He speaks as finding or coming back to the Church which by their dogma means we don’t belong to the Church which is offensive and in grave error.

We must stand united in condemning him, as the catholics are in embracing him. His irenic spirit is only a guise to “stick it” to us on his way out the door.

Yes Michael, love one another but every New Testament writer spoke vehemently against false doctrine, false teachers and false prophets.

This is where we must draw the line. The world is watching

An essential of the Christian faith is, at the very least, something that will not be habitually denied by one indwelt by the Spirit of God. If one is truly a believer, they cannot abide in a denial of an essential Christian doctrine. If some professing Christian moves in the direction of denying an essential, they should be instructed, warned, and patiently prayed over. If they go on to deny an essential and persist in it, the church should not consider such a person an authentic believer. That’s evidenced by the fact that the Apostles taught us to put such people outside of the church in a disciplinary manner. That doesn’t mean that we “assign them to hell” as if we know that is their destination. It just means we treat them like unbelievers that need to genuinely repent and believe the gospel.

If Sola Fide is an essential aspect of the gospel, which you (Michael) have admitted, then it at least qualifies as something that must not be denied. Other essentials, such as Christ’s deity, are of the sort that must be believed in order to be saved, but not all essentials are of that sort. While there is room for ignorance on some essentials (such as the Trinity), there is no room for habitual and rebellious denial of such things.

This must be corrected as well. The above statement misrepresents what I have argued. Paul did have doubts about whether or not they had received his Gospel in vain, hence the letter of admonishment and exhortation. The general Galatian audience was in danger of turning their back on an essential teaching of his, which, if they persisted in, would demonstrate that they had received his gospel in vain. The Judiasers represented a group of men who did show themselves to be lost. They, they Judiasers, did fall under Paul’s anathema. If there were any Galatians who finally decided to side with the false teachers, they would also fall within the parameters of his anathema.

The same could be said of the Hebrews who were admonished in the book of Hebrews. If they finally returned to the fleshly system of works, they would be turning their backs on Christ and his sufficiency. A truly regenerate person would not persist in doing such a thing, hence the warnings.

“Their is a big difference between knowing and believing the doctrine of sola fide and knowing and believing in the resurrection and the deity of Christ. The Bible is clear that one is required for belief, the other is not explicitly stated anywhere.”

You may want to re-read what I have argued. I am not saying that sola fide must be believed in order to be saved. I have argued that one who has truly believed will not go on to perpetually deny the doctrine. I’ve made a crucial distinction between ignorant non-affirmation and rebellious denial. Your above statement misrepresents what I have sought to argue.

If Sola Fide is an essential aspect of the gospel, one wonders how a professing Calvinist could maintain that one of the believing elect could persistently rebel against it by knowledgeably joining a tradition that virtually spits on it. It also strikes me as curious to think that one of the elect who is indwelt by the Spirit could practice the idolatry of the mass and kneel down before a wafer to worship it as Jesus Christ himself. That’s what Roman Catholics are called to do.

One of the things there says, “He condemns the pharisaical hypocrisy, the philodoxia, philargia, and philoneikia of the theologians, and exhorts them first of all to humility and love. By too much controversy about the truth, we are in danger of losing the truth itself.”

I never heard those words before…philodoxia, philargia, and philoneikia…but I assume you thelogians have.

Joanie

Joanie

I wanted to say that I also read on that same blog that there are 30,000 Christian denominations! If that is true…wow. So what’s to stop me from starting the 30,001 denomination? It can be me and a couple friends. We will call it “Faithful Friends of Jesus” or “Contemplatives for Christ” or how about “Askers, Seekers, and Knockers” (affectionately known as the “ASKers.”)

In necessariis unitas,
In dubiis libertas,
In omnibus autem caritas,

which is to say for those of us not fluent in Latin:

In essentials unity,
In doubtful things liberty,
But in all things love.

I just love that!

To hold to your view, you are close to being a restorationist. I would be careful.

Thanks for the time.

[added to after I had time to read the rest of your response]

You say, “I do want to add that it seems that you’re laying the conceptual ground work for inclusivism.”

This is a bad association since you are implying a methodology that is not evidenced in my response in any way. Their is a big difference between knowing and believing the doctrine of sola fide and knowing and believing in the resurrection and the deity of Christ. The Bible is clear that one is required for belief, the other is not explicitly stated anywhere. Romans 10 and 1 Corinthians 15 make it clear that a denial of who Christ is and what He did is to deny the basic essential elements of the faith and is therefore evidence of a lack of true Christian faith of any sort. A denial of sola fide, while wrong and damaging, is never mentioned in the Scripture in the same light. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, the Galatian denied sola fide, yet I get no sense that Paul believed they were condemned. The same with the Hebrews. They both had the right teaching. In fact, Paul tells the Galatians, “Who has bewitched you.” This means that they had the truth, but they were denying it in favor of an alternate understanding that would prevent them from living according to the fullness of the Gospel.

I believe that our job is to do the same. We present the Gospel in its fullness. We don’t have to have it black or white. Either you love Christ and have perfect doctrine or you hate Christ and have bad doctrine. The purpose of the teaching ministry in the Church is to correct error and encourage people based on right doctrine. There is never a guarantee that people will all see things the same way.

One thing that I would agree about is the generally speaking, we should see true regenerate believers following true teaching because they have the Holy Spirit. I believe that the doctrine of sola fide is extremely important. But I do think the question “Who do you say that I am?” is the most important. We need to learn to distinguish between these, not so compromise can be available on the “less” important issues, but so we are thinking biblically, historically, and with integrity of the mind.

Am I headed for inclusivism in any way? If you are defining inclusivism as the belief that one can have no knowledge of Christ, yet still be saved by his blood, I think you have presented a major non sequitur. There is no way to come to that conclusion.

What does one have to do to be saved? They have to recognize their sinfulness and fall on their face asking for God to forgive them based on what Christ did. If they add works to their salvation after this, then we need to correct them, not assign them to hell.

To me, as I have talked to Beckwith in the past, as I have read his books, and as I have talked to others who knows him, I believe that he loves Christ the Lord. I don’t think there is any way for someone to love Christ the Lord and not be saved. Can they love him and have bad doctrine? Sure. Can they love him and have really bad doctrine? Yes. How do I know? The Galatians, Hebrews, and Corinthians (see here for my statements about the Corinthians).

I lament the conversion of Beckwith, who has moved to a position that lacks the fullness of the Gospel and in this sense has followed after a different Good News that in the end is not good. But if he has trusted Christ, believes that He is Lord, believes that He rose bodily from the grave, I don’t have any basis from Scripture to call into question his salvation.

“I believe sola fide is essential as a basis for the Gospel, but that it is not epistemologically necessary for one to affirm it to be saved. In other words, it is faith alone that saves people, not an acceptance of the doctrine of sola fide.”

My response:

You grant that sola fide is an essential basis for the gospel, but distinguish it from being a criteria for determining whether one is or is not a Christian. As you will go on to say further down, you not only think the non-acceptance of the doctrine of sola fide is possible for the truly regenerate, but one may perpetually go on in denying it after being informed on the subject. That, after all, is what Rome is doing. By your own criteria, Paul’s anathema toward the Judiasers was uncalled for. Truly believing in Christ involves knowing the truth path to him. One cannot truly trust Christ and go on in denying the God ordained path to him, which is through faith and not by works.

There is a world of difference betwen the non-acceptance of something out of ignorance and the non-acceptance of something out of rebellion to what Scripture says. Let us not blur the valid distinction between ignorant non-acceptance and rebellious denial. The Judiasers were (even as the Papal system is) in rebellious denial to Paul’s teaching. Rome is in such rebellion that they accurse Paul’s doctrine.

Michael said:

“There are people today and throughout church history who believe in baptismal regeneration. I believe that people can hold to this wrong doctrine and therefore deny the essence of sola fide and still be saved.

My response:

Again, one needs to distinguish between non-affirmation and denial. There are those who taught baptismal regeneration without affirming sola fide, and those that have taught baptismal regeneration while utterly rejecting and anathematizing sola fide. Making some allowances for ignorance about essentials is fine with me, However, Non-adherence to some truth out of ignorance is not the same as informed and rebellious denial. A regenerate heart can no more go on in rebellious denial of an essential than Peter could have gone on sinning in a perpetual denial of Christ. By your statement above, you no doubt have the early church in view. Carl Trueman has recently observed:

“The problem with tackling pre-Reformation views of justification is, of course, that the church strictly speaking had no view: the Reformation crisis itself precipitates the first elaborate formulation of justification by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent, a decree which then imposed order on the Catholic Church’s dogmas in this area.”

The early church was not in rebellion to sola fide. They didn’t dogmatically side with or against it, even though some taught things inconsistent with it, such as baptismal regeneration etc.

Michael said:

“I also believe that there are people out there who deny the essence of sola fide by their belief that one can lose their salvation. Yet, I believe that they can be saved in spite of this. Why? Because it is faith in Christ alone that saved them, even if they do not realize this.”

My response:

The belief that one can lose one’s salvation is not the same as denying sola fide. It’s inconsistent with sola fide, but that’s not the same as anathametizing sola fide as with Rome and it’s defenders. I also believe that there are some truly regenerate people who are immature in the faith and therefore fear that the Lord may abandon them. But, it’s quite another thing if they were to say that belief in sola fide makes one accursed. There is room for confusion and ignorance, but open and perpetual rebellion against sola fide should not be equated to one who simply has a non-realization that one is saved through faith alone.

Michael said:

“Do you think that people can believe that it is possible to lose their salvation and yet be saved? If so, you are saying the same thing I am. Do you believe that people who believe in faith alone, except for belief in the essentiality of the one act of baptism can be saved? If so, again, you are saying the same thing I am.”

My response:

My answer above should suffice for this first question. Needless to say, I don’t think what I am saying is the same thing you are (or that it entails the same thing), hence the extensive reply to clarify the difference Your wording about the “essentiality of the one act of baptism” is confusing. I suspect that you might be asking about people who think that baptism is essential for salvation. If that’s the case, then I have replied to that above as well.

Michael said:

“Roman Catholics can deny salvation by faith alone and still be saved by their faith alone. Let’s get the essence of the truth and put it before our knowledge of the truth. Otherwise, the only people that are qualified to be saved are those with perfect belief in perfect doctrine. I don’t think even you or I are qualified under that criteria.”

Consider this: there will be many people who get to heaven and finally realize that God was really the author and perfecter of their faith. They will finally realize how radical God’s grace is. You and I will be among them. Why? Because we all have room to grow in this understanding. We all rely upon ourselves to some degree even if our confession states otherwise. Only when we come into His presence will we have a full realization and a complete trust in Him. Only in His presence will we fully embrace the doctrine of sola gratia. Some will have further to come than others, but none of our faith is perfect in this regard.”

My response:

Of course none of us has a perfect belief in a perfect conception of true doctrine. Nevertheless, we can have knowledge of the true path to Christ by the testimony of scripture. We can know, as I am sure you will agree, that we are to come to Christ and lay down our own works. Any mixture of works with grace nullifies the principle of grace. Those who persist in a stubborn refusal to lay down self-effort as a means or ground for acceptance with God should not be encouraged by the church to think of themselves as saved. We should not tell such people, “I don’t doubt your love for Christ.” Those who advocate the need for our own merit in conjunction with Christ’s should be put out of the church after proper warnings and treated as tax collectors. Some Roman Catholics are merely ignorant of their own traditions. However, that is not the case with Dr. Beckwith. You know that he is intelligently thinking through the issues and realizes the offensive nature of Tridentine dogma, yet he still wants to cling to it. While we should not immediately leap to condemning him, we should also not go around saying “I don’t doubt your love for Christ,” since his decision probably amounts to a rebellious denial of sola fide.

I realize that I have typed quite a bit in response to this matter. I do want to add that it seems that you’re laying the conceptual ground work for inclusivism. Consider your pattern of thought as it touches other essential doctrines. You have argued that you think sola fide is an essential doctrine of the gospel, but that a truly saved person may deny sola fide as Rome does. I take it that you also think that Christ’s deity, his bodily incarnation, his bodily resurrection and ours in the future, the doctrine of the Trinity are all essential Christian doctrines. Obviously you would even include the fact that Yahweh is God as an essential. According to your argumentation, a truly regenerate person can be in denial of these things. Arians, docetic gnostics, Hymenaeus, Modalists and Muslims may all be saved.

Arians deny Christ’s deity. But what’s the big deal? None of us have a perfect conception of Christ’s deity. After all, it’s our belief in Jesus that saves us, and not the doctrine of his co-equality with the Father. The docetic gnostics denied that Chirst had come in the flesh. But what of it? None of us have a perfect understanding of the hypo-static union. After all, it’s our faith in Christ alone that saves us, and not our belief in the hypostatic union. Hymenaeus taught that the resurrection had already taken place, which is to deny our future bodily resurrection. But what of it? None of us has a perfect understanding of the future bodily resurrection or the timing of it. After all, it’s our faith alone in Christ that saves us, and not our belief in a future bodily resurrection. Modalists deny the Trinity. But what of it? None of us has a perfect understanding of the Trinity. After all, it’s our faith in Christ alone that saves us, and not our belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. Muslims deny that Yahweh, or the God of Israel, is the one true God. But what of it? None of us can perfectly conceive of God’s identity and the fullness of his Name. After all, it’s our faith alone in Christ that saves us, and not our belief in Yahweh as the one true God.

I offer the above as a reductio ad absurdum to your pattern of thinking on sola fide. If you follow out your train of thought on sola fide, then I would argue that inclusivism is the result. If inclusivism is biblically absurd, which I assume you believe, then you should seriously rethink the way you are arguing on the matter of sola fide. It may be that you are inadvertently throwing down conceptual banana peels that will cause people to slip into the error of inclusivism. Also, I think your view minimizes the great cause of those who died to testify against Roman heresy.

Thanks for the interaction, Michael. If you decide to respond, then I will read what you have to say. I, however, will probably make this my final post on the subject. Please prayerfully reflect and meditate on what I have said, and I will do the same with your responses.
Grace to you,
Tony

Joanie

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.

Read here “On Justification”

Thanks for the comments. Here is what I will briefly deal with because I think it will help you in understanding what I believe to be the truth.

You said, “Michael, all that you are saying seems to presuppose that Sola Fide is not an essential of Paul’s gospel message.” I believe sola fide is essential as a basis for the Gospel, but that it is not epistemologically necessary for one to affirm it to be saved. In other words, it is faith alone saves people, not an acceptance of the doctrine of sola fide.

There are people today and throughout church history who believe in baptismal regeneration. I believe that people can hold to this wrong doctrine and therefore deny the essence of sola fide and still be saved. I also believe that there are people out there who deny the essence of sola fide by their belief that one can lose their salvation. Yet, I believe that they can be saved in spite of this.

Why? Because it is faith in Christ alone that saved them, even if they do not realize this.

Do you think that people can believe that it is possible to lose their salvation and yet be saved? If so, you are saying the same thing I am. Do you believe that people who believe in faith alone, except for belief in the essentiality of the one act of baptism can be saved? If so, again, you are saying the same thing I am.

Roman Catholics can deny salvation by faith alone and still be saved by their faith alone. Let’s get the essence of the truth and put it before our knowledge of the truth. Otherwise, the only people that are qualified to be saved are those with perfect belief in perfect doctrine. I don’t think even you or I are qualified under that criteria.

Consider this: there will be many people who get to heaven and finally realize that God was really the author and perfecter of their faith. They will finally realize how radical God’s grace is. You and I will be among them. Why? Because we all have room to grow in this understanding. We all rely upon ourselves to some degree even if our confession states otherwise. Only when we come into His presence will we have a full realization and a complete trust in Him. Only in His presence will we fully embrace the doctrine of sola gratia. Some will have further to come than others, but none of our faith is perfect in this regard.

Yes, one of the main arguments that Protestants have historically had about the Catholic view of justification is that they (RC’s) say one needs faith AND works as the meritorious ground for our justification. The problem concerns the “and works” as a basis for justification.

The evangelical view is that we are justified by Christ alone on the principle of grace alone through the instrumentality of faith alone. To be acceptable with God (or justified by God), one only needs to believe in Him who died for all and was raised for our justification. Our good works necessarily follow from our justified state because God, in conversion, also changed our hearts so that we long to follow him. Our obedience is the necessary consequence of our justification, but it is NOT the meritorious ground of our justification. Rome is saying that OUR obedience plays a role in the meritorious ground of our justification. That’s against scripture.

Consider the following options:

W = Works; F = Faith; J = Justification

1) W = J (pure legalism)
2) F + W = J (Roman legalism)
3) F = J + W (Evangelicalism)
4) F = J + or - W (antinomianism)

What happens is that those in position #2 frequently accuse those in #3 of believing #4. Those in position #3 frequently accuse those in #2 of believing #1. Those in position #4 frequently accuse those in #3 of holding #2. All of these would be straw men or misrepresentations.

Rome actually teaches #2, i.e that faith plus works are required for justification. Evangelicalism actually teaches that faith alone is required for justification, but that works will inevitably result. Antinomians teach that faith alone is required for justification, but that good works MAY or MAY NOT result. Option #3 is the biblical teaching because our merit is Christ alone. He is our righteousness and the sole meritorious basis for our salvation. Faith is the empty hand of the spiritual beggar reaching out to obtain His merits, and then seeks to live a life of gratitude for already being accepted in the Beloved.

I hope that helps,
Tony

Yes, when I speak of the so called bishops of the RCC, I am referring to those that advocate and swear allegiance to their official traditions. Nevertheless, it is not accurate to say “The only ones out there that are truly defending Tridentine doctrine in an apologetic manner are catholic apologists who are not bishops.” Any Roman Catholic who knowledgeably believes in the official teachings of their church and is seeking to tell others about it (inviting them in)are also defending a merit-based system that is antithetical to Sola Fide. Would you have any hesitation to speak about the spiritual condition of some knowledgeable person advocating the view that Jesus was not God or that God was not Triune, such that they denied those things? I wouldn’t, and I don’t think that the Apostles and prophets would either. It seems that all of your statements presuppose that Sola Fide is not an essential aspect of the gospel of God, while mine presuppose that Sola Fide is an essential aspect of the gospel. The “spiritual condition” of Jimmy Akin, Karl Keating, Mark Shea, and Scott Hahn is one of denying Sola Fide. How is it that you do not know their spiritual condition? Is it because you do not consider such a doctrine to be an essential aspect to Paul’s gospel message? Did the Martyrs who died for such things die for a non-essential? Is Sola Fide not the Atlas that holds up a world of other doctrines, particularly what it means to be a true church?

Regarding your “no doubt that you love Jesus” comment, here’s how I took it. I simply took it that you have no good reasons to doubt that he is an authentic believer in Christ and his gospel. I did not take it as if you were saying you were certain of his salvation. Again, crucial distinctions seem necessary. When someone, even a child, professes a basic belief in the evangelical faith, I take them at their word. I am willing to say to that person, “I have no doubt that you love Jesus Christ.” What I am saying is basically, “Ok., that’s great! I will consider you a brother or sister.” However, if I speak with them awile and they move in the direction of rebelling against an essential of the Christian faith, I now have good reasons to doubt (not to outright deny) that they are a believer. I am no longer willing to say to them “I have no doubt that you love Jesus Christ.” By saying that, I would not be saying, “I have no doubt that you are then lost.” It’s just the case that I now have warrant for a sincere concern about the authenticity of their conversion, even if they are sincere, honest and skilled thinkers.
Since you (Michael) and I have spoken on paltalk and you know a little bit about my basic Christian and evangelical profession, I think you would be within your epistemic rights to say to me (Tony), “I have no doubt that you love Jesus Christ.” If, after dialogue, you discovered that I was resisting and moving away from an essential Christian doctrine with knowledge, then you should have doubts about the authenticity of my Christian profession. While you would not automatically leap to the conclusion that I was lost, you should not continue to “have no doubts” about my love for the Lord.

Again, Michael, all that you are saying seems to presuppose that Sola Fide is not an essential of Paul’s gospel message. Since you are a teacher within Christ’s church who was trained at Dallas Theological Seminary, along with your companions at TTP, that disturbs me.

I know I am trying to make something that is complicated too simple, but that is what I do.

It’s one thing to say that absolute abstinance from alchohol (or dancing, going to movies, listening to certain types of music, eating certain foods, etc.) is necessary to be more holy before God, and it’s quite another thing to say that such things are required in order to be justified before God. The first is type A legalism outlined above while the latter is type B legalism. Again, the Galatian context was not a case of type A legalism, but of type B legalism.

Concerning your continued problem with me saying that “I have no doubt” that Beckwith loves Christ: Goodness, I think you may have taken my “no doubt” as more than just the rhetoric that is always is. I could say to you as well, “I have no doubt of your love for Christ” just the same. I could mean it in a rhetorical or an intimate way. I really don’t know enough of you or Beckwith to say this in an intimate way. But I can say of you both equally, in a way of sincere rhetoric, “I have not doubt of both your love for Christ.” Why? Because I believe you do. Could I be wrong? Sure.

I just thought about another distinction. There are two types of legalism. There is a difference between A) an introduction of some non-essential matter into the Christian life in order to be more holy or sanctified (as distinguished from being saved), and then there is B) the type that introduces certain non-essentials as a ground for salvific acceptance with God. The Judiasing heretics were guilty of B, and the Galatians were at least moving toward accepting it. The matter of Sola Fide and the Roman Catholic traditions touches on issues concerning type B legalism and not A. Most protestant evangelicals struggle with type A legalism. That’s NOT what was going on in Galatia.

To clarify further:

At this point, I am only willing to put Beckwith in the confused Galatian category, since I don’t know the details of his present beliefs and his character. I am not doubting his integrity as a thinker and as a scholar, but I am talking about his beliefs with respect to Sola Fide. I put the Roman “bishops” in the Judiasing heretic category. They are guilty of type B legalism and Beckwith seems to be falling prey to it, as far as we can see. Thus, some doubt about the state of his soul before God is warranted, even though we do not rush into declaring him lost before dialogue and inspection occurs. Neither is it wise, given his recent decision to return to Roman traditions, to have “no doubt” about his love for Christ. The “no doubt about his love for Christ” position is antithetical to the view that Sola Fide is an essential aspect of the Gospel of God.