Beckwith Speaks About His Conversion and Resigns as President of ETS

Hi Michael,

I noticed that you said the following on Dr. Beckwith’s blog:

“While I do believe you have joined a tradition that lacks the fullness of the Gospel, I don’t doubt your love for Christ.”
It’s one thing to say that 1) official Roman tradition “lacks the fullness of the Gospel,” and quite another thing to say that 2) they have another gospel of a different kind, as Paul describes some of the Judaising heretics in Galatia. When you say that the Roman tradition “lacks the fullness of the Gospel,” which sense do you have in mind? #1 or #2? For clarification, your comment doesn’t describe Dr. Beckwith’s current position, but the official Roman tradition. So, I am asking you about the later and not the former. It would seem that you are holding sense #1 and not sense #2 regarding RCC views since you add that you “don’t doubt” Dr. Beckwith’s “love for Christ.” I think you would concur that no one has an authentic love for Christ that does not authentically believe the genuine gospel. Love of Christ and love of His Gospel go hand in hand, according to scripture. Is your opinion of official Roman dogma such that they just lack a full understanding of the gospel? Or have they officially rejected an essential element of the Gospel according to Trent?

Also, do you think that one can be truly evangelical and also hold to Rome’s traditions regarding justification and the mass?

Thanks,
Tony

I should have said:

” So, I am asking you about the latter and not the former.” 🙂

Incidentally, I have no opinion on the state of Dr. Beckwith’s soul, i.e. whether he is saved or not. I do, however, have opinions about Roman traditions, hence my questions above.

Above I said:
“Incidentally, I have no opinion on the state of Dr. Beckwith’s soul, i.e. whether he is saved or not.”

I realize that such a statement will seem disingenuous to some, so I need to clarify. What I mean to say is that I can’t speak to the salvation of his soul since I do not know enough about the man and the particulars of his present beliefs. However, when a man embraces Roman traditions with knowledge, i.e. understanding the historical and biblical contrasts, then needless to say, I do have my doubts about such a person. To such a person, I could only say:

NKJ 2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you are disqualified.

In the case of someone who we do not know very well and yet has recently switched from an evangelical view of the gospel to a Roman Catholic view of it, there are at least three responses one can say:

1) We can say that “I don’t doubt your love for Christ.”

2) Your decision is very serious and scripturally problematic. For that reason, I do have doubts about your condition. Therefore, I would exhort and encourage you to examine yourself to see if you are genuinely believing the true gospel.

3) I know that you do not believe the true gospel, therefore you are definitely lost.

While response #2 still expresses a kind of opinion, it is not the rash opinion of response #3 in this case. Nor is it the response of #1. It seems to me equally unwise to respond to the Beckwith’s recent decision by saying either #1 or #3. That’s why I am questioning you (Michael) about your “I don’t doubt your love for Christ” to Dr. Beckwith in light of his apparent embracing of official RC dogma. However, rather than discussing the state of Beckwith’s soul, I just wanted to stick with discussing your opinion of RC tradition as it relates to the biblical teaching of the gospel, if you don’t mind.

My main point: If RC traditions regarding justification and the mass amount to another gospel of a different kind, then it is unwise to say to a person who embraces it that you “don’t doubt” their “love for Christ.” It seems to me that option #2 is appropriate, irenic, not a rash prejudging and still leaves room for dialogue.

I just had to clarify further,
Tony

I don’t believe #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive. The Galatians lacked the fullness of the Gospel in that they were not allowing it to apply to their growth as well as their salvation. Therefore it was a different Gospel in that it lacked the fullness of the true Gospel.

It is interesting that Paul sought to complete the Galatians knowledge of the Gospel so that they could live according to that which they were saved. It does not seem that Paul felt that the Galatians were not saved, only that they needed to put their trust fully in Christ.

Thus it is with those committed to Roman doctrine. They lack the fullness of the Gospel. This does not mean that I believe that they are all saved any more than I believe a legalistic Protestant church is all saved. I believe that people in both situations (legalistic Protestant church that lacks the full Gospel and the Catholic church that lacks the full Gospel) can love the Lord.

Michael

http://salvationhistory.com/library/apologetics/SolaGratiaSoloChristo.cfm

A Calvinist explains the Roman Catholic meaning of “justification.” I think this is a good article and I agree with one of the people who posted on Frank Beckwith’s blog. It was a Nathan Rayner and he writes, “Christ did not call us to be Roman Catholic or Protestant. He called us to love one another and live in his love.”

Joanie

Michael said:
“I don’t believe #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive.”

Me:
There is exclusivity between #1 and #2 because there is no doubt expressed in option #1 and a level of doubt expressed in #2. The options, as to doubt, look like this:
1) I have no doubt that you are saved.
2) I have some doubts about whether or not you are saved.
3) I have no doubt that you are lost.

Clearly, then, there is exclusivity between #1 and #3. Options 1 and 3 are parallel to each other in that they express no doubt, but they are opposite in what is doubted.
A decisive issue comes into play when we consider the matter of the status of Sola Fide. Is it essential to the gospel or not? If it is, and someone embraces a view antithetical to Sola Fide, then there is at least some warrant to doubt their condition before God. Inquiry, dialogue and self-examination are vital. If Sola Fide is not an essential element of the gospel, then there is no necessary cause to doubt the condition of a person’s soul if they reject it. They have simply rejected or hold something contrary on a non-essential point. Since you suggested that you “have no doubt” about Beckwith’s love for Christ, I took that as an indication that you don’t think Sola Fide is an essential element of the NT teaching about the gospel. Nevertheless, I thought I would ask you some questions in order to get clarification first.

Now, with respect to the Galatians that Paul was writing to, they can be distinguished from those who came to them and advocated the necessity of circumcision for salvation. The Galatian audience, at the very least, seemed to be confused on the matter, hence Paul’s letter of exhortation and theological exposition. The Judiasing heretics, on the other hand, were positively advocating that circumcision was necessary for salvation. The book of Galatians is a demonstration that Paul was disturbed enough about them to wonder if they were “bewitched” by a false gospel. That is, he had some doubts about whether or not they had heard his gospel in vain, therefore he wrote to warn them. I liken Roman bishops to the Judiasing heretics since they introduce the necessity of human merit for salvation, just the same as those in Galatia. Paul distinguishes his gospel from “another gospel” by taking away the role of human merit in justification. As for those who were fervently advocating the role of human works as a ground for justification, even so far as to deny what Paul had told them, he declares that they are accursed. That doesn’t mean that they had no hope and were certainly hell-bound. It just means that so long as they advocated human merit while denying Paul’s gospel, they would be hell-bound.

The Galatians audience were confused, so in that sense they “lacked the fullness of the Gospel.” The Judiazers, on the other hand, were teaching them to reject what Paul had told them and sought to introduce the necessity of legal obedience (circumcision) to be saved. They were not merely confused. They were rebelling against Paul’s teaching, just as they were elsewhere. They were a vital threat to Paul’s work and preaching, just as Rome today is a vital threat to New Testament teaching.

Paul did have doubts about the Galatians, therefore he wrote:

NKJ Galatians 4:11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.

He didn’t rashly assume they were lost. He was concerned about whether or not they were deceived by the Judiasing heresy. What he says in that epistle does NOT amount to ““While I do believe you have joined a tradition that lacks the fullness of the Gospel, I don’t doubt your love for Christ.” Rather, he says something equivalent to “Your condition is very serious and scripturally/doctrinally problematic. For that reason, I do have doubts about your status. Therefore, I would exhort and encourage you to examine yourself to see if you are genuinely believing the true gospel.” So, while it is true that Paul didn’t say they were not saved (option #3), neither does he say the equivalent of “I don’t doubt your love for Christ.” Given the seriousness of their state of confusion on gospel matters, such words would be very unwise.

I would also say the same thing about any legalistic Protestants if the seek to introduce human merit as a ground for our justification. That, however, is beside the point I am making about RCC dogma. They are on record in their official declarations, as you well know. I am convinced, by the testimony of scripture, particularly by what is contained in Romans and Galatians, that the doctrine of justification by grace alone THROUGH FAITH ALONE (which is just a way of spelling out that it is by grace alone) is an essential element of the true gospel. Paul anathamatizes teaching that is contrary to it. Doubts about those who embrace views antithetical to his gospel is more than warranted. It seems mandatory. Therefore, option #2 is the truly balanced, irenic, non-rash position that still leaves room for dialogue. It avoids the compromising nature of option #1 and the rash response of option #3 to Beckwith’s situation. As I said before, love for the Lord is inseparable from a love for the true gospel. When we see others demonstrating a love and allegiance to a false gospel, we should at least have doubts about their condition and express godly, prayerful concern.

This comment above:

“Clearly, then, there is exclusivity between #1 and #3”

should have said this:

Clearly, then, there is exclusivity between #1 and #2.

My mistake. I was referring to 1 and 2 this way:

1) We can say that “I don’t doubt your love for Christ.”

2) Your decision is very serious and scripturally problematic.

I have no reason to doubt Beckwith’s love for Christ even though I believe that his decision is a very serious error. I believe that creedal Catholicism is at issue. In this case it would be represented by the magisterial authority of the church (which includes those who formed Trent who are now dead). To the degree that members of the Catholic church now continue to follow creedal Catholicism, they are in serious error, but this does not necessarily mean they are not saved any more than it meant that concerning the Galatians who were following false teachings or the recipients of the book of Hebrews who had similar problems. Paul would say that they have “fallen from grace,” not meaning that they have lost their salvation or that they never had it, but that they were not living according to the fullness of the grace that the Gospel provides.

Hi Michael,

I just thought about another distinction. There are two types of legalism. There is a difference between A) an introduction of some non-essential matter into the Christian life in order to be more holy or sanctified (as distinguished from being saved), and then there is B) the type that introduces certain non-essentials as a ground for salvific acceptance with God. The Judiasing heretics were guilty of B, and the Galatians were at least moving toward accepting it. The matter of Sola Fide and the Roman Catholic traditions touches on issues concerning type B legalism and not A. Most protestant evangelicals struggle with type A legalism. That’s NOT what was going on in Galatia.

To clarify further:

At this point, I am only willing to put Beckwith in the confused Galatian category, since I don’t know the details of his present beliefs and his character. I am not doubting his integrity as a thinker and as a scholar, but I am talking about his beliefs with respect to Sola Fide. I put the Roman “bishops” in the Judiasing heretic category. They are guilty of type B legalism and Beckwith seems to be falling prey to it, as far as we can see. Thus, some doubt about the state of his soul before God is warranted, even though we do not rush into declaring him lost before dialogue and inspection occurs. Neither is it wise, given his recent decision to return to Roman traditions, to have “no doubt” about his love for Christ. The “no doubt about his love for Christ” position is antithetical to the view that Sola Fide is an essential aspect of the Gospel of God.

I agree with you concerning the issues of the Catholic church, but I would qualify the “bishops of the Catholic church” with the creedal traditions that they stand behind as well. The traditions as expressed by the Trent and VI and VII are the true driving force in these circumstances (esp. Trent). The only ones out there that are truly defending Trinitine doctrine in an apologetic manner is the catholic apologists who are not bishops. Even then, I would be careful about assigning these people to hell (not that you are doing this). I don’t know the spiritual conditions of apologists such as Jimmy Akin, Karl Keating, Mark Shea, or Scott Hahn. I believe that they are in serious error in following Trent and they are promoting this error, but I don’t know their spiritual condition.

Concerning your continued problem with me saying that “I have no doubt” that Beckwith loves Christ: Goodness, I think you may have taken my “no doubt” as more than just the rhetoric that is always is. I could say to you as well, “I have no doubt of your love for Christ” just the same. I could mean it in a rhetorical or an intimate way. I really don’t know enough of you or Beckwith to say this in an intimate way. But I can say of you both equally, in a way of sincere rhetoric, “I have not doubt of both your love for Christ.” Why? Because I believe you do. Could I be wrong? Sure.

On the legalism distinction, consider the following:

It’s one thing to say that absolute abstinance from alchohol (or dancing, going to movies, listening to certain types of music, eating certain foods, etc.) is necessary to be more holy before God, and it’s quite another thing to say that such things are required in order to be justified before God. The first is type A legalism outlined above while the latter is type B legalism. Again, the Galatian context was not a case of type A legalism, but of type B legalism.

Is the main argument Protestants have about the Catholic view of “justification” based on the fact that the Catholic church teaches you need faith AND works? I thought the Catholic church teaches that we only need Faith to be justified but that WORKS would necessarily follow BECAUSE we have faith and the grace of Holy Spirit working in us. If good works did NOT follow (i.e, you do not behave with love) then it is an indication that you may have SAID you believed and told people you believed but you were not telling the truth.

I know I am trying to make something that is complicated too simple, but that is what I do.

Hi Michael,

Yes, when I speak of the so called bishops of the RCC, I am referring to those that advocate and swear allegiance to their official traditions. Nevertheless, it is not accurate to say “The only ones out there that are truly defending Tridentine doctrine in an apologetic manner are catholic apologists who are not bishops.” Any Roman Catholic who knowledgeably believes in the official teachings of their church and is seeking to tell others about it (inviting them in)are also defending a merit-based system that is antithetical to Sola Fide. Would you have any hesitation to speak about the spiritual condition of some knowledgeable person advocating the view that Jesus was not God or that God was not Triune, such that they denied those things? I wouldn’t, and I don’t think that the Apostles and prophets would either. It seems that all of your statements presuppose that Sola Fide is not an essential aspect of the gospel of God, while mine presuppose that Sola Fide is an essential aspect of the gospel. The “spiritual condition” of Jimmy Akin, Karl Keating, Mark Shea, and Scott Hahn is one of denying Sola Fide. How is it that you do not know their spiritual condition? Is it because you do not consider such a doctrine to be an essential aspect to Paul’s gospel message? Did the Martyrs who died for such things die for a non-essential? Is Sola Fide not the Atlas that holds up a world of other doctrines, particularly what it means to be a true church?

Regarding your “no doubt that you love Jesus” comment, here’s how I took it. I simply took it that you have no good reasons to doubt that he is an authentic believer in Christ and his gospel. I did not take it as if you were saying you were certain of his salvation. Again, crucial distinctions seem necessary. When someone, even a child, professes a basic belief in the evangelical faith, I take them at their word. I am willing to say to that person, “I have no doubt that you love Jesus Christ.” What I am saying is basically, “Ok., that’s great! I will consider you a brother or sister.” However, if I speak with them awile and they move in the direction of rebelling against an essential of the Christian faith, I now have good reasons to doubt (not to outright deny) that they are a believer. I am no longer willing to say to them “I have no doubt that you love Jesus Christ.” By saying that, I would not be saying, “I have no doubt that you are then lost.” It’s just the case that I now have warrant for a sincere concern about the authenticity of their conversion, even if they are sincere, honest and skilled thinkers.
Since you (Michael) and I have spoken on paltalk and you know a little bit about my basic Christian and evangelical profession, I think you would be within your epistemic rights to say to me (Tony), “I have no doubt that you love Jesus Christ.” If, after dialogue, you discovered that I was resisting and moving away from an essential Christian doctrine with knowledge, then you should have doubts about the authenticity of my Christian profession. While you would not automatically leap to the conclusion that I was lost, you should not continue to “have no doubts” about my love for the Lord.

Again, Michael, all that you are saying seems to presuppose that Sola Fide is not an essential of Paul’s gospel message. Since you are a teacher within Christ’s church who was trained at Dallas Theological Seminary, along with your companions at TTP, that disturbs me.

Hi JoanieD,

Yes, one of the main arguments that Protestants have historically had about the Catholic view of justification is that they (RC’s) say one needs faith AND works as the meritorious ground for our justification. The problem concerns the “and works” as a basis for justification.

The evangelical view is that we are justified by Christ alone on the principle of grace alone through the instrumentality of faith alone. To be acceptable with God (or justified by God), one only needs to believe in Him who died for all and was raised for our justification. Our good works necessarily follow from our justified state because God, in conversion, also changed our hearts so that we long to follow him. Our obedience is the necessary consequence of our justification, but it is NOT the meritorious ground of our justification. Rome is saying that OUR obedience plays a role in the meritorious ground of our justification. That’s against scripture.

Consider the following options:

W = Works; F = Faith; J = Justification

1) W = J (pure legalism)
2) F + W = J (Roman legalism)
3) F = J + W (Evangelicalism)
4) F = J + or – W (antinomianism)

What happens is that those in position #2 frequently accuse those in #3 of believing #4. Those in position #3 frequently accuse those in #2 of believing #1. Those in position #4 frequently accuse those in #3 of holding #2. All of these would be straw men or misrepresentations.

Rome actually teaches #2, i.e that faith plus works are required for justification. Evangelicalism actually teaches that faith alone is required for justification, but that works will inevitably result. Antinomians teach that faith alone is required for justification, but that good works MAY or MAY NOT result. Option #3 is the biblical teaching because our merit is Christ alone. He is our righteousness and the sole meritorious basis for our salvation. Faith is the empty hand of the spiritual beggar reaching out to obtain His merits, and then seeks to live a life of gratitude for already being accepted in the Beloved.

I hope that helps,
Tony

Tony,

Thanks for the comments. Here is what I will briefly deal with because I think it will help you in understanding what I believe to be the truth.

You said, “Michael, all that you are saying seems to presuppose that Sola Fide is not an essential of Paul’s gospel message.” I believe sola fide is essential as a basis for the Gospel, but that it is not epistemologically necessary for one to affirm it to be saved. In other words, it is faith alone saves people, not an acceptance of the doctrine of sola fide.

There are people today and throughout church history who believe in baptismal regeneration. I believe that people can hold to this wrong doctrine and therefore deny the essence of sola fide and still be saved. I also believe that there are people out there who deny the essence of sola fide by their belief that one can lose their salvation. Yet, I believe that they can be saved in spite of this.

Why? Because it is faith in Christ alone that saved them, even if they do not realize this.

Do you think that people can believe that it is possible to lose their salvation and yet be saved? If so, you are saying the same thing I am. Do you believe that people who believe in faith alone, except for belief in the essentiality of the one act of baptism can be saved? If so, again, you are saying the same thing I am.

Roman Catholics can deny salvation by faith alone and still be saved by their faith alone. Let’s get the essence of the truth and put it before our knowledge of the truth. Otherwise, the only people that are qualified to be saved are those with perfect belief in perfect doctrine. I don’t think even you or I are qualified under that criteria.

Consider this: there will be many people who get to heaven and finally realize that God was really the author and perfecter of their faith. They will finally realize how radical God’s grace is. You and I will be among them. Why? Because we all have room to grow in this understanding. We all rely upon ourselves to some degree even if our confession states otherwise. Only when we come into His presence will we have a full realization and a complete trust in Him. Only in His presence will we fully embrace the doctrine of sola gratia. Some will have further to come than others, but none of our faith is perfect in this regard.

Joanie, here is one of the primary statements of the Council of Trent (16th century) that would, from a protestant perspective, disqualify creedal Catholicism from proclaiming the fullness of the Gospel:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

Read here “On Justification”

Thank you, Tony and Michael. I used to think I would like to get a Theology degree, but I don’t think I really would want to spend that much time in the study of the nitty-gritty of religion, in spite of all the reading I have done through the past decades. I would rather DO religion, if you know what I mean. If Jesus asks us at the end of our lives, “How did you spend your time? What was important to you?” how will we answer? I am not saying that scholarship is not important, but it’s not AS important as actually living out our beliefs. When I was in college I did a paper on Thomas Aquinas. I think I remember that after all the study and all the writing he did, he had an experience that made him feel that all he wrote was useless and he wanted to burn it all. His students prevented that from having. I could have the memory wrong. It was a long time ago.

Joanie

Michael said:

“I believe sola fide is essential as a basis for the Gospel, but that it is not epistemologically necessary for one to affirm it to be saved. In other words, it is faith alone that saves people, not an acceptance of the doctrine of sola fide.”

My response:

You grant that sola fide is an essential basis for the gospel, but distinguish it from being a criteria for determining whether one is or is not a Christian. As you will go on to say further down, you not only think the non-acceptance of the doctrine of sola fide is possible for the truly regenerate, but one may perpetually go on in denying it after being informed on the subject. That, after all, is what Rome is doing. By your own criteria, Paul’s anathema toward the Judiasers was uncalled for. Truly believing in Christ involves knowing the truth path to him. One cannot truly trust Christ and go on in denying the God ordained path to him, which is through faith and not by works.

There is a world of difference betwen the non-acceptance of something out of ignorance and the non-acceptance of something out of rebellion to what Scripture says. Let us not blur the valid distinction between ignorant non-acceptance and rebellious denial. The Judiasers were (even as the Papal system is) in rebellious denial to Paul’s teaching. Rome is in such rebellion that they accurse Paul’s doctrine.

Michael said:

“There are people today and throughout church history who believe in baptismal regeneration. I believe that people can hold to this wrong doctrine and therefore deny the essence of sola fide and still be saved.

My response:

Again, one needs to distinguish between non-affirmation and denial. There are those who taught baptismal regeneration without affirming sola fide, and those that have taught baptismal regeneration while utterly rejecting and anathematizing sola fide. Making some allowances for ignorance about essentials is fine with me, However, Non-adherence to some truth out of ignorance is not the same as informed and rebellious denial. A regenerate heart can no more go on in rebellious denial of an essential than Peter could have gone on sinning in a perpetual denial of Christ. By your statement above, you no doubt have the early church in view. Carl Trueman has recently observed:

“The problem with tackling pre-Reformation views of justification is, of course, that the church strictly speaking had no view: the Reformation crisis itself precipitates the first elaborate formulation of justification by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent, a decree which then imposed order on the Catholic Church’s dogmas in this area.”

The early church was not in rebellion to sola fide. They didn’t dogmatically side with or against it, even though some taught things inconsistent with it, such as baptismal regeneration etc.

Michael said:

“I also believe that there are people out there who deny the essence of sola fide by their belief that one can lose their salvation. Yet, I believe that they can be saved in spite of this. Why? Because it is faith in Christ alone that saved them, even if they do not realize this.”

My response:

The belief that one can lose one’s salvation is not the same as denying sola fide. It’s inconsistent with sola fide, but that’s not the same as anathametizing sola fide as with Rome and it’s defenders. I also believe that there are some truly regenerate people who are immature in the faith and therefore fear that the Lord may abandon them. But, it’s quite another thing if they were to say that belief in sola fide makes one accursed. There is room for confusion and ignorance, but open and perpetual rebellion against sola fide should not be equated to one who simply has a non-realization that one is saved through faith alone.

Michael said:

“Do you think that people can believe that it is possible to lose their salvation and yet be saved? If so, you are saying the same thing I am. Do you believe that people who believe in faith alone, except for belief in the essentiality of the one act of baptism can be saved? If so, again, you are saying the same thing I am.”

My response:

My answer above should suffice for this first question. Needless to say, I don’t think what I am saying is the same thing you are (or that it entails the same thing), hence the extensive reply to clarify the difference 🙂 Your wording about the “essentiality of the one act of baptism” is confusing. I suspect that you might be asking about people who think that baptism is essential for salvation. If that’s the case, then I have replied to that above as well.

Michael said:

“Roman Catholics can deny salvation by faith alone and still be saved by their faith alone. Let’s get the essence of the truth and put it before our knowledge of the truth. Otherwise, the only people that are qualified to be saved are those with perfect belief in perfect doctrine. I don’t think even you or I are qualified under that criteria.”

Consider this: there will be many people who get to heaven and finally realize that God was really the author and perfecter of their faith. They will finally realize how radical God’s grace is. You and I will be among them. Why? Because we all have room to grow in this understanding. We all rely upon ourselves to some degree even if our confession states otherwise. Only when we come into His presence will we have a full realization and a complete trust in Him. Only in His presence will we fully embrace the doctrine of sola gratia. Some will have further to come than others, but none of our faith is perfect in this regard.”

My response:

Of course none of us has a perfect belief in a perfect conception of true doctrine. Nevertheless, we can have knowledge of the true path to Christ by the testimony of scripture. We can know, as I am sure you will agree, that we are to come to Christ and lay down our own works. Any mixture of works with grace nullifies the principle of grace. Those who persist in a stubborn refusal to lay down self-effort as a means or ground for acceptance with God should not be encouraged by the church to think of themselves as saved. We should not tell such people, “I don’t doubt your love for Christ.” Those who advocate the need for our own merit in conjunction with Christ’s should be put out of the church after proper warnings and treated as tax collectors. Some Roman Catholics are merely ignorant of their own traditions. However, that is not the case with Dr. Beckwith. You know that he is intelligently thinking through the issues and realizes the offensive nature of Tridentine dogma, yet he still wants to cling to it. While we should not immediately leap to condemning him, we should also not go around saying “I don’t doubt your love for Christ,” since his decision probably amounts to a rebellious denial of sola fide.

I realize that I have typed quite a bit in response to this matter. I do want to add that it seems that you’re laying the conceptual ground work for inclusivism. Consider your pattern of thought as it touches other essential doctrines. You have argued that you think sola fide is an essential doctrine of the gospel, but that a truly saved person may deny sola fide as Rome does. I take it that you also think that Christ’s deity, his bodily incarnation, his bodily resurrection and ours in the future, the doctrine of the Trinity are all essential Christian doctrines. Obviously you would even include the fact that Yahweh is God as an essential. According to your argumentation, a truly regenerate person can be in denial of these things. Arians, docetic gnostics, Hymenaeus, Modalists and Muslims may all be saved.

Arians deny Christ’s deity. But what’s the big deal? None of us have a perfect conception of Christ’s deity. After all, it’s our belief in Jesus that saves us, and not the doctrine of his co-equality with the Father. The docetic gnostics denied that Chirst had come in the flesh. But what of it? None of us have a perfect understanding of the hypo-static union. After all, it’s our faith in Christ alone that saves us, and not our belief in the hypostatic union. Hymenaeus taught that the resurrection had already taken place, which is to deny our future bodily resurrection. But what of it? None of us has a perfect understanding of the future bodily resurrection or the timing of it. After all, it’s our faith alone in Christ that saves us, and not our belief in a future bodily resurrection. Modalists deny the Trinity. But what of it? None of us has a perfect understanding of the Trinity. After all, it’s our faith in Christ alone that saves us, and not our belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. Muslims deny that Yahweh, or the God of Israel, is the one true God. But what of it? None of us can perfectly conceive of God’s identity and the fullness of his Name. After all, it’s our faith alone in Christ that saves us, and not our belief in Yahweh as the one true God.

I offer the above as a reductio ad absurdum to your pattern of thinking on sola fide. If you follow out your train of thought on sola fide, then I would argue that inclusivism is the result. If inclusivism is biblically absurd, which I assume you believe, then you should seriously rethink the way you are arguing on the matter of sola fide. It may be that you are inadvertently throwing down conceptual banana peels that will cause people to slip into the error of inclusivism. Also, I think your view minimizes the great cause of those who died to testify against Roman heresy.

Thanks for the interaction, Michael. If you decide to respond, then I will read what you have to say. I, however, will probably make this my final post on the subject. Please prayerfully reflect and meditate on what I have said, and I will do the same with your responses.
Grace to you,
Tony

Tony, I am not sure this is the place for this. Let me just conclude by saying that I don’t believe that you can justify your position biblically and your historical “rebellion against a doctrine” while interesting only serves as an attempt to make things consistent according to the decisions you have already made. But, even then, it is not true as church history has clearly seen that there is a detailed understanding of baptismal generation even at the time of Augustine and from the lips of Augustine.

To hold to your view, you are close to being a restorationist. I would be careful.

Thanks for the time.

[added to after I had time to read the rest of your response]

You say, “I do want to add that it seems that you’re laying the conceptual ground work for inclusivism.”

This is a bad association since you are implying a methodology that is not evidenced in my response in any way. Their is a big difference between knowing and believing the doctrine of sola fide and knowing and believing in the resurrection and the deity of Christ. The Bible is clear that one is required for belief, the other is not explicitly stated anywhere. Romans 10 and 1 Corinthians 15 make it clear that a denial of who Christ is and what He did is to deny the basic essential elements of the faith and is therefore evidence of a lack of true Christian faith of any sort. A denial of sola fide, while wrong and damaging, is never mentioned in the Scripture in the same light. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, the Galatian denied sola fide, yet I get no sense that Paul believed they were condemned. The same with the Hebrews. They both had the right teaching. In fact, Paul tells the Galatians, “Who has bewitched you.” This means that they had the truth, but they were denying it in favor of an alternate understanding that would prevent them from living according to the fullness of the Gospel.

I believe that our job is to do the same. We present the Gospel in its fullness. We don’t have to have it black or white. Either you love Christ and have perfect doctrine or you hate Christ and have bad doctrine. The purpose of the teaching ministry in the Church is to correct error and encourage people based on right doctrine. There is never a guarantee that people will all see things the same way.

One thing that I would agree about is the generally speaking, we should see true regenerate believers following true teaching because they have the Holy Spirit. I believe that the doctrine of sola fide is extremely important. But I do think the question “Who do you say that I am?” is the most important. We need to learn to distinguish between these, not so compromise can be available on the “less” important issues, but so we are thinking biblically, historically, and with integrity of the mind.

Am I headed for inclusivism in any way? If you are defining inclusivism as the belief that one can have no knowledge of Christ, yet still be saved by his blood, I think you have presented a major non sequitur. There is no way to come to that conclusion.

What does one have to do to be saved? They have to recognize their sinfulness and fall on their face asking for God to forgive them based on what Christ did. If they add works to their salvation after this, then we need to correct them, not assign them to hell.

To me, as I have talked to Beckwith in the past, as I have read his books, and as I have talked to others who knows him, I believe that he loves Christ the Lord. I don’t think there is any way for someone to love Christ the Lord and not be saved. Can they love him and have bad doctrine? Sure. Can they love him and have really bad doctrine? Yes. How do I know? The Galatians, Hebrews, and Corinthians (see here for my statements about the Corinthians).

I lament the conversion of Beckwith, who has moved to a position that lacks the fullness of the Gospel and in this sense has followed after a different Good News that in the end is not good. But if he has trusted Christ, believes that He is Lord, believes that He rose bodily from the grave, I don’t have any basis from Scripture to call into question his salvation.

Someone posted on the blog that Frank Beckwith wrote on about his return to Catholicism that Augustine said:

In necessariis unitas,
In dubiis libertas,
In omnibus autem caritas,

which is to say for those of us not fluent in Latin:

In essentials unity,
In doubtful things liberty,
But in all things love.

I just love that!

Oh, whoops, I hit the Submit button before I intended to!

I wanted to say that I also read on that same blog that there are 30,000 Christian denominations! If that is true…wow. So what’s to stop me from starting the 30,001 denomination? It can be me and a couple friends. We will call it “Faithful Friends of Jesus” or “Contemplatives for Christ” or how about “Askers, Seekers, and Knockers” (affectionately known as the “ASKers.”)

Gee, I am sorry, I don’t know what is happening. That latest post is only half of what I wrote. I wanted to say that I was being tongue-in-check about the denomination I could start for those of you who don’t know me, which is all of you. I also wrote some other stuff but I don’t have time to recreate it right now. Later…

Joanie

“In essentials unity . . .” That is a great saying. Augustine is actually not the one who coined the term. It is often attributed to him or Melancthon, but it is actually the phrase of a 16th century obscure theologian named Rupertus Meldenius. I researched this a while back since I was using the quote in TTP. I found the reference in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 7, pp. 650-653 (repr. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1965).

Thanks for that correction about the quote actually being from Rupertus Meldenius. I read more about him at:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/quote.html

One of the things there says, “He condemns the pharisaical hypocrisy, the philodoxia, philargia, and philoneikia of the theologians, and exhorts them first of all to humility and love. By too much controversy about the truth, we are in danger of losing the truth itself.”

I never heard those words before…philodoxia, philargia, and philoneikia…but I assume you thelogians have.

Joanie

Michael said:

“Their is a big difference between knowing and believing the doctrine of sola fide and knowing and believing in the resurrection and the deity of Christ. The Bible is clear that one is required for belief, the other is not explicitly stated anywhere.”

You may want to re-read what I have argued. I am not saying that sola fide must be believed in order to be saved. I have argued that one who has truly believed will not go on to perpetually deny the doctrine. I’ve made a crucial distinction between ignorant non-affirmation and rebellious denial. Your above statement misrepresents what I have sought to argue.

If Sola Fide is an essential aspect of the gospel, one wonders how a professing Calvinist could maintain that one of the believing elect could persistently rebel against it by knowledgeably joining a tradition that virtually spits on it. It also strikes me as curious to think that one of the elect who is indwelt by the Spirit could practice the idolatry of the mass and kneel down before a wafer to worship it as Jesus Christ himself. That’s what Roman Catholics are called to do.

Michael said:
“A denial of sola fide, while wrong and damaging, is never mentioned in the Scripture in the same light. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, the Galatian denied sola fide, yet I get no sense that Paul believed they were condemned.

This must be corrected as well. The above statement misrepresents what I have argued. Paul did have doubts about whether or not they had received his Gospel in vain, hence the letter of admonishment and exhortation. The general Galatian audience was in danger of turning their back on an essential teaching of his, which, if they persisted in, would demonstrate that they had received his gospel in vain. The Judiasers represented a group of men who did show themselves to be lost. They, they Judiasers, did fall under Paul’s anathema. If there were any Galatians who finally decided to side with the false teachers, they would also fall within the parameters of his anathema.

The same could be said of the Hebrews who were admonished in the book of Hebrews. If they finally returned to the fleshly system of works, they would be turning their backs on Christ and his sufficiency. A truly regenerate person would not persist in doing such a thing, hence the warnings.

These comments should suffice to sum up my actual position once for all:

An essential of the Christian faith is, at the very least, something that will not be habitually denied by one indwelt by the Spirit of God. If one is truly a believer, they cannot abide in a denial of an essential Christian doctrine. If some professing Christian moves in the direction of denying an essential, they should be instructed, warned, and patiently prayed over. If they go on to deny an essential and persist in it, the church should not consider such a person an authentic believer. That’s evidenced by the fact that the Apostles taught us to put such people outside of the church in a disciplinary manner. That doesn’t mean that we “assign them to hell” as if we know that is their destination. It just means we treat them like unbelievers that need to genuinely repent and believe the gospel.

If Sola Fide is an essential aspect of the gospel, which you (Michael) have admitted, then it at least qualifies as something that must not be denied. Other essentials, such as Christ’s deity, are of the sort that must be believed in order to be saved, but not all essentials are of that sort. While there is room for ignorance on some essentials (such as the Trinity), there is no room for habitual and rebellious denial of such things.

As much as Dr. Beckwith is being oh so kind in his return/conversion to the catholic church, he is also as much said that we are wrong and he has found the Truth.

He speaks as finding or coming back to the Church which by their dogma means we don’t belong to the Church which is offensive and in grave error.

We must stand united in condemning him, as the catholics are in embracing him. His irenic spirit is only a guise to “stick it” to us on his way out the door.

Yes Michael, love one another but every New Testament writer spoke vehemently against false doctrine, false teachers and false prophets.

This is where we must draw the line. The world is watching