Catholics just can't win with some folks. They call us legalists...by which they mean this preposterous fantasy that we think we can earn our way to heaven. And yet Turretinfan (for example) is instantly ready to assume that Dr. Beckwith would act *contrary* to a legalistic gospel by acting in bad faith. So which is it? Are Catholics evil because they're legalists, or evil because they're not? Turretinfan can't have it both ways. Or maybe it's just that he thinks Catholics are evil no matter what they believe or do? Or - and this is by far the most probable - maybe it's just that he has no idea what we really believe, which is the nearly universal condition of all Protestants who hate the Catholic Church.Yet it's quite clear (reading their own comments) that those who actually know Dr. Beckwith have nothing but the highest regard for his personal integrity, even when they strongly disagree with him. So there's absolutely no basis for this malicious idea that he intended to be a Papist mole in the ETS chancery.
I respond line-by-line, as follows:
Fred: "Catholics just can't win with some folks."
I reply: I pointed out both balanced and imbalanced Roman Catholics in my original post. There are reasonable Roman Catholics and there are unreasonable Roman Catholics.
Fred: "They call us legalists...by which they mean this preposterous fantasy that we think we can earn our way to heaven. "
I reply: Consistent Roman Catholics are legalists, which means that they deny Sola Fide. The only way that charge could be a "preposterous fantasy," would be if the Council of Trent were also a preposterous fantasy. If you, Fred, deny that the Council of Trent defined Roman Catholic dogma, and call its teachings a "preposterous fantasy," then you should be aware that you are under its anathema, for whatever that's worth.
Fred: "And yet Turretinfan (for example) is instantly ready to assume that Dr. Beckwith would act *contrary* to a legalistic gospel by acting in bad faith."
I reply: I waited to publish until I had confirmation from Jimmy Akin (see my original post) that indeed Beckwith had intended to keep his new allegiance to Rome a secret, while maintaining the post of President. Prof. Beckwith's own testimony subsequently confirmed what you, Fred, falsely call an assumption, namely that Prof. Beckwith had intended to keep his switched allegiance incognito for the duration of his presidency.
Fred: "So which is it?"
I reply: This is the set up for a false dichotomy, as will be shown below.
Fred: "Are Catholics evil because they're legalists, or evil because they're not?"
I reply: This a false dichotomy. The doctrines of Rome, which deny the truth of the gospel, are evil because they contradict the Word of God. Those who hold to the doctrines of Rome can fall along a range from those who ignorantly accept the false doctrines of Rome, to those who know the truth but suppress it, because of their hatred of the truth. Secondly, those who profess legalism do not necessarily live according to their profession. Ocassionally, Roman Catholic priests who are sworn to celibacy, not only break their vows, but do so in ways that are extraordinarily reprehensible. Whether or not Prof. Beckwith's system of legalism adopted when he joined Rome would bar his attempted secrecy is open to dispute. However, even if such a thing were officially condemned by Rome, that fact is not sufficient to ensure that Prof. Beckwith would consistently follow Rome's dictates, any more than those priests who fall into immorality.
Fred: "Turretinfan can't have it both ways."
I reply: The facts are the facts. Prof. Beckwith "converted" to Roman Catholicism (whose doctrines regarding legalism were defined by the Council of Trent), and tried to keep that fact secret, as evidenced by his own testimony and that of Jimmy Akin (a practice which Jesuitical ethics would not necessarily condemn). If that is "both ways," then - as with so many other falsely dichotomous situations - I can have it both ways.
Fred: "Or maybe it's just that he thinks Catholics are evil no matter what they believe or do?"
I reply: God restrains the evil of Hindus, Muslims, and Roman Catholics, so that they often obey outwardly the moral of God in many respects.
Fred: "Or - and this is by far the most probable - maybe it's just that he has no idea what we really believe, which is the nearly universal condition of all Protestants who hate the Catholic Church."
I reply: Considering that you, Fred, call the doctrines of the Council of Trent a "preposterous fantasy," I will let the readers consider who has no idea what the Church of Rome teaches on the subject. What I have found, in my own experience, is that most of those who were baptized as Roman Catholics and even who have been confirmed have very little understanding of Roman Catholic theology or history. What you believe or don't believe is individual, and - I have found - varies from Roman Catholic to Roman Catholic.
Fred: "Yet it's quite clear (reading their own comments) that those who actually know Dr. Beckwith have nothing but the highest regard for his personal integrity, even when they strongly disagree with him. "
I reply: Even if that were true, all that it would suggest is that Prof. Beckwith would not knowingly do something that he believed to be wrong. Prof. Beckwith's comments point out that his decision was not one that was so immediately obvious that he made it alone, but instead that it was a difficult decision and that he made it after consulting with friends. Accordingly, Prof. Beckwith should not be surprised that others would come to a different conclusion regarding the propriety of his continuing to mask his change of allegiance.
Fred: "So there's absolutely no basis for this malicious idea that he intended to be a Papist mole in the ETS chancery."
I reply: That wasn't quite the charge. The charge was that he intended to go on being both a member of the organization, and the president, although he was a Roman Catholic and, consequently, no longer an adherent to Sola Scriptura, which is one of the two doctrinal requirments of ETS. But, in any event, the original post, linked here, has the details.
Apparently another poster, going by the handle "Matthew," and listing Jimmy Akin's web site as his homepage replied to Fred thus:
You are right when it comes to the popular anti-Catholic broad stoke of legalism. As Catholics if we live out our faith and abide by the Church's teachings we are labeled as legalistic. However, for those Catholics who do not attend Mass, live out their faith, etc. the broad stroke of anti-Catholic rhetoric goes in the opposite direction of being a "typical Catholic" *wink* *wink* in need of evangelization. Either way you go the pre-supposition is that there is no way one can be Catholic and a good and faithful Christian at the same time. It is sad, but an all too common theme that I've encountered with our non-Catholic brethren.
I respond: This respondent too, seems to fail to understand the connection between legalism and the rejection of Sola Fide. Those who live a godly life without Faith in Christ do better than those who live wantonly, and they receive their reward. But, as Matthew correctly notes, one cannot be a good Catholic that accepts all of what Rome teaches and be a good Christian. The gospel of Rome is not the gospel of Scripture, and those who are Rome, whether they behave themselves well or not, are in need of evangelization.
-Turretinfan
6 comments:
Hello Turretinfan. Fred here.
You say: Consistent Roman Catholics are legalists, which means that they deny Sola Fide.
This is a question-begging response, since you have assumed a particular definition of "legalism" which has nothing to do with the Catholic understanding of justification - which is unconcerned with Reformation slogans. In actuality, the usual definition of legalism denotes a belief that one can save himself by his own efforts - something that the Catholic Church has always condemned.
"The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us 'the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ' and through Baptism" (CCC 1987; the inner quotation is from St. Athanasius).
"Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men" (CCC 1992; italics in original; bolding added by me).
"Justification is the most excellent work of God's love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit (CCC 1994; italics in original; bolding added by me).
But perhaps you think that the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church has contradicted Trent on these matters. Very well. Here are some portions from the Tridentine Canons on Justification:
"If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ: let him be anathema" (Canon I).
"If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free-will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty: let him be anathema (Canon II).
So we see that Catholics have *always* believed that we are saved by grace.
You say: I waited to publish until I had confirmation from Jimmy Akin (see my original post) that indeed Beckwith had intended to keep his new allegiance to Rome a secret
I will have to concede that I didn't remember precisely what Dr. Beckwith had to say about this point. However, I don't think that you quite hit the mark in your comment over at Cor ad cor loquitur, either. He makes it clear that his personal inclination was to complete the last six months of his term before seeking formal reunion with the Church. He also says that he received conflicting advice on this point: trusted advisors of his recommended both that he complete the term *and* that he resign immediately, so that (as he says) "I did not know exactly what to do." So he prayed. And in the end he came back to the Church in late April, and it appears from what he says that he was in negotiations with the ETS Executive Committee as to what to do when he was "outed" by third parties:
On the other hand, because I had no doubt that word of my return to the Church would disseminate quickly through private conversation and correspondence over the next six months, I suggested to the ETS executive committee that it appoint someone else on the committee to preside over the remaining meetings in both August and November. I offered to attend those meetings and contribute to them in ways to advance the good of ETS. But I also told the committee that if it did not think it was appropriate for me to attend, I would not. On the other hand, if it thought I should conduct the meetings, I would do so. Regardless, I deferred to their collective judgment on this matter. However, I also told them that I intended to remain as ETS president until my term expires in November, but not to accept a nomination for a four-year at-large appointment to the executive committee after the end of my term.
Far from being dishonest, Dr. Beckwith appears to have been beset by simply human uncertainty; having finally made up his mind, however, it appears that he also immediately made his change in circumstances known to the ETS Executive Committee. So as far as I can tell he acted in bad faith at no time (and really, this is the major point I was concerned to make).
You say: The doctrines of Rome, which deny the truth of the gospel, are evil because they contradict the Word of God.
This is balderdash. They do nothing of the sort.
You say: Prof. Beckwith "converted" to Roman Catholicism (whose doctrines regarding legalism were defined by the Council of Trent), and tried to keep that fact secret, as evidenced by his own testimony
But - as I have demonstrated from his own statement - he didn't do this at all. In fact, he evidently went to the ETS Board *before* any of this became public.
You say: God restrains the evil of Hindus, Muslims, and Roman Catholics, so that they often obey outwardly the moral of God in many respects.
LOL!!! But of course, the Lord does this with Reformed Presbyterians as well :-) He does this with everyone, so this is really an over-obvious, non-helpful response to what I asked: "Or maybe it's just that he thinks Catholics are evil no matter what they believe or do?"
You say: Fred: "Or - and this is by far the most probable - maybe it's just that he has no idea what we really believe, which is the nearly universal condition of all Protestants who hate the Catholic Church."
I reply: Considering that you, Fred, call the doctrines of the Council of Trent a "preposterous fantasy," I will let the readers consider who has no idea what the Church of Rome teaches on the subject.
Friend, you have just confirmed what I asserted as the most likely case: if you really think that the Catholic Church teaches "legalism", you don't understand what the Church teaches. But perhaps you can clarify things by telling us what definition of "legalism" you are using. I've already made it clear (see my quotes from Trent and the CCC above) that the Catholic Church rejects the *normal* definition of of the term: "the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works." The Catholic Church has always taught that salvation is the free gift of the grace of God (Eph. 2:8).
Fred:
I'm surprised you would choose to continue this demonstration.
1) Try to follow the argument.
Legalism => Salvation by works
Denial of Sola Fide => Salvation by works
ergo
Denial of Sola Fide => Legalism
2) Yes, the Roman Catholic dogmatic definition is concerned with the Reformation slogan.
E.G.:
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.
See also chapter IX of the same document.
3) The statement in your post "So we see that Catholics have *always* believed that we are saved by grace," either shows your ignorance of Canon IX above, your failure to grasp its significance, or fondness for equivocation. Salvation by cooperation with grace, is not the same thing as salvation by grace.
The RCC view is aptly summarized as salvation by grace + works.
4) You seem to make a point about Prof. Besckwith's not being "dishonest." Did I accuse him of dishonesty? Did I say he lied? I don't recall saying that. He just concealed the truth. QED
5) Your claim of "balderdash" is contradicted by the Holy Spirit at the pen of Paul in Romans, particularly the fourth chapter.
6) According to Jimmy Akin, "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."
That passage confirms that there was a design to keep the move secret, I have not seen the letters that Beckwith sent, but they were received according to Beckwith "during the week of April 30," which is - of course - not only a minimum of several weeks after his decision to follow Rome, but obviously after his official reception into the Roman fold.
The design to keep the changed allegiance a secret is confirmed by Beckwith's own comments:
"Given my status as president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), I decided several weeks ago--after consultation with trusted friends--to not seek absolution until my term as ETS president ended in November and then to request that the ETS nominations committee not place my name on the executive committee ballot as an at-large member."
If anyone seriously thinks that Beckwith had not already switched allegiances when his decision was as to when to seek absolution, then they are welcome to their own delusions.
I do not have a copy of the letters that Prof. Beckwith sent. However, considering that he alerted Jimmy Akin that the matter was public after Dr. White published his news article, one might imagine that the letters do not say, "here is public information, please feel to disseminate it to the world at large."
7) Your laughter regarding God's gracious restraint of the evil of men, including Roman Catholics, does not mean that the answer does not answer the question. Nevertheless, to be clear, only Christ was sinless, as Scripture says.
8) Toward the end of your post you wrote: "perhaps you can clarify things by telling us what definition of "legalism" you are using."
Apparently you had, by that time, forgotten the first quotation in your response, which quoted this:
Consistent Roman Catholics are legalists, which means that they deny Sola Fide.
As noted above, the definition is clear. While you surely would prefer to defend your church against the straw man accusation of Pelagianism, that particular scarecrow has not been presented.
-Turretinfan
Hello again! Fred here.
You say: I'm surprised you would choose to continue this demonstration.
Why? I'm surprised that you would be surprised :-) You have said nothing by way of an actual demonstration up to now, and it remains to be seen whether you could win the debate or not. I wouldn't be surprised if you could do so, though such a victory obviously would have no bearing on whether you are actually correct about some things (including especially our points of disagreement).
Unfortunately, it appears that we will not have the opportunity to find that out. My vacation ends tonight, and with it will end any serious likelihood of me having time for this stuff (I almost never enter get involved in Internet debates). :-(
In retrospect, given the constraints on my time I shouldn't have even replied in the first place, but that's water under the bridge now.
You say:
Legalism => Salvation by works
Denial of Sola Fide => Salvation by works
ergo
Denial of Sola Fide => Legalism
I'll grant you the first as a definitional statement. But the second is pure assertion. It is by no means the case that to deny sola fide is *necessarily* to affirm salvation by works. For the Pelagian, sure. Not for the Catholic, who says that by His grace God enables us to obey Him: "for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." For the Catholic, saved by Christ's work of atonement in sacrificing Himself on the cross, good works are something that he does in response to and as a consequence of the fact that he has been saved. In no way do they supplant Christ's sacrifice. In point of fact, this is not so very different from the Reformed perspective on works.
In sum: it is simply not the case that the *only* alternative to sola fide is works salvation. This is pure tommyrot: it's a Protestant article of faith, but it's no less mistaken for all that.
But I must ask you: if you really believe in salvation by faith alone, may an unrepentant adulterer who trusts in Christ get to heaven or not? If you say yes, then you have contradicted Gal. 5:19-21. If you say no (as I hope and expect you do), then immediately it becomes obvious that what we Christians do matters. We cannot live as we wish. We are obliged to obey God.
Most likely you will insist that such a man hasn't really trusted in Christ. To that I would respond: who are you to judge the condition of his faith? I certainly agree with you that he will not be saved unless he repents, but I would never presume to judge his faith. I do not know his heart.
Truly it seems to me that in large measure the quarrel between the Reformed and Catholics comes down to a question of assurance: you must insist upon sola fide because without it, your insistence upon 100% assurance of salvation dries up and blows away.
Unfortunately, I don't see how this notion of 100% assurance can be maintained in the light of the following (among other things that might be said):
1) In Deut. 7, God says of Israel that he chose them and loved them: in other words, they were his elect. And yet many of the elect fell. Letting Scripture interpret Scripture, it seems unreasonable to insist being "elect" in the NT differs so dramatically from being "chosen" in the OT as to reduce the latter to ... something of virtually no force.
2) The parable of the sheep and the goats (Mt. 25:31-46), where the two are judged *not* on the basis of the quality of their faith, but on the basis of what they *did*.
3) The Last Judgment (Rev. 20), where men are judged "according to their works."
4) St. Paul writes to the *faithful* believers at Philippi: "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Php. 2:12; even more interesting is v. 13, which confirms the Catholic doctrine that God enables us to obey him by his grace, so that we have no grounds for boasting). Why, if someone is saved by "faith alone", would he need to "work out" his salvation, and why, if his salvation is 100% assured, would he need to do this with "fear and trembling"???
5) Why would Hebrews sternly warn us, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, who have both tasted the heavenly gift and become partakers of the Holy Spirit, who have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, and then have fallen away, to be renewed again to repentance; since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and make him a mockery" (Heb. 6:4-6)?? It is not credible even to suggest that this is merely hypothetical. It's not credible, either, to pretend that genuine Christians are not the subject of the warning (what pseudo-Christian ever became a partaker of the Holy Spirit??).
You say: Salvation by cooperation with grace, is not the same thing as salvation by grace.
If the cooperation with grace is *itself* enabled by grace, it most certainly is the same thing. If I am unable to cooperate with God's grace until and unless God's grace enables me to do so, then the whole matter is entirely one of God's grace from start to finish.
Truly, it's remarkable that we Catholics can deny up and down that we believe in salvation by works, and we can insist until we're blue in the face that we're saved by grace, and yet you will still have the temerity to deny that we say that, and to insist that we're legalists.
You say: Did I accuse him of dishonesty? Did I say he lied? I don't recall saying that. He just concealed the truth.
Concealing a truth one is obligated to reveal is dishonest, as you know very well. So, of course, you did accuse him of this. And of course, as he has already made clear, he *considered* not making his reversion known: a course he did not ultimately pursue (even before it was made public), as he has written. I would only add that it's not at all clear that honesty obliges one to instantaneous action under the circumstances, so I'm not prepared to condemn him for his hesitation. Most importantly, it is clear that the ETS Board appears (according to its statement) to have no issues with the way that Dr. Beckwith has conducted himself. So what you and I think about the matter is really unimportant.
You write: Your claim of "balderdash" is contradicted by the Holy Spirit at the pen of Paul in Romans, particularly the fourth chapter.
Your "rebuttal" is contradicted by the Holy Spirit at the pen of St. James, particularly the second chapter.
You say: Your laughter regarding God's gracious restraint of the evil of men, including Roman Catholics, does not mean that the answer does not answer the question. Nevertheless, to be clear, only Christ was sinless, as Scripture says.
LOL again!! Let me refresh your memory as to the original question here, since it appears that you have forgotten: "Or maybe it's just that he thinks Catholics are evil no matter what they believe or do?"
Such a question requires a "yes" or "no", not a theological discourse on whether God restrains the evil deeds of Reformed Presbyterians and all other men or not, and not a mention (important, but in the present context irrelevant) of the sinlessness of Christ.
Truly, I'm a bit surprised by your handling of this question. It was pretty obviously (for the most part, or so I thought) a rhetorical device, but you seem to be choking on it in your evasions of a simple yes or no. So now I'd really like to know the answer: Do you consider Catholics to be evil no matter what they do or believe? Yes or no?
T-fan -- if the arrows symbolize logical implication, then I think your first premise under (1) needs to be reversed (at least for the inference to be valid).
Dear Tim H.,
Good point.
The comment ought to have read:
Salvation by works => Legalism
Denial of Sola Fide => Salvation by works
Ergo
Denial of Sola Fide => Legalism
Thank you for the correction.
-Turretinfan
Fred, rather than bury my response at the bottom of these comments, I'll start a new blog post to handle them.
-Turretinfan
Post a Comment