This is a flat denial of the faith he once professed. To deny the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is to deny the Reformed Protestant faith. It is to deny the plain teaching of Paul in Romans 4. Therefore, no matter how much Beckwith tries to make himself sound like he has peace with God, he must by definition subvert the very foundation for Paul's conclusion in Romans 5:1
"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"
4 comments:
Hi Howard,
Thanks for tracking the story. I'm also a recent convert to Catholicism from evangelicalism.
I think Beckwith early on made some statements that made it seem as though he hadn't changed any of his views. I'd have to look back at the interviews to find exactly where, but I think, in an attempt not to offend, and to lessen the shock, he sometimes left that impression.
Is that why you seem so surprised that you say "that is a flat denial of the faith he once professed"? How could it not be? How could one convert to Catholicism WITHOUT coming to the conclusion that Catholicism was right, and the Reformation, at least doctrinally if not in intent, was wrong?
Thanks Ed. I appreciate your honesty here. It is quite refreshing. I would rather talk to someone like yourself who will say what needs to be said than the "let's all be friends for the sake of....?"
What is odd about Beckwith is he sounded so Relativistic about religious claims when he had co-authored a book against relativism.
If one is going to convert, then do so! During the interview, he made criticisms against the Protestant faith that shows he truly is inconsistent with himself and his understanding of what he supposedly believed.
I guess that is what Protestantism gets for putting philosophers at the forefront instead of sound theologians who know how to exegete the Scriptures.
I also should mention though that I have benefited from some his books (a couple on prolife), and I would not throw them away simply because he has departed the faith.
So, I was not surprised by his clear statements, I was just surprised that he was so wishy washy in getting them out of his mouth.
Thanks, Howard. I think you might want to give Beckwith a year or more. I know Catholics are eager to hear what he has to say -- even many Protestants have had to admit that he made his move thoughtfully, though they disagreed with his conclusions. I can tell you from personal experience -- having thought through the issues doesn't necessarily translate into being quick on your feet or being able to respond in a way that's persuasive. That just comes with practice (and I'm nowhere near practiced enough myself yet, but I'm a lot better at answering objections than I was at first).
That's why I wish that Greg Koukl would have a discussion with someone who's on his level. Beckwith was on his level as a Protestant, but not as a Catholic yet. To truly hear a fair discussion, you'd have to have Koukl debate someone like a Jimmy Akin or a Tim Staples. Otherwise it's like a graduate student debating a high school student (no offense to Beckwith, who is quite accomplished) -- not quite fair.
I also think that Beckwith is SLIGHTLY more hesitant to make his old friends FEEL bad, than Koukl is at hurting HIS friends' feelings (not that Koukl intended that). Thus I think he's hesitant to be confrontational -- not to mention the fact that he wasn't expecting a debate (which I happen to think was slightly naive). There were so many times where Greg would make an assertion, and Frank would say "I think that's true, and..." when I wanted to say "now hold on a minute." I think he was definitely trying to be as amiable as possible, and I think since he thought it wasn't a debate, he wasn't aware how much that was registering as wishy-washy. Protestants had every right to wonder, "if you agree with us on so much, then why convert?"
I must also say, that I think your desire for him to be confrontational is partly a cultural difference, at least between today's Catholicism and the Reformed Tradition. Catholics, especially converts, often speak about how much various Protestant traditions get right -- it really comes from the Church's ecumenical leadership (as exemplified by Pope John Paul II and even the current Pope). The idea is, rather than saying "we can't both be right. Either we are or you are!" (though in one sense that's true) -- it's a more diplomatic manner of saying, "I love how you get such-and-such right. We agree on that. Let's discuss things and go a little further and see what else we might agree on."
Thanks Howard!
"I must also say, that I think your desire for him to be confrontational is partly a cultural difference, at least between today's Catholicism and the Reformed Tradition."
I think this is the problem for both Koukl and Beckwith. Koukl's approach is trying to get Beckwith to explain something he may not be ready to explain. So I agree with your assessment here.
The problem I had with Beckwith is that an hour into the interview he lamented at being not able to just come the program and give his story of the Journey Home. Woujld a Roman Catholic program just allow me to sit there and explain my journey home to Protestantism? That would be absurd.
Would we allow a Mormon to come on our respective programs and give his testimony without being challenged?
The problem for Beckwith is that he seems to see the Gospel as not defined in such a way as for both sides to truly be forever separated. As you said, both can't be right. Rome used to recognize this. It is too bad that ecumenicalism has superceded truth. I say that to the detriment of both sides. True dialogue is when terms are defined, not muddied as many are doing today.
But I must say that I thought Beckwith did fairly well at explaining what he believed. It was his presuppositions that were problematic.
Thanks for your input Ed.
Post a Comment