tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6380928433299493021..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Momma's BoyRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56968570458810548032008-11-17T19:03:00.000-05:002008-11-17T19:03:00.000-05:00Correction: Roger Beckwith wrote the book (thanks,...Correction: Roger Beckwith wrote the book (thanks, Jason...that's what I get for posting so late at night)...but the criticism still stands. Beckwith is in a position to know (or at least act) like he knows more than what he does.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80813053217642328732008-11-17T15:51:00.000-05:002008-11-17T15:51:00.000-05:00While, as a Catholic, I don't like your comments a...While, as a Catholic, I don't like your comments about Catholicism being a "celebrity" religion, I do agree with your estimation of Beckwith and he's not doing Catholics any favors with this book, either.<BR/><BR/>His reading of Catholicism is superficial and shallow. What he seems to want to be is a tertium quid - both Catholic and evangelical. I know people in this day want to keep all their options open, but when it comes to differences such as those between evangelicalism and Catholicism, one really must make an (informed) choice. Beckwith has not done this. Instead, he is asking Catholics to accept syncretism, on the basis that his (Beckwith's) faith, as a Catholic, is only sustained by his continuing immersion in evangelical Protestantism. In the course of his argument, he has tendentiously misinterpreted both Unitatis redintegratio and Lumen gentium, both of which have been re-articulated and clarified by Communionis notio, Dominus Iesus, and the CDF Response of July 2007. <BR/><BR/>Whatever all of you think of Catholicism and its tenets, please understand that we, too, require stringent exegesis as well as a modicum of acquaintance with standard Catholic sources, both primary and secondary. And we don't like the trend toward syncretism on the part of some of those who have "converted." It's an insult to the members of both groups.xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02734931487411592018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67065947914040147202008-11-17T12:12:00.000-05:002008-11-17T12:12:00.000-05:00http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/beckwith-in...http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/11/beckwith-in-retreat.htmlstevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35483695832771040162008-11-17T09:51:00.000-05:002008-11-17T09:51:00.000-05:00Steve,Thanks for the review.Sorry, Gene. I didn't...Steve,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the review.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, Gene. I didn't mean to thank you. :)<BR/><BR/>Jason, appreciate the follow-ups!<BR/><BR/>Needed more coffee...<BR/><BR/>MarkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89666322419496233922008-11-17T07:14:00.000-05:002008-11-17T07:14:00.000-05:00Thanks for that review Steve.Thanks also for those...Thanks for that review Steve.<BR/>Thanks also for those links Jason.<BR/><BR/>I was impacted by the words of Beckwith as I read John 6 to my kids last night, "it was nearly impossible for me to get forensic justification from the teaching of Jesus” (97)". Really?<BR/><BR/>Keep praying for Momma's Boy,<BR/>RonRon Van Brenkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15623171051016737306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-308035896588359742008-11-17T02:03:00.000-05:002008-11-17T02:03:00.000-05:00Exactly, which is why in the post above this one, ...Exactly, which is why in the post above this one, I referenced an internet source - James Swan's blog. Beckwith is citing the works of men like Jimmy Akin as his sources. He says he went to the internet. Now, I have no problem with internet sources - but Beckwith doesn't show any evidence of interacting with the opposing positions - the refutations of men like Akin, the exposure of the misuses of sources like McGrath by these same persons. That's why I told him he needs to interact with Steve's critique, not react to it.<BR/><BR/><I>It’s clear that Beckwith hasn’t done any in-depth research on the history of the canon. </I><BR/><BR/>Actually, that's not what strikes me. Beckwith wrote a standard reference that we cite ourselves, with respect to the canon of the OT in the NT church. <BR/><BR/>To me the situation here is reversed. Remember...the Apocrypha is generally referred to as part of the OT canon, not the NT canon, by our Romanist epologist/popular apologist friends. Rome's NT canon doesn't vary with ours - its the additional books in the OT canon. Beckwith seems to be denying his past work - reversing his own studied position by repeating the claims of Holy Mother Church and her popular apologists, in lieu of presenting a scholarly discussion of the issues. That strikes me as far worse than doing no research at all. At the very least, he should simply admit he changed his mind. I'd respect that. I respect him here even more if he would provide a scholarly discussion.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54349621324031257962008-11-17T00:48:00.000-05:002008-11-17T00:48:00.000-05:00hunter,The problem, as I understand Steve, is not ...hunter,<BR/><BR/>The problem, as I understand Steve, is not that Beckwith is a popularizer; the problem is that he's consulting popularizers for his theological education, even though he's an academic. On this point, Steve is certainly correct. Someone with a serious grappling of the issues would simply not make the sort of statements Beckwith has made in interviews and now in this book.Kevin Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04313286544695110514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34410558370055907462008-11-16T21:54:00.000-05:002008-11-16T21:54:00.000-05:00Gene and Jason,Thanks for the reviews. I see the ...Gene and Jason,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the reviews. I see the that ETS meeting is coming up. There is a push to amend the doctrinal statement. I think the amendment proposals should include something concerning sola fide and sola gratia.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/><BR/>MarkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73927080422615591522008-11-16T21:42:00.000-05:002008-11-16T21:42:00.000-05:00I'm a former student of Beckwith's. I've not foll...I'm a former student of Beckwith's. I've not followed him to Rome, but I do take issue with the way you've characterized Beckwith as a scholar. You don't publish with Cambridge University Press as a some kind of semi-popularizer. He is one of the best Christian philosophers. He just happens to also do quite a bit of popular work along the way.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18402260549040329222008-11-16T18:26:00.000-05:002008-11-16T18:26:00.000-05:00When Catholics cite church history in opposition t...When Catholics cite church history in opposition to Evangelicals, take note of which doctrines they mention. Beckwith mentions doctrines like "the Real presence of the Eucharist" and "apostolic succession".<BR/><BR/>But such concepts aren't unique to Roman Catholicism. And some of the patristic sources either define those concepts in a way that Roman Catholicism rejects or consider the beliefs non-essential. For example, the fact that a patristic source advocates some form of apostolic succession (a concept defined in different ways by different sources) doesn't prove that he considered it necessary for an individual or church to adhere to apostolic succession in order to be orthodox or worthy of fellowship. The fact that a source advocates some form of apostolic succession doesn't prove that the source defined the concept the same way Catholics do or assigned the same level of significance to that concept that Catholics assign to it.<BR/><BR/>Why doesn't Beckwith cite patristic support for transubstantiation and a Roman Catholic notion of apostolic succession rather than "the Real presence of the Eucharist" and "apostolic succession"? Just how broadly is he defining "the Real presence of the Eucharist"? Patristic scholars such as Philip Schaff and J.N.D. Kelly have argued that some of the fathers believed in a symbolic or spiritual presence view of the eucharist. I've reached the same conclusion in my reading of the fathers. If Beckwith's "Real presence of the Eucharist" is so broad as to include such views, then what significance does it have when cited against Evangelicalism? Or if he's only referring to the fathers who believed in some type of physical presence, then what about the others who didn't? And how do we get from physical presence to transubstantiation?<BR/><BR/>If Beckwith can choose to focus on concepts like "the Real presence of the Eucharist" and "apostolic succession", why can't somebody else focus on other issues? Why not focus, instead, on the rejection of the papacy or the acceptance of premillennialism among the early patristic Christians, for example? As I mentioned above, Beckwith seems to be wrong about some of the doctrines he does cite. The evidence suggests that the earliest patristic Christians didn't believe in infant baptism or prayers to the deceased, for example. But even if they did agree with Beckwith on such issues, what about the other issues? A justification needs to be given for which issues Catholics decide to focus on. The Catholics I've interacted with over the years haven't provided that justification.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88374492503992088332008-11-16T16:43:00.000-05:002008-11-16T16:43:00.000-05:00If anybody is interested, I wrote a response to Be...If anybody is interested, I wrote a response to Beckwith, primarily on the doctrine of justification, last year. You can read it <A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/francis-beckwiths-reversion-to-roman.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. In that article, I gave some examples of Roman Catholic doctrines that were widely contradicted by the patristic Christians, including some of the doctrines Beckwith refers to as "conspicuously uncontroversial" in one of Steve's quotes above.<BR/><BR/>Beckwith makes reference to a lack of "warring camps with one risking an ecumenical council’s judgment of heresy, as in the Arian and Pelagian controversies". But if the earliest patristic Christians didn't believe in the papacy or praying to the deceased, for example, as the evidence suggests, why would we expect "warring camps"? There might be disputes when an opposing position arises, as we see with the papacy after that doctrine arose, but the absence of earlier disputes wouldn't suggest that the doctrine was accepted in earlier times. The lack of earlier disputes about the papacy could be explained by widespread agreement about a non-papal view of church government. And just as there wasn't "risk of an ecumenical council’s judgment of heresy" each time a patristic source advocated a Roman Catholic concept that Protestants reject, there also wasn't "risk of an ecumenical council’s judgment of heresy" each time a patristic source advocated a Protestant concept that Roman Catholics reject. There are many subjects the ecumenical councils didn't address, and different people have different priorities, often influenced by their historical context. A patristic source who opposed the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, for example, may not have considered the issue significant enough to warrant a call for "an ecumenical council’s judgment of heresy". He may not have even thought the issue significant enough to argue over it with others, particularly if more important issues needed to be tended to at the time. Etc.<BR/><BR/>Regarding apostolic succession, see <A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/03/unity-apostolic-succession-and.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>I have a summary of the historical roots of the Reformation and Evangelicalism, including links to many articles documenting patristic disagreements with Catholicism and agreements with Evangelicalism, <A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/10/historical-roots-of-reformation-and.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.triablogue.blogspot.com/search/label/Justification?max-results=1000" REL="nofollow">Here's</A> a page listing all of our archived posts on the topic of justification. Not all of our posts are archived yet, but many of them are.<BR/><BR/>It should be noted that although Beckwith refers to "forensic justification" in the teaching of Jesus, a more important issue is whether Jesus taught the concept of justification through faith alone, even if He didn't specify imputed righteousness. As I discussed in some posts earlier this year, the concept of justification through faith alone is found in many places in the teaching of Jesus in the gospels. See <A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/early-teaching-of-sola-fide-outside-of.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>And there were many views of justification in pre-Reformation church history. It's not as though Trent and Protestantism represent the only views that existed. Some people who lived during the Reformation era accepted doctrines like the papacy and transubstantiation while accepting justification through faith alone at the same time. If Trent's decisions represented an established pre-Reformation tradition, then why were those decisions so controversial even in Roman Catholic circles (as we see in Steve's example of disagreements over the Old Testament canon at Trent)?Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.com