Christ was able to multiply the loaves at the feeding of thousands, I would think that He could do it again, today, both spiritually and physically with his own body. In fact this episode of the feeding of thousands and multiplication of loaves is located in John’s gospel in Chapter 6, incidentally the same chapter where he speaks about the Eucharist. “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.” John 6:54 Coincidence? In God, there is no such thing.

A Calvinist explains the Roman Catholic meaning of “justification.” I think this is a good article and I agree with one of the people who posted on Frank Beckwith’s blog. It was a Nathan Rayner and he writes, “Christ did not call us to be Roman Catholic or Protestant. He called us to love one another and live in his love.”

Joanie

I am glad that your post worked this time without any troubles. You are now an approved” contributor!

I don’t know what to say that I am, denomination-wise. I was brought up Catholic and fortunately, the first priest I knew, the nuns, the teachers all focused on the love of God, the love of Jesus. I think I can recite the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed and agree with all that is there. I like that there are so many “groups” within Catholicism that just about anyone could find some kind of group that suits their personality. The things I don’t like about Catholicism:

1. Priests can’t marry
2. Women cannot be priests
3. The doctrine of the Eucharist is a bit…difficult.
4. I don’t think Mary was forever a virgin. The Bible says she and Joseph did not become intimate UNTIL after the birth of Jesus. And I think the people referred to as his brothers and sisters were likely, in fact, his brothers and sisters, not cousins or step-siblings. (Though, it could be either way and it wouldn’t “bother” me any.)
5. The Catholic church has some very brutal history which it saddens me to be “associated” with.
6. The emphasis on Mary used to bother me some and the people today who see Mary in smoke stains, cheese sandwiches and the like really dismay me. But as time has gone along, I have come to have more of an understanding of the importance of Mary as the mother of Jesus. It used to sound very odd to me to hear her referred to as the “Mother of God.” Well, Jesus is God so she IS the mother of God, I guess we can say. What an amazing thing our God did in using a human’s cooperation in bringing about the coming of Jesus to the lost human beings!

I DO like that the Catholic church now encourages people to read and study the Bible. I DO like that the Catholic church helps people all around the world, not just to understand theology, but to help the poor, the ill, the forgotten. I DO love many of the writings of both male and female Catholic mystics throughout history. I even love much of the music. When I attended Mass (and I haven’t been for years) I like the large amount of people (and I am not normally a person who likes to be around crowds.) I have been to numbers of Protestant churches and the many empty seats seemed odd to me. BUT…I have had the greatest sense of the presence of Jesus in a couple Protestant churches. (And I was a regular attendee at one of these churches during my search for a more personal relationship with God.) I like the emphasis in some Catholic areas on the scripture about “faith without works is dead.” I can SAY I believe in God and I believe Jesus is the Son of God, but if I then act without love, Jesus will say he never knew me.

I never heard of Francis Beckwith before, but he sounds like a wonderful man and I wish him all the best. I know I am missing out on some things not being a part of a community church, but for a variety of reasons, I am kind of “on my own” with help from prayer, books, people like you online. I also am surrounded in my community by people who I know are “believers” and who are trying to do all they can to be faithful to God.

While I don’t agree with Catholic dogma (to the point that I would object to anyone converting to them), I appreciate the irenic tone you have offered your post. Even on Francis’ own blog, a prominent author and former CWS guest has offered a chastisement. This is surely in poor taste. If one of his peers wants to make a personal statement, it seems that a personal note is in order rather than a public flogging.

Thanks for showing that we can disagree and still show Christian love.

Francis Beckwith now has a long, thoughtful, loving post on the blog above, talking about his decision to return to Catholicism and his decision to no longer be the president of the ETS (but he will remain a member).

Thanks for your response. I agree that there is not enough information, as far as I know, to determine if he has compromised on a fundamental doctrine. I just hope that what he says clarifies the basis for his decision. Unfortunately, given today’s ecumenical climate, one is generally safe in assuming that there may well be a studied ambiguity in the response. We shall see.

I hope he has adequately considered the fact that when he is kneeling down in the mass during the event of transubstantiation, he is to worship and adore the bread/host as if it were Christ himself standing before him. I also wonder if he has considered what seems to be entailed by the doctrine of comcomitance. If the bread and the wine are both the BODY, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, then Christ has two bodies, at least. Moreover, if Christ is bodily present as the mass takes place all over the world, then I guess his body is ubiquitous. How does Trent, in that regard, comport with the Chalcedonian Formula? Hmm

The reaction that we have to these situations says a lot about the confidence that we have in our faith. Knee jerk reactions are usually not well thought out and evidence more insecurity than a reliance upon the truth of our message and the sovereignty of God.

People watch and learn by the way we react more than the message of our reaction.

The main thrust of your post seems to be a word of caution against prejudging Beckwith’s decision before he has explained himself. That’s certainly a valid concern to have and your advice should be heeded, in that respect.

However, I could not help but notice the strong language your using to describe those who are expressing greater aversions to the report. For example, you say “Protestants are ready to lynch Beckwith.” Who are these protestants? You want to distinguish yourself from those who want to “pull out the rope and lynch” him, or “feed him to the sharks”. You’re distinguishing your stance from some who apparently want to “immediately lynch” the guy. It’s as if those who might react differently than you do not want to have “the necessary dialog.” It’s as if you want to distinguish yourself from the prejudging lynch mob on your right and the overly giddy Catholics on your left. Those sound like intimidating alternatives, to say the least. It seems that one should either adopt your position or pick a side on your Catholic left or lunatic fringe right. Do you think your language is fair to those who may be reacting to this situation differently than you are at the moment? If someone thinks, for example, that Beckwith is compromising on essential Christian doctrine, is it fair to say that they want to “kick him out of evangelicalism”? Or do they just think that maybe what is reported about him is antithetical to historic evangelical convictions? Thus, instead of expressing an eagerness to “kick him out”, they are expressing strong disapproval with the idea that he may have “walked out” himself?
I don’t know any more about the situation than you do (in fact probably less), but I am concerned about the kind of intimidating language you’re using to describe those protestants who may be reacting differently than you are. In other words, if they think that his reported actions amount to a compromise of fundamentals, does it follow that they therefore want to “lynch” him, or “feed him to the sharks,” or maybe eagerly “kick him out”?
If, in future disclosures, he came out and openly rejected/denied the justification by grace alone through faith alone principle, would that mean that you would “kick him out of evangelicalism”? Or would you maybe prefer to say that you would view that as incompatible with evangelical convictions, and hope that he would honestly acknowledge that himself in future dialogue and decisions?