As much as Dr. Beckwith is being oh so kind in his return/conversion to the catholic church, he is also as much said that we are wrong and he has found the Truth.

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

These comments should suffice to sum up my actual position once for all:

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.

Michael said:
“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.

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.

Michael said:

“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.

Thanks for that correction about the quote actually being from Rupertus Meldenius. I read more about him at:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/quote.html

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

“In essentials unity . . .” That is a great saying. Augustine is actually not the one who coined the term. It is often attributed to him or Melancthon, but it is actually the phrase of a 16th century obscure theologian named Rupertus Meldenius. I researched this a while back since I was using the quote in TTP. I found the reference in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 7, pp. 650-653 (repr. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1965).

Gee, I am sorry, I don’t know what is happening. That latest post is only half of what I wrote. I wanted to say that I was being tongue-in-check about the denomination I could start for those of you who don’t know me, which is all of you. I also wrote some other stuff but I don’t have time to recreate it right now. Later…

Joanie

Oh, whoops, I hit the Submit button before I intended to!

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.”)

Someone posted on the blog that Frank Beckwith wrote on about his return to Catholicism that Augustine said:

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!

Tony, I am not sure this is the place for this. Let me just conclude by saying that I don’t believe that you can justify your position biblically and your historical “rebellion against a doctrine” while interesting only serves as an attempt to make things consistent according to the decisions you have already made. But, even then, it is not true as church history has clearly seen that there is a detailed understanding of baptismal generation even at the time of Augustine and from the lips of Augustine.

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.