Evangelical Theological Society President Returns Home to the Catholic Church

[kepha]

The president of the Evangelical Theological Society has returned to the faith of his childhood. His statement is here

Please note:

"...Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries..."

He is not saying the Reformed view is wrong, he is saying the Catholic view has more explanatory power. It's not "this or that", it's more like "this AND that". So lets not have a bash fest.

The official response from the Evangelical Theological Society is here. Hopefully, we can maintain the same charitible demeanor as is found in both statements. My question is can this be an opportunity for greater mutual dialogue between evangelicals and the Catholic Church?

[Soyeong]

I am glad to see that the situation was handled with care and I think the response to it was well said. It certainly does open up opportunity for communication between the two churches, which is a good thing. However, I am curious to know the specifics of exactly what he meant by, “the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries.”

[Shazard]

The president of the Evangelical Theological Society has returned to the faith of his childhood. His statement is here

Please note:


He is not saying the Reformed view is wrong, he is saying the Catholic view has more explanatory power. It's not "this or that", it's more like "this AND that". So lets not have a bash fest.

The official response from the Evangelical Theological Society is here. Hopefully, we can maintain the same charitible demeanor as is found in both statements. My question is can this be an opportunity for greater mutual dialogue between evangelicals and the Catholic Church?

Sometime I ask, can one be Roman Catholic and not pray to Saints? Can one be Roman Catholic and not recognise Pope as Christ himself? Can one be Roman Catholic and deny purgatory? If respones is yes, then there is this AND that, if the response is no, then answr is this OR that!

[Amazing Rando]

I applaud Mr. Beckwith's realization that Catholicism and evangelicalism are not mutually exclusive.

[kepha]

Sometime I ask, can one be Roman Catholic and not pray to Saints?

Yes, and Marian devotion is not an obligation either.

Can one be Roman Catholic and not recognise Pope as Christ himself?

That is not Catholic teaching. The Pope is not "as Christ himself", he is his vicar, a human in charge of the Church on earth. Big difference. The relationship between the Pope, the Church and Christ cannot be reduced to a yes or no question. The OFFICE of pope is divinely ordained, not the personality of the individual. The Church is not an organization like AT&T or General Motors, she is a living human and divine entity, an extension of the Incarnation.

Can one be Roman Catholic and deny purgatory?

Yes.

If respones is yes, then there is this AND that, if the response is no, then answr is this OR that!

It's "this AND that", and I quote from Beckwith:

Moreover, much of what I have taken for granted as a Protestant—e.g., the catholic creeds, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Christian understanding of man, and the canon of Scripture—is the result of a Church that made judgments about these matters and on which non-Catholics, including Evangelicals, have declared and grounded their Christian orthodoxy in a world hostile to it.

So if any dialogue can take place, it must be remembered that the very doctrines that Protestants have grounded their beliefs on came from the Catholic Church, and those matters were decided on long before they were "rediscovered" by the reformers.
That is where it should begin.

[furay]

Um, you can't be a Catholic and deny Purgatory. It is a dogma of the Church.

[kepha]

Well furay, I don't know of any Catholic who would reject purgatory, because it is a teaching of God's mercy and love, properly understood. Catholics are free to misunderstand. Just because they don't understand does not mean they cannot be a Catholic. In other words we are both right.
Yes or no questions are good for getting black or white answers, but that's about it.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

[furay]

Yes, if someone doubts or misunderstands the Faith of course that doesn't mean they are no longer Catholic. But Shazard used the word "deny" which is a pretty strong word, in my opinion. For someone to outright deny something they would have to know what it is they are denying which would make them a heretic and thus, no longer a Catholic. So yes, we're both right.

EDIT: The next paragraph of the Catechism clarifies what I'm saying:

2089: Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

Well furay, I don't know of any Catholic who would reject purgatory, because it is a teaching of God's mercy and love, properly understood. Catholics are free to misunderstand. Just because they don't understand does not mean they cannot be a Catholic. In other words we are both right.
Yes or no questions are good for getting black or white answers, but that's about it.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

[kepha]

soyeong post #2

I am glad to see that the situation was handled with care and I think the response to it was well said. It certainly does open up opportunity for communication between the two churches, which is a good thing. However, I am curious to know the specifics of exactly what he meant by, “the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries.”

Part of the answer is found in Beckwith's testimony which is found just above the quote in post #1. It's in the 8th paragraph down from the site: http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archi...o_th.html#more
"...The past four months have moved quickly for me and my wife. As you probably know, my work in philosophy, ethics, and theology has always been Catholic friendly, but I would have never predicted that I would return to the Church, for there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable. However, in January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible..."

[kepha]

WE ARE BORG

YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

[potato sundae]

I applaud Mr. Beckwith's realization that Catholicism and evangelicalism are not mutually exclusive.

It's called Anglicanism.

[RCNicholas]

The official response from the Evangelical Theological Society is here. Hopefully, we can maintain the same charitible demeanor as is found in both statements. My question is can this be an opportunity for greater mutual dialogue between evangelicals and the Catholic Church?

That is one of the most charitable statements by an evangelical (or an evang. organization) I have ever read regarding a convert to Catholicism. Thanks for posting the link, it was a breath of fresh air.

[Jawa Man]

What an awesome letter written by the ETS!