I'm looking forward to obtaining a copy of this. I have long argued that abortion is necessarily illegal simply by way of the U.S. Constitution, in particular, due process: innocent until proven guilty, fully human at conception until irrefutably proven otherwise. This is not simply an economic or social policy issue. The integrity of the American Law, legislature, and citizenship has been undermined since 1973.

It's not really surprising to me that Beckwith has found a more comfortable home in the Catholic church. His primary interest in philosophy would be much more attune with Catholic theology--to illustrate, ask any Catholic priest how many classes he's had in Philosophy versus classes on the Biblical text--I'd venture to say it's probably a 4:1 or 5:1 ratio.

Based on my reading of his work, Beckwith sees the Biblical text in the service of his theology/philosophy, not the other way around.

I THINK what Beckwith means is that the notion of "Only Scripture" to guide us in our theology is not enough. History has shown that by appealing to Scripture only, all kinds of divergent and even contradictory theology can be supported. For Evangelicals, Scripture is the starting point, but we all need to be honest that we bring all kinds of "Other Thinking" or perhaps "Other Reasoning" to fill in the Scripture "gaps." We want Scripture to say so much, but in trying to make Scripture speak where it is often silent means we have to fill in the blanks.

John's comments are relevant and well stated. I would further add that "only scripture" itself requires philosophical justification, for it is certainly not to be found in the Scriptures themselves. The whole issue of course goes back to northern Europe at the time of the Reformation, which was fully immersed in the philosophy of Nominalism, while southern Europe continued its adherence to a realist metaphysics. Luther and Rome, although they generally used the same vocabulary, just talked past each other, since the crucial words no longer had the same meaning. Indeed, the whole idea of sola Scriptura can be traced back to Luther's Nominalism in interpreting the Scriptures and Roman dogma.
David A.'s comment, on the other hand, has no basis in fact, and is simply a case of wishful thinking.

The Apostle Paul would disagree with Ted K. Paul said, "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17 No Pope in Rome, as far as Paul was concerned. And no authority outside of the word of God, as far as Paul or any other apostle is concerned.

Sola Scriptura means that the word of God alone is necessary for the understanding of those things of which it speaks. Sola Scriptura is not traced back to Luther but is traced back through the line of dead bodies strewn all over North Africa and Europe, bodies of Bible Believers who REJECT Rome's demonic false claims of supremacy and authority. Bible Believers have been slaughtered to the tune of more than 30 million at the hands of a power-hungry Vatican in Rome.

Why do "evangelicals" and Catholic apologists (like Beckwith) always leave out the historical facts surrounding Vatican Rome's killing of those with whom she disagrees (Revelation 17)???

Beckwith now serves Satan and will try to legitimize his satanic service with apologetics of his betrayal of the blood of Jesus Christ and of His martyrs.

Pastor Greg:
I thank you for your comment. This is not the place to debate 5 centuries of theology, but it does require a reply because of its importance. The passage you quote (Romans 10:17) refers to listening to the Gospel message of Christ as preached by missionaries to the Jews at the time of Paul. It has nothing to do with the Bible. Indeed, the Scriptures as we know them were completed only much later to preserve the oral tradition of these first Christians. If you check other English translations of that passage,you will see the issue more clearly.

What I fear is that too much Evangelicalism, particularly of the American type, is treating the Bible the way Muslims treat the Koran, that is, as the literal dictated word of God. But nothing can be further from the truth. First, when we speak of the Scriptures, the "Bible", its content was selected for inclusion in the Canon by Church councils, particularly when Gnostic texts were
creating confusion. So when we speak of the Bible as the word of God, it is in the sense that it contains words that were written by holy men under the guidance of God to be free of error. Second, the Bible, and specifically John, does speak of the Word of God. But "Logos" (word) in ancient Greek philosophy had a very special meaning that goes back to at least Plato which John was no doubt acquainted with in his Gospel. It is a metaphysical concept that refers to the universality of the idea specified by a word. It is truly a wonder that man by uttering sounds (words) is able to speak about the things in this world and make rational sense of it. And these things in the world can be named because they were created by God using His Ideas, through Christ, the Pantokrator, the real Logos. Nominalism denies the universality of the ideas specified by words, and this led to some unfortunate interpretations of the Scriptures at the time of the Reformation where Nominalism pervaded: too much emphasis was placed on the Scriptures as the word of God.

By the way, do you not think that your comments about Vatican Rome are gratuitous and not in accord with the facts?

Dear Ted K.,

There isn't a legitimate history anywhere that would support your false statement about the "Church councils" giving us the canon of Scripture. Before the first Pope (Constantine) sat in authority over any of the "councils" you refer to, we have a slew of documented sources demonstrating that the free and non-Roman/non-State churches had already formed the "canon":

AD 326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.

AD 315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.

AD 270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.

AD 185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.

AD 165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.

AD 160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.

AD 135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.

AD 100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.

"Besides the above, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone."

And, again, why is it that the insane crowd of modern "evangelicals" and Catholics seem to have no concern about FACTS and TRUTH?? Were my comments "gratuitous"? Why don't you answer the real question and stop putting an emotional spin on my post?

Did Vatican Rome kill more than 30 million Bible Believing Christians in the name of "Mother Church" for their rejection of a false, soul-damning Gospel? Did Inquisitors hold up a wafer and murder people for not confessing thay they were eating Jesus?

The FACT is that Rome DID. And I will not stop preaching the truth, just because some spineless, limp-wristed nit-wits think I am a "meanie" for doing so.

Forty people (mostly unsaved Roman Catholics) received the Gospel on their doorstep today. We, as a local fellowship, see to it that more than 100 do each week. Souls are being set free on a weekly basis from the soul-daming Roman Catholic heresies.

Praise God for men with the power and "guts" to stand for truth. May God have mercy on the Beckwith's who sell their souls to Satan.

Pastor Greg

But now Pastor Ted is in a conundrum, since the church fathers to whose authority he appeals taught and practiced things that today Protestants would reject as "Catholic," e.g., penance, intercession of the saints, apostolic succession. Moreover, by appealing to the ecumenicity of a belief or practice as normative for the church, Pastor Ted makes a Catholic argument, but it's one that provides warrant for him to reject the Reformers's doctrine of justification, for it was never accepted by an ecumenical council, practiced in the church (prior to Luther), or found in the fathers. And it does no good to say that the Reformers' doctrine is incorrigibly biblical, since no one before 1500 saw it (including the very fathers Pastor Greg cites) and even today non-Catholic scholars are deeply divided over whether the Reformers accurately interpreted Paul (see, for example, NT Wright, Paul Rainbow, etc.)

Pastor Greg writes: "Sola Scriptura means that the word of God alone is necessary for the understanding of those things of which it speaks."

Beckwith doesn't deny this. All he said is that the Bible is not sufficient, which seems to be what Greg believes as well, since those who read the Bible alone and come to different conclusions than him are thought to be wrong. So, it turns out that Pastor Greg believes in the "Bible alone" plus "interpreted correctly." So, the Bible is materially, though not formally, sufficient. But that's Ratzinger's view too.

Now I'm even more confused than usual: just who is Pastor Ted? Is he the same as Pastor Greg? Or is he a cruel impostor trying to make Pastor Greg, who is clearly soft, cuddly and gentle, sound like one of those Spanish Inquisition types? Perhaps it's a good thing that Thomas Aquinas has engaged in time-travel and joined the fray, although it does raise even more theological questions.
Seriously, this is not the most edifying or God-glorifying set of posts I've ever seen, even if Pastor Greg and co. are right. And as for putting an emotional spin on things, to say that 'some spineless, limp-wristed nit-wits think I am a "meanie" ' hardly counts as cool and soberly rational.
Thank God for grace!

Pastor Greg claims the Roman Catholic beliefs are soul-damning and satanic.And he's been busy freeing unsaved Roman Catholics. Well Greg, I wonder what is behind the Roman Catholic success and survival for over 2000 years.

And I agree with Benny, you accused Ted. K for putting emotional spin on the discussion. But your comments are simply oozing with so much emotion and (I think) overwhelming hatred and anger towards the Roman Catholic Church. It is wise to know that two of these emotions can blind one from true understanding. Calling the faith of over a billion people, with 2000 years of history, Satanic does not encourage rational discussions.