Comments

I appreciate the gracious tenor of the ETS executive committee's response to Dr. Beckwith's resignation. This is a model for all of us to follow. There has been way too much of a defensive posture by evangelicals over Dr. Beckwith's return to Catholicism, and too much triumphalism by many Roman Catholics. Surely those outside the Christian faith are not impressed by this in-fighting.

But I wish to take issue with one point raised by the executive committee's statement: It seems illogical to assert that if one believes that other documents besides the scripture are infallible, a person could not sign the ETS doctrinal statement. There is nothing in the statement that says that only the Bible is inerrant; it says that only the Bible is the inerrant written word of God. As such, it does not even explicitly affirm the Bible's role as final authority for the Christian, just that it is the only document that can be called the inerrant written word of God. Further, there is nothing in the statement that defines what books belong in the Bible. Consequently, it cannot be used to declare that a Roman Catholic or eastern Orthodox person cannot embrace this credo.

Dr. Beckwith, I understand, withdrew his membership from ETS because he did not want to do damage to the body of Christ but wanted to have an open, irenic dialogue between Catholics and evangelicals. Unless I am mistaken, he felt that he could sign the doctrinal statement of the ETS without any reservation. Further, he did say that no one on the executive committee put any pressure on him to resign. Although I may disagree with him over several issues, I am puzzled about the executive committee's inference that the ETS credo on inerrancy is one of them.

I wish to thank the ETS Executive Committee for the charitable tone of their statement.

In the same spirit, I would like to offer a word of clarification, specifically regarding a distinction made in Catholic tradition between "infallibility," as it pertains to the Church magisterium, and "inspiration," as it pertains exclusively to Sacred Scripture, by which it is rendered "inerrant".

In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia (s.v. "Infallibility"):

"Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document."

I share this with the hope of promoting precisely that sort of "renewed discussion" between Catholics and Protestants called for by the Executive Committee -- and with gratitude to our Lord for the many blessings that I've received, as a former member, from the ETS.

Exactly. This statement shows the folly of one group of Christians trying to make an authoritative interpretation of another Christian body's teachings.

The first objection, that the RCC recognizes too many books in its Bible, is perhaps a legitimate one. The statement does not specify who many books are in the Bible, but it's fair to let the ETS definet hat question.

However, the second objection is completely unfair. It is not the job of the ETS to decide what the Catholic Church believes. Many Catholics would say--with justice, it seems to me--that the Church does not hold anything other than Scripture to be verbally inspired. To use a terminology one often hears in conservative Protestant circles, the Bible _is_ the Word of God. Church documents, in the Catholic view, _contain_ the Word of God. The ETS committee's failure to make this distinction leads it to misrepresent the Catholic view seriously, if only by painting it too narrowly (i.e., some Catholics might agree with the ETS interpretation of Catholicism, but certainly not all would).

In short, the ETS or any other body has every right to exclude people based on its own interpretation of its own beliefs. It does not have a right to exclude them based on its own interpretation of their beliefs, when that interpretation contradicts their own explicit statements on the subject.

I, too, am grateful for the gracious tenor of the ETS statement.Yet, my hope is that "graciousness" would not be confused with post-modern relativism - a "to each his own" attitude that will too easily dismiss this situation. Instead, I pray that Dr. Beckwith's decision to have full communion with the Roman church creates an opportunity for Protestant evangelicals like myself to "take stock" as to where the evangelical church is currently, where it is heading, and how does it line up with the broader Tradition of the church historical. Part of the difficulty surrounding this situation, it seems, is a lack of understanding of the nature and work of Tradition by evangelicals (as evidenced by the corrective statements in the posts on this cite, as well as posts from around the web), and therefore an inability to soberly assess this situation and the evangelical church at large in light of Tradition.

It is no insight to say that the majority of evangelical seminaries are weak in patristic and medieval studies. Carl Trueman, department chair of church history at Westminster Theological, recently stated: "If I had my time over again, I would have studied patristics rather than Reformation; the evangelical Protestant world has a dearth of good patristic scholars. Michael Haykin and Don Fairbairn are notable exceptions; but we have not done well in this field as a whole; and we have neglected it to our own impoverishment" In my over six years of formal theological studies, I can testify to the minimal attention given to theology from 325 a.d. to 1517 a.d. This can only result in creating assumptions, misunderstandings, and confusion for the evangelical mind.

I hope that Dr. Beckwith's conversion will continue to stir Protestant evangelicals to become more acquainted with who they are in light of the broader Tradition of the church. I hope that evangelical seminaries move in a direction to "beef up" their patristic and medieval studies (it is a shame someone could graduate with a masters in theology without having read a scintilla of Nyssa, Maximus, Lombard, Aquinas, or Occam). Without an adequate patristics and medieval education, it is impossible to understand the Reformation. It is like trying to understand the person and work of Jesus without having any comprehension of the Old Testament. Sure, you can come away with points of truth, but the bigger picture of what is taking place is greatly weakened (if not at times lost). And when evangelicals begin reading the patristics and medieval theology, they may ask questions of the Protestant church that aren't asked whenever one merely caricatures the patristic and medieval church on his/her way to highlight the Reformation. I believe Dr. Beckwith's move to the Roman church presents us as Protestant evangelicals an opportunity to take stock and re-evaluate what is taking place in our midst.

I see this trend more and more of individuals resorting to creeds and/or converting to the older ecumenical Christian faiths among Evangelical Christians in America. I believe its in part due to a "fuzzy logic" about innerrancy and the Bible being the final authority. Even among Seminarians, I hear and "feel" this conviction but then an appeal to authority follows, whether that authority is legitamate, as in the case of a prominent Theologian, or in anticipation of gaining an advanced degree in Theological Studies, as in the case of a Seminarian making emphatic declarations or statements on their position on a particular doctrine. What this implies to me, among other things, is a lack of understanding the philosophical foundations for the doctrine of innerrancy on the one hand and ones hermeneutical lense on the other. I tend to see exegetical conclusions among conservative evangelicals in Seminary as wooden and predictable. Someone like Dr. Beckwith probably has "caught wind" of this predictability and questioned the genuineness of our evangelical doctrinal positions. My conclusion is that believing in innerrancy alone does not necessarily lead one to the right conclusions for interpreting Scripture. Second, holding to innerrancy as a doctrine doesn't mean one understands the basis for it (i.e., it is philosophical in nature) nor does it mean that it automatically makes that person who believes in innerrancy infallible in their exegesis or interpretation of Scripture. In this post-modern world, many claim innerrancy but forget that Classical Foundationalism is equally important in arguing for a conservative view and hence, people make subjective claims of authority. For many, this becomes so frustrating they eventually look for a "higher authority" and resort to science, history, or in the case of Dr. Becwith and many others, tradition.

Joel A. Montes
M.Div Student
Talbot School of Theology

I'm curious what sort of reaction there would have been if Dr. Beckwith became Episcopalian or high church Anglican. Many high church Anglicans would identify themselves as Catholic. And yet, i doubt such as move would illicit the same response. The Society for Pentecostal Studies has several members who identify themselves as Catholics, even past presidents of that Society have been Catholic. It's not been that big of a deal.

I am truly surprised at the negative response by many "Evangelicals." You can read many of them on Dr. Beckwith's blog. http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/05/my_return_to_th.html#more

I appreciate the tone of the ETS response and do wish Beckwith a smooth transition as a brother and fellow-journeyman into the mysteries of the life of Christ.

But what puzzles me most is why Beckwith decides to make this kind of public decision now, while he's president of ETS? Why not wait till the next ETS election when he holds less of a spotlight?

Dale Fincher
Soulation | www.soulation.org
Grad: Talbot, MA Philosophy

I found it really interesting that the ETS board on the one hand excludes Beckwith for believing in a larger canon, while in the very next sentence excluding him for believing in the only means of fixing a canon, namely a belief in some sort of Magisterium/binding tradition.

Doug C.

I think ETS needs a more robust credo.

If ETS wants to make its organization Protestant only or Protestant exclusive, then why not make your statement faith as such? Why tell a Roman Catholic why he/she should not be able to sign the statement of faith when it's not explicitly exclusively to the Roman Catholic?

"“the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” "

If a Roman Catholic can agree with that, and I'm thinking he/she can, then why prohibit their membership. If you don't want them, then make it so they can't agree. Put it something that's been anathematized or some such.

I think it is right and proper that Francis Beckwith resign from ETS, but this all brings up the issue of Evangelists as an identity.

Roman Catholics need evangelization and hopefully Beckwith knows that first hand all too well. Are there types of evangelists in our time or just the type we are most familiar with?

The schism that divides Christians from each other -- Orthodox from Catholic, Catholic from Protestant -- is a tragedy. We shouldn't see this debacle as a call to rally around our respective docrinal flags and hide safely among those who agree with us, and cast the dissenters to look for another congregation. We should look at what separates us Christians from unity, rend out garments and gnash our teeth in response. It is shameful, SHAMEFUL, that the beloved Body of Jesus Christ should be ripped and torn into so many pieces, sullied by so much sin.