, and in light of how that guy can be something of an artist in snuggling up to agreement with (Christian) philosophies from without Roman Catholicism proper, his real art lay in doing so while supplanting the competition, and oh so gingerly re-asserting the "majesty" and glorious "authority" of the church of Rome, bringing "works" aspect of earning our way to salvation back into play while he's at it --- where in some places he speaks out of the other side of "Catholic" face, terming even those "works" be part of God's own grace -- which latter consideration is downright Calvinistic, if one but could well enough understand "Calvinism", with that aspect of his (Ratzinger's) writings/philosophical religious discussion/teachings when he agrees with Calvin (if so?) being part of what the RCC once condemned, and why Calvin was so anathematized -- leaving us to believe now that Calvin either wasn't much understood by those of "Rome" in this consideration (what is it that can "work" from within ourselves to do works worthy of God) or that 'Rome' has crept towards changing "it's" theological mind -- but won't admit it, in part for never being able to admit to error, and having the art of distracting everyone away from gazing upon what was once much central, to then relying upon what was once more "fringe" -like amid [Roman] Catholicism and railed against when seen outside of it.

Ah! -- but they don't have to admit to any error, for they can still confuse (on purpose?) justification and sanctification as being all but entirely interchangeable -- except when they are said to not be, or all is "by grace", and so it [the rhetoric] goes, on and on...

In the below, see if you can spot how Beckwith (following modern RC 'Ratzinger'-mind?) fairly well undoes and/or contradicts himself, from one sentence and paragraph to the next.

"I do agree with Protestants that there is no good I can do, no work I can perform, that would justify me," Beckwith said. "But there are many places in scripture that say there's an obligation Christians have to take on the character of Christ, and that contributes to their justification.

The Catholic solution is: I am required to take on the character of Christ, but it is not my power that does it, but God's grace."

The "Catholic" solution? Ok, there has long been something of the sort present there, for some, yet Beckwith does also agree with Protestants all down the line, other than confusing a second use of the word "justification" (which he had just said as towards there was no good I can do, no work I can perform) with greater, increased sanctification when switching to speaking of there being an obligation to take on the character of Christ for justification (ha! as if Evangelicals do not say much the same? many of them do and always have, and that's a fact, Jack!) finishing with "but it is not my power that does it, but God's grace" which may be a modern-day Roman Catholic expression among that ecclesiastical body's most up-to-date theologians, BUT COULD BE BORROWED FROM JOHN CALVIN, practically word-for-word(!) including "taking on" Christ, for it is written we must "put on Christ" etc., with that being a common teaching among those whom take serious stands as for growing in "grace" and sanctification, not by works, but by increasing apprehension (taking grasp of) His holiness which cannot be found but by grace, and deepening understanding of what "grace" and holiness really are, for those things are beyond mental exercise, and cannot be reached but by way of being birthed into and grown within --- only by the Spirit. There_ is_ no_ other_ way.

John 3:5, anyone?

2dVet asked a question referring to ‘in the same time period’ and I included the phrase “same time period” in my reply. Martin Luther just doesn’t fit, sorry.

There 'ya go again, while you had just said you were not going to "get into" it (with that "it" again, not a boatbums initiated process in the first place) and 2ndDivisionVet's comment was about more generic numbers of persons -- not perceived-to-be noteworthies, as if it makes all that much difference -- BUT TO YOU it did or at least seemed to while you attempted to define "rules" of some contest, which you say now you are not going to enter.

Uh-uh. I'm not buying it.

My lower pant leg, when reading the conversation, seemed to have suddenly gotten wet -- but it's *not* raining, and it wasn't me doing any tinkling$$$ on my own self...having been a man since I was just a boy, I do notice if it's my own doing if that sort of thing occurs --- or if instead I'm just being told "a story" which doesn't fit the real facts.

Got any more stories? I can break out the kitty litter. Then if it get's soaked, dump it in the middle of the floor for effect.

In other words, speak truly, for words & meanings will be examined, then discussed. Beckwith the philosopher, does it for a living...

Me? I'm here to bust yer' chops, and show what what works and what doesn't fly -- while standing for the Gospel.

My fees are modest. Just contribute to the next freepathon, and we'll call it good.

[boatbums]

Delightful reply! As always. It is most curious to me how we have so many Jekyll and Hyde types of Catholics on these threads. They will dance and laugh and grin like Cheshire cats over the "notable" (to them) "Protestants" that went Roman Catholic and expect us to surrender to the inevitable that we must also. They defiantly demand a comparable list of the schlubs that went Protestant from the sacred arms of the Mother Church, yet, when we provide a list (and we can) we already know, from past experience, that the fact that they left disqualifies them from being notable in any way at all!

We already know what God has to say about that:

Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord. (I Cor. 1:26-31)

I'm just glad to be among the called. God bless you, brother in Christ.