Dr. Francis Beckwith Returns To Full Communion With The Church

Dr. Francis Beckwith, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, as become Catholic. Dr. Beckwith was raised Catholic but became an Evangelical Protestant in youth. After a review of Catholic theology and its basis, however, he has been reconciled with the Church.

I recently learned of Dr. Beckwith's intention to pursue reconciliation. Apparently my own humble writings were of use to him in his journey, and he was kind enough to say so. In view of the sensitivity of the situation, however, I of course agreed to refrain from making the matter publicly known. He also was kind enough to let me know just before he went to the sacrament of reconciliation.

Last night I received a note from Dr. Beckwith indicating that the matter had become public, and so I would like to offer warm felicitations regarding his return to full communion with the Church.

The source through which the matter was made public happened to be James White's blog, and as you can imagine, Mr. White is not happy.

In particular Mr. White raises the question of what Dr. Beckwith will do given his present status as head of the Evangelical Theological Society.

Prior to his reconciliation, Dr. Beckwith shared his thoughts on that matter with me, and though I will let him speak for himself on the subject, I will say that he intends to handle the matter in a gracious and frank manner and has already taken steps in that direction.

On his blog, Mr. White questions whether Dr. Beckwith could remain a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, writing as follows:

Let's ponder the hypothetical situation of a President of the Evangelical Theological Society converting to Roman Catholicism in the midst of his tenure. In 1998 I attended the national meeting of the ETS in Orlando, Florida. At one of the sessions some of the founding members were being asked questions about why they did certain things, why they wrote the statement of faith as they did, etc. A woman asked a question of the panel. "Why did you write 'the Bible alone' in the statement of faith?" The ETS statement of faith is very, very short. It reads:

"The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."

Roger Nicole rose, slowly, and made his way to the podium. He looked out at the lady and said, "Because we didn't want any Roman Catholics in the group." He then turned around and went back to his seat. While most sat in stunned silence, I and a friend with me broke into wild applause. The brevity of the response, and Nicole's dead-pan look, was classic. Most looked at us like we were nuts, but we appreciated what he said. Here, one of the founding members made it clear that the ETS was founded as a Protestant organization and that primary to their own self-understanding was a belief in sola scriptura.

Mr. White is correct about the text of the ETS statement of faith or "doctrinal foundation." It's found online here.

While the ultimate interpretation of this statement is up to the ETS itself, I would point out two things:

1) The statement of a single founder, such as Dr. Nicole, regarding the interpretation of such a statement is analogous to that of a single founding father regarding the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, it is not of itself conclusive, however enthusiastically Mr. White and his friend might receive it.

2) If the founders of the ETS intended to exclude Catholics from the organization, they did not frame their doctrinal foundation in a way that would, in fact, block Catholics from being able to agree to it.

The Bible and the Bible alone is the word of God written (as opposed to the Word of God Incarnate, the word of God in nature, or the word of God handed on through the Church in parallel to Scripture). Only Scripture is divinely inspired such that every assertion of the sacred authors is asserted by the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the Bible is inerrant in the autographs. And, of course, God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.

There is thus nothing in the ETS doctrinal foundation that a Catholic could not agree to in good conscience and it is not an effective instrument for excluding Catholics from membership.

This situation will, of course, be very sensitive for members of the Evangelical Theological Society and its leadership, as well as for Dr. Beckwith and his family, and I ask readers to keep the matter in prayer.

At the hour I write, Dr. Beckwith has not posted on Right Reason, a blog in which he participates, regarding his return to full communion, and I do not know if he will do so, but I invite my readers to watch that blog for possible updates and to offer their felicitations to Dr. Beckwith in the combox below.

VISIT RIGHT REASON.

DR. BECKWITH'S HOME PAGE.

Comments

[James]

Dr Beckwith, Francis, our brother - God be with you in this time which will be so painful and puzzling for many of your friends in evangelical circles.

You are in our prayers and wrapped round with welcome. Enjoy your extending horizons. James

[James]

Forgot to say - Ad multos annos!

[Shane]

Well fantastic! I must remember to pray for this individual.

[John]

I don't follow Jimmy's reasoning. The statement that the Bible alone is the "Word of God written and is therefore innerant" would exclude magisterial statements of the Catholic Church. The logical conclusion is that magisterial teachings, including teachings from Church tradition, are not innerant. This contradicts a Catholic understanding of divine revelation.

[Jared]

My favorite from Mister White's (yes MISTER ... if he won't call the priests he debates "father," I'm under no obligation to accept his "doctor" prefix) hissy-fit is this little gem:

"But over time, if one is apathetic about the truth of the gospel, God may well bring judgment to bear in causing one to love a lie."

I'm aware of the Pauline phrasiology with regard to homosexual lust being a judgment from God, but, come on! God causes no one to "love a lie."

I also love this bit about the Mass:

"And more to the point, 'Do you really believe you can approach the Mass 20,000 times in your life and still die impure, and that this re-presentation is the same sacrifice as the perfect work you once professed to embrace?'"

How the aych-ee-double-hockey-sticks does that even approach logic??? The people in attendance AT CALVARY were clearly not purified then and there. That's why most of 'em ran away. Fear is impurity (or at least a sign thereof). They had to wait 'til Pentecost for strength and even THEN they weren't purified.

[Jeb Protestant]

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that a group that calls itself "Evangelical" and says that

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

is attempting to exclude Catholics (and some others).

John's point is also correct.

In addition, if Dr. Beckwith does in fact accept the current Catholic view of Scripture as taught by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, it is questionable whether he could in good conscience maintain the inerrancy of the autographs.

However, if the ETS is going to keep Clark Pinnock as a member, then it might as well keep Beckwith as president.

[bold off]

I don't follow Jimmy's reasoning. The statement that the Bible alone is the "Word of God written and is therefore innerant" would exclude magisterial statements of the Catholic Church.

Non sequitur. The sentences reads: "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs." From this it may be understood that [a] only the Bible is the word of God written (this is true) and that [b] only the Bible is therefore inerrant (i.e., inerrant because the word of God written). Grammatically and logically it does not follow that the Bible alone is inerrant — only that nothing else is inerrant due to being the word of God written.

[Breier]

Bold,

You're being confusing. The document attributes inerrancy as an aspect to the word of God, but does not restrict it to that.

Example:

Jesus alone is the Only Begotten of the Father and is therefore God.

It is not follow that only Jesus is God.

[bold off]

Yes, that's what I said.

[SDG]

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that a group that calls itself "Evangelical" and says that "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs." is attempting to exclude Catholics (and some others).

Whether one or several founding members were "attempting to exclude Catholics" is one thing; whether they succeeded in formulating a statement of faith that is in fact exclusive of what the Catholic Church teaches is something else.

John's point is also correct.

Why am I not surprised to find you agreeing with John? However, you are both wrong, as noted above.

In addition, if Dr. Beckwith does in fact accept the current Catholic view of Scripture as taught by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, it is questionable whether he could in good conscience maintain the inerrancy of the autographs.

Why, Jeb, what exactly are you thinking of that the PBC has "taught" as "the current Catholic view" that is contrary to the teaching of inerrancy clearly set forth in Dei Verbum? References to teaching documents, please, not private opinions of individual members. Put up or shut up.

[Breier]

A alone is B.
All B is C.

The only conclusion we can validly draw?

A is C.

It does not follow that A alone is C.

[Jeb Protestant]

The sentence reads:

"The Bible ALONE, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs."

Which logically leads to the claim that no book except the Bible can claim to be: (1) inerrant; and (2) the word of God.

The Catholic church does claim that certain written documents (such as those that proclaimed the assumption of the BVM and the immaculate conception) are inerrant. This contradicts the ETS position.

[Breier]

SDG,

The appropriate response is the Pontifical Biblical Commission has been deprived of magisterial authority for some time. From Wikipedia:

"On June 27, 1971, the Apostolic Letter Sedula Cura ("On New Laws Regulating the Pontifical Biblical Commission - June 27, 1971) was issued. This letter stated that henceforth the Pontifical Biblical Commission was no longer an official organ of the Roman Catholic Church, but merely a consultative body of scholars."

It's an advisory body, just like the ITC. I take it he's referrring to the document on the Interpretation of Scripture which appears to embrace limited errancy and a distinction between the Jesus of faith and the Jesus of history. See for yourself:

"Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning."

and

"In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus)."

And what about the widespread abuse of Vatican II to justify the limited inerrancy of Scripture, and limiting that to matters of faith?

Or you could refer to the Bishop's committee document on the Passion, that was trumpted about when the Passion of the Christ came out.

"First, it must be understood that the gospel authors did not intend to write "history" in our modern sense, but rather "sacred history" (i.e., offering "the honest truth about Jesus") (Notes IV, 29 A) in light of revelation. To attempt to utilize the four passion narratives literally by picking one passage from one gospel and the next from another gospel, and so forth, is to risk violating the integrity of the texts themselves, just as, for example, it violates the sense of Genesis 1 to reduce the magnificence of its vision of the Creation to a scientific theorem."

"Often, what we have come to know from biblical scholarship or historical studies will place in doubt a more literalist reading of the biblical text. Here again, the hermeneutical principles of Nostra Aetate, the Guidelines, and the Notes should be of "overriding" concern. One such question suggests itself by way of example. This is the portrait of Pontius Pilate (cf. sec. A 3, above). It raises a very real problem of methodology in historical reconstruction of the events of Jesus' last days."

There are lots of heterodox-leaning documents on Scripture emanating from Catholic sources, and it causes a lot of scandal.

The "current Catholic view" is indeed scandalous. Look no further than the New American Bible. But such things are not official Church teaching.

[Jeb Protestant]

I meant to say:

"The Catholic church does claim that certain written documents (such as those that proclaimed the assumption of the BVM and the immaculate conception) are inerrant & the word of God. This contradicts the ETS position."

[SDG]

Which logically leads to the claim that no book except the Bible can claim to be: (1) inerrant; and (2) the word of God.

Sorry, Jeb, but this inversion of the sentence is not grammatically or logically equivalent to the original, besides which you dropped the word "written" and thus further distorted the actual grammatical meaning of the sentence. You have a track record of not knowing how to read, and you confirm it here.

Most significantly, your inverted paraphrase drops the phrase "is therefore," establishing a logical relationship between the two clauses (much like the key section in Dei Verbum!).

If the sentence merely said "The Bible alone is the word of God written and inerrant," you would be right, but "is the word of God written and is therefore inerrant" does not have the same force. If you don't follow this, you don't need theology lessons or even logic lessons, you need grammar lessons.

[Breier]

Jeb,

I know what you want argue, but it just doesn't follow from the way the text was written. Perhaps the writers were incompotent, but the text is what it is.

"The Bible ALONE, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs."

Which logically leads to the claim that no book except the Bible can claim to be: (1) inerrant; and (2) the word of God."

The only thing you can logically conclude is that the Bible alone, in its entireity, is the written Word of God.

Inerrancy is a property of the written Word of God, but it does not follow, from what has been said, that it is an exclusive property of the written word of God.

Maybe that's what the writers intended, but it's not what they wrote.

[SDG]

The Catholic church does claim that certain written documents (such as those that proclaimed the assumption of the BVM and the immaculate conception) are inerrant & the word of God.

Sorry, Jeb, you're flat wrong. The documents proclaiming the Assumption and Immaculate Conception are infallible, but they are not the word of God. They merely proclaim and set forth the word of God. You do not know what you are talking about here.

This is where an honest Protestant would admit that he made an honest mistake about Catholic teaching. Is it in you?

[Breier]

Jeb,

The Catholic church does not claim that infallible decrees are the Word of God. The Word of God means much more than just being "without error."

[Jeb Protestant]

SDG,

Do you believe that Cardinal Ratzigner's views that Paul didn't write the pastorals, there are three Isaiahs, and the creation account in Genesis 1 comes from the period of the Babylonian captivity are contrary to church teaching? Apparently he didn't think they contradicted Dei Verbum.

"The documents proclaiming the Assumption and Immaculate Conception are infallible, but they are not the word of God. They merely proclaim and set forth the word of God. You do not know what you are talking about here."

I could just as well say that the Bible isn't the Word of God, it merely proclaims the Word of God. In some sense that's true. On the other hand, the popes who proclaimed these two dogmas were putting them on the same level as scripture and the ets says no other document can be on that level.

"46. In order that this, our definition of the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven may be brought to the attention of the universal Church, we desire that this, our Apostolic Letter, should stand for perpetual remembrance, commanding that written copies of it, or even printed copies, signed by the hand of any public notary and bearing the seal of a person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, should be accorded by all men the same reception they would give to this present letter, were it tendered or shown."

"47. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

[John Henry]

I infallibly knew that this conversation would pull our friend Jeb out of the woodwork (along with his usual hobby horse about the 3 Isaiahs). And now I have written it down. I must be the Word of God, or something.

Welcome home, Dr Beckwith. The Church is better off with you than she was without!

[John Henry]

I also wanted to say that I love James White. The way the word "Rome" rolls off his tongue is priceless. Just like some other four letter words that shouldn't be mentioned.

[Breier]

Jeb,

You need to see the distinction between inspiration, infallibility, and revelation. Catholics believe only Holy Scripture is inspired.

To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation.

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.

Revelation, on the other hand, means the making known by God, supernaturally of some truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed. Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching. "

[Breier]

This what Catholics believe about Scripture:

Vatican I:

"These books are held by the Church as sacred and canonical, not as having been composed by merely human labour and afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been transmitted to the Church as such." (Concil. Vatic., Sess. III, const. dogm, de Fide, cap. ii, in Denz., 1787).

Pope Leo XIII:

"The Holy Ghost Himself, by His supernatural power, stirred up and impelled the Biblical writers to write, and assisted them while writing in such a manner that they conceived in their minds exactly, and determined to commit to writing faithfully, and render in exact language, with infallible truth, all that God commanded and nothing else; without that, God would not be the author of Scripture in its entirety" (Encycl. Provid. Deus, in Dena., 1952).

I hope that a Protestant, could agree to the above two quotations. Can you? Reading these, it is absurd to claim that the proclamation of the Assumption, or the Immaculate Conception is put on par with Holy Scripture.

[Brian]

One thing that jumped out at me is that James White uses the same types of fallacy that RadTrads (and I'm sure others) use:

James White: "Now, I personally have little interest in the Lenten argument (outside of noting the gross abuse of such an idea inherent in Mardi Gras and the insight that provides into the thinking of many in the Roman communion)"

Hypothetical RadTrad: "Now, I personally have little interest in calling the NO Mass invalid (outside of noting the gross abuse of the time before Mass that should be used for prayer--not gossip--and the insight that provides into the thinking of many who participate in the NO)"

I think we all note the abuse, but it doesn't say anything about Lent itself. Nor can it be said that the abusers represent the whole or the ideal. That's like me saying, "I hate apples, I tried 5 bruised and rotten ones and they all tasted awful."

[John]

The post is as follows:

"There is thus nothing in the ETS doctrinal foundation that a Catholic could not agree to in good conscience and it is not an effective instrument for excluding Catholics from membership.

This situation will, of course, be very sensitive for members of the Evangelical Theological Society and its leadership, as well as for Dr. Beckwith and his family, and I ask readers to keep the matter in prayer."

What exactly does this mean? Is Dr Beckwith going to be recatechised? Is he a "Catholic" because the church has now in the name of ecumenism basically lowered her standards on what exactly a "Catholic" should be as JPII has already done with the Anglicans even after Popes prior to him refuted them and Saints such as Thomas Moore died at the hands of Kings rather than succomb to the Anglican church, but JPII in one felt swoop said enough! Communion and bring your married priests, gay priests and woman ministers with you!

What is the exact purpose of this thread anyway as it really means little the way I see it. After all JPII's vision was a "New World Order" with a "One World Religion" and does not "Novus Ordo" mean "New Order" a term the church after Vatican II took upon themselves to coin?>

[Kevin from Ohio in Virginia]

Good for you, Dr. Beckwith! Congrats, and my family and I are praying for you and yours.

The most troubling quote from Mr. White's blog entry for me was this one: "But the gospel is different. It speaks of attributes of God's character that the natural man does not have the capacity to truly love. It strikes at the heart of man's arrogance, it removes, by its emphasis upon powerful, effective, sovereign grace, any ground of boasting in the man. But over time, if one is apathetic about the truth of the gospel, God may well bring judgment to bear in causing one to love a lie."

Reread that last sentence, if you will. God bringing judgment to bear by causing one to love a lie? Does that sound like God to anyone else? Where does this guy get his material? Am I way off here?

[SDG]

Do you believe that Cardinal Ratzigner's views that Paul didn't write the pastorals, there are three Isaiahs, and the creation account in Genesis 1 comes from the period of the Babylonian captivity are contrary to church teaching? Apparently he didn't think they contradicted Dei Verbum.

Whatever opinions I or Cardinal Ratzinger may hold on the issues you mention are spectacularly irrelevant to your claims about what the PBC has "taught" regarding the "current Catholic view of scripture." Don't try to change the subject. Can you or can you not produce actual teaching documents to substantiate your claims?

I could just as well say that the Bible isn't the Word of God, it merely proclaims the Word of God. In some sense that's true. On the other hand, the popes who proclaimed these two dogmas were putting them on the same level as scripture and the ets says no other document can be on that level.

Not only is this rank dishonesty, ironically, in your zeal for sola scriptura, or rather to attack the Church, you are actually impugning the written word of God. You're so anti-Catholic, you're actually attacking scripture in order to attack the Church. You're so eager to equate papal bulls with scripture in Catholic teaching, you will actually deny that scripture is the word of God in order to do it.

Unlike you, the Catholic Church unequivocally proclaims that scripture not only proclaims the word of God, it is the word of God, inasmuch as, being divinely inspired, it has God as its Author and all that is asserted by the human author is asserted by the Holy Spirit (DV 11). This cannot be said of papal bulls or other infallible church decrees, which are not divinely inspired and have only men, not God, as their Author, and are thus at best proclaim the word of God without themselves being the word of God. (God is merely their Editor, not their Author; He supernaturally keeps error out, He doesn't inspire the writers to put truth in. Whatever divine truth is in them is in them by the same human agency that puts divine truth into any human documents we produce.)

If you feel that's a non-difference, you haven't yet fully grasped the authority and nature of scripture as the inspired word of God.

I repeat: This is where an honest Protestant would admit that he had made a mistake. Whether or not your mistake was an honest one should be clear one way or the other by how you face up to your error.

[Esquire]

I know you love him John, but it is St. Thomas More who was beheaded at the hands of King Henry VIII.

And I have no doubt that the saintly lawyer and statesman would welcome Dr. Beckwith into the fold with open arms, much as we find the prodigal father doing in the Gospel of Luke.

[Brian]

John,

No one in here except you interpreted Jimmy's post to say:
What is the exact purpose of this thread anyway as it really means little the way I see it. After all JPII's vision was a "New World Order" with a "One World Religion" and does not "Novus Ordo" mean "New Order" a term the church after Vatican II took upon themselves to coin?

We don't have the details of how Dr. Beckwith returned to the Church, it sounds like he's chosen to keep the details private. If he was confirmed in the Church when he was younger I imagine he came back to the Church through the sacrament of repentance. If he didn't receive all the sacraments in his youth, I would guess he went through RCIA and rejoined the Church at Easter.

How do you propose people should return to the Church?

[BobCatholic]

I think there is an issue.

Isn't Sacred Tradition considered to be part of the Word of God? Wasn't the canon of scripture part of this tradition? Something these protestants REJECT as infallible?

They reject Sacred Tradition as infallible, while they accept parts of it to suit their tastes :)

Abortion wrong? Tradition. Trinity? Tradition. Canon of Scripture? Tradition.

In fact, they have their own traditions, because sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

http://www.mark-shea.com/6.html is a great

[erick]

"Reread that last sentence, if you will. God bringing judgment to bear by causing one to love a lie? Does that sound like God to anyone else? Where does this guy get his material? Am I way off here?"--
Try Romans I:18-28.
Sounds like God to me!...

[BobCatholic]

*continued*

Mark Shea's site is a great resource which explains how protestants accept Tradition while at the same time they reject it :)

[Brian]

Reread that last sentence, if you will. God bringing judgment to bear by causing one to love a lie? Does that sound like God to anyone else? Where does this guy get his material? Am I way off here?

While I think White's judgment of Catholics is wrong, I don't see anything wrong with this sentence. Let's say I reject absolute truth for relativism and over time become more obstinate in my decision. God may then strengthen my love of relativism and hatred of the Truth, in effect making my own decision my punishment. As Erick said, it fits with Romans.

[JohnD]

Thanks be to God & welcome home to Dr. Beckwith.

Did anyone else notice in White's post that his supposedly tough questions for converts were pretty easy to answer and that some of their underlying assumptions contained some very elementary errors?

The average-joe C.A. apologist could answer them easily.

[JohnD]

That last comment should read:

"The average joe C.A. FORUM apologist could answer them easily."

[Tim J.]

2 + 2 = 4

The above written statement is inerrant.

It is not inspired and not the word of God.

The two are not linked by necessity. The Catholic Church does not claim that her magisterial documents are inspired or that they are the word of God, only that they are - by the Divine will - protected from error. That's all.

[Kevin from Ohio in Virginia]

No, I disagree, erick and Brian.

There is a difference between God "giving up unto" and "causing." God will not "cause" us to love anything that is not of God. God gives us free will and He will not stop us from sinning, but He will not cause us to sin.

It's like our own children. We can educate them about drugs. We can set a good example for them. In the end, however, we aren't going to follow them around around 24-7-365 to make sure they never touch the stuff.

[Kacy]

Francis Beckwith returned to the Church after private counseling with a wonderful priest. He did not go through RCIA because he had already been confirmed. His wife entered the Church with him.

[Brian]

Kevin,

I think it may come down to semantics. Erick and I interpreted it as meaning the same type of thing as Romans, while you interpreted it to say that God actually causes sin. It's hard to say exactly which one White meant from such a short quote. It wasn't the focus of his article and he didn't offer any more detail.

Just to help me understand... How does what White said and Romans I:18-28 relate to when God hardened Pharaoh's heart to always refuse Moses's demands and chase after the Jews as they crossed the Red Sea. Is that the same thing as Romans?

[Tim J.]

Exactly, Kevin from Ohio. God will never tempt anyone to sin, but will allow them, through the abuse of their free will, to follow sinful paths and disordered passions.

But this is really straining at gnats. The point is, the plain meaning of the ETS statement of faith contains nothing that a faithful Catholic could not enthusiastically embrace.

[Joe S.]

I am an Orthodox Christian but I congratulate Dr. Beckwith on his return to apostolic, sacramental Christianity. May God grant him and his family many happy years.

[Monica]

congratulations, Dr. Beckwith! We'll keep you in our prayers.

[Jordan Potter]

This is very good news, Jimmy. Thank you for sharing it, and praise God for his inestimable grace!

I also got a real kick out of the way the ETS statement on sola scriptura was written in a way that orthodox Catholics can enthusiastically agree with it.

[Dale Price]

"Now, I personally have little interest in the Lenten argument (outside of noting the gross abuse of such an idea inherent in Mardi Gras and the insight that provides into the thinking of many in the Roman communion)"

Translation: "MacArthur drank the Chick Kool-Aid and was embarrassingly wrong. But I won't be caught dead calling him on it, as it would deprive me of an opportunity to slag Romanism, which I will do now by mentioning the excesses of Mardi Gras."

White is as predictable as a metronome, but much less interesting.

[Shane]

Mr. White's post is interesting. It contains just about every one of the little things he does when it comes to Catholicism all in one post. It's almost as though he had an emotional eruption, of sorts, and all of his qualities in regards to Catholicism came out at once.

[SDG]

I think there is an issue.

Isn't Sacred Tradition considered to be part of the Word of God? Wasn't the canon of scripture part of this tradition? Something these protestants REJECT as infallible?

Actually, there is no issue, for two reasons.

First, the statement says that the Bible alone is the word of God written. Traditionally, sacred tradition is characterized as what was handed on in unwritten form, although of course later writings may bear witness to the truths of tradition just as they do the truths of scripture.

But second, and more importantly, while it is correct to say that the word of God is handed on in both scripture and tradition, there is an important sense in which sacred scripture alone is the word of God, whereas tradition is not the word of God, but contains and attests the word of God.

Dei Verbum says unequivocally that sacred scripture is the word of God. The Church does not speak in such strong terms even of tradition, though tradition and scripture together form the sources of faith and the deposit of revelation.

[Kevin from Ohio in Virginia]

Agreed, Tim J. I really wasn't dealing with that part of the discussion. I was letting other people handle that one. I was more curious about one portion of Mr. White's blog entry that I took issue with.

Brian, good question. I'm not ashamed to say that I don't have a ready answer for you, but if I'm still thinking about it later tonight when I'm not at work I'll try to put together a few thoughts about it.

[francis 03]

If you feel that's a non-difference, you haven't yet fully grasped the authority and nature of scripture as the inspired word of God.

***

the plain meaning of the ETS statement of faith contains nothing that a faithful Catholic could not enthusiastically embrace.

Are we sure? The Catholic understanding of the phrase "word of God written" is very well articulated in this tread. But is it fair to say that's the only "plain meaning"? If a writing is inerrant because of God's direct protection, wouldn't it at least be fair for non-Catholics to regard it as the "word of God?"

Protestants haven't developed any kind of belief akin to the "negative protection" if papal infallibility, have they? So they don't necessarily have a neat category into which to put it. Would it really be objectively unreasonable for them to expand their understanding of "word of God written" to say that if God had protected any writings in that way (instead of directly inspiring them like Scripture), they would also be His "word written?"

I'm not saying that's what the ETS statement really means. I'm just saying that I don't think it's a slam dunk that it doesn't mean that. And even if it did mean that, I'm not expressing any view on whether a member of ETS who comes to interpret those words differently (i.e., according to their "Catholic" meaning) would have to do about it.

[JoAnna]

Welcome back, Dr. Beckwith! We are rejoicing that one of the "lost sheep" has returned to the flock. :)

[francis 03]

Addendum: so you don't have to believe that scripture and infallible church documents have the same level of authority, inspiration, or anything else in order for them both to fall into a category of divinely-connected documents you call the "word of God written."

[Breier]

All the best to you, Dr. Beckwith!

Vatican II on this point of the Word of God:

Dei Verbum:

"9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed."

[SDG]

Are we sure? The Catholic understanding of the phrase "word of God written" is very well articulated in this tread. But is it fair to say that's the only "plain meaning"? If a writing is inerrant because of God's direct protection, wouldn't it at least be fair for non-Catholics to regard it as the "word of God?"

Only if they're willing to own up to a lower view of "the word of God" than the Church's. And even then they would have to admit that the Church's view of scripture is something higher than the Church's view of infallible definitions, so that Catholics don't regard infallible definitions as equal to scripture.

In other words, a Protestant like Jeb might conceivably make an argument like this: "The Catholic Church teaches that papal bulls and other definitive documents are protected from error by the Holy Spirit, and in my book that makes them effectively equal to the word of God. Of course the Catholic Church claims that they aren't really equal to the word of God because in their view the word of God is actually something more exalted, but it's all the same as far as I'm concerned."

Of course, few anti-Catholic polemicists would ever be quite so frank and even-handed as all that.

[SDG]

I am an Orthodox Christian but I congratulate Dr. Beckwith on his return to apostolic, sacramental Christianity. May God grant him and his family many happy years.

Joe S, bless you for your charitable and irenic response. As a Roman Catholic I feel much the same way when a Protestant comes into apostolic, sacramental Christianity in Eastern Orthodoxy.

[Breier]

Francis,

The text does not definite "Word of God written." Perhaps this was intentional, as this statement of faith is clearly a minimalist account designed to include as many people as possible.

The text says the Bible alone is the "Word of God written."

It says that the "word of God written" is inerrant.

That is all.

Do the evangelicals understand more than this? Do they hold more nuanced views? No doubt. But their writing does not reflect that. The purpose of a statement of faith is to clearly and unambiguous set forth your principles.

Their statement failed to do that. Grammatically and logically, it does maintain the (ultimately incoherent) Protestant principle of sola scriptura.

[Brian]

Here's a question: What would it take to make the ETS's statement of faith exclude Catholics. Is there a way to to it--without being explicitly anti-Catholic--that wouldn't also exclude some of their own members?

[SDG]

Grammatically and logically, it does maintain the (ultimately incoherent) Protestant principle of sola scriptura.

I don't understand this. It seems to contradict the rest of your post. Did you mean to write "does not maintain"?

[Eileen R]

I'm very happy about this. I spent the summer when I was eighteen reading Francis Beckwith's "Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights" which is *the* book on abortion arguments. There are a number of books on the subject, but what makes Beckwith's stand out is that it's incredibly in-depth and well-reasoned. You can find plenty of stuff to refute a lot of arguments like "It's just a bunch of cells" or "If you don't want an abortion, don't have one", but Beckwith goes deep into the philosophic underpinnings of some of the most insiduous arguments.

Anyway, I'm happy to hear that someone whose writings were so useful to me has found the Church.

[SDG]

What would it take to make the ETS's statement of faith exclude Catholics. Is there a way to to it--without being explicitly anti-Catholic--that wouldn't also exclude some of their own members?

I think this would do it, in at least two different ways: "The Bible, in all its parts, is the sole word of God, and in its autographs is alone inerrant." (The first clause leaves out "written," thereby excluding the word of God in unwritten form, and the second part clearly proposes that only the Bible is inerrant.)

[Brian]

"The Bible, in all its parts, is the sole word of God, and in its autographs is alone inerrant."

Does this deny Christ as the Word of God? The original statement defines the bible as the sole written Word of God, which doesn't create any conflict with Christ being the true Word and the bible being the written form of that Word as it was revealed to us. Or is all that implied when saying the Bible is the sole Word of God?

I've gotten in a little over my head here, so if I said anything wrong please correct me.

[BobCatholic]

The irony is that while they rail against the Catholic Church's way of doing things, and claim to hold to sola scriptura, in reality, sola scriptura cannot be practiced.

They have the Scriptures.

They have their interpretation of the Scripture(which is not written anywhere in the Scripture, if it were, it would be considered scripture) Since this is not Scripture, this is their Tradition.

Then there's always someone (whether it is the individual, or their pastor, or whatever) who declares if the interpretation is correct. Some protestants will claim it is the Holy Spirit (but who declared it was the Holy Spirit?)

This person doing this declaration is their magisterium.

Let's see. Scripture. Tradition. Magisterium. Yup. That's the Catholic model.

They rail against the Catholic Model yet they practice it :)

Sola scriptura cannot be practiced as they have their own traditions and their own magisteriums, and no firm definition of sola scriptura that all sola scripturists accept :)

[Ozark Mountain Math Guy]

I think this would do it, in at least two different ways: "The Bible, in all its parts, is the sole word of God, and in its autographs is alone inerrant." (The first clause leaves out "written," thereby excluding the word of God in unwritten form, and the second part clearly proposes that only the Bible is inerrant.)

Careful.

My math test can also be inerrant--free from error--if I score 100%.

[Paul]

"How the aych-ee-double-hockey-sticks does that even approach logic"

Of course it's not logic -- we shouldn't expect logic from Protestants because logic has a nasty habit of getting in the way of incoherent dogmas. Thus, it was the first thing Luther threw out (White's post alludes to this with a jab at the Catholic use of philosophy).

As for this White fellow, all I can do is quote Bugs Bunny: "what a maroon."

[Binny]

Congrats, Doctor Beckwith!

[Dave Armstrong]

A very warm welcome to Dr. Beckwith. I have admired his writings for many years: particularly in the area of abortion and infanticide and euthanasia. I had cited his writings in that regard on my website years ago. The ones I linked to had nothing directly to do with Catholicism. These were ethical issues that all serious Christians (including White himself, who is a pro-lifer) and even good secular men could readily agree with -- lest Bishop White imply that Dr. Beckwith's Catholic leanings were evident all those years because (GASP!) someone like myself cited them.

When I see someone making profoundly right arguments about life issues, then it is never a surprise at all to me when they become a Catholic, because I went through the same process myself: I was delighted to acknowledge that the Catholic Church taught the most sublime and correct moral theology of any Christian body even before I was a Catholic.

Since Christianity has a lot to do with teaching morals and ethics, this becomes in and of itself a powerful testimony for both the truthfulness of Catholicism and the fact that the Catholic Church alone has preserved the complete moral and ethical teaching of the early Church. It isn't even arguable. Thus, it might be opined that Dr. Beckwith has simply merged his ecclesiology with his ethics in a more harmonious and satisfactory fashion. Now he is in the Church that fully upholds and promulgates the morality that he has been boldly, heroically championing for years.

[Joe S.]

SDG, thank you. Also, I thank you for your lucid posts on Scripture and Tradition. I think I would, in essence, agree with you, though we might have some subtle differences in our views.

[Breier]

SDG,

Correct. I meant "does not." My original autographs are far from inerrant. :)

To have an effective statement, they'd have to choose something more precise than "Word of God," which is ambiguous. I wager they used "written" because Jesus is the Word of God, what he spoke spoke those were the words of God, etc. What you formulated would make the Bible take the place of Our Lord.

Further, the divergence of views from High-Church Anglicans to those of Reformed Baptists on the subject has to be included.

Clearly the statement is finding things that such a divergent group could agree on. Don't want to knock out the Anglicans who believe in the value of tradition, don't want to offend the implicit Nestorians, etc.

Speaking of Nestorians, notice how the statement of belief mentions the Trinity but doesn't mention the Incarnation, or Jesus. We're not even getting to mere orthodox Christianity, which traditionally affirmed the Trinity and the Incarnation as foundational truths.

For an example of how Evangelics tried to unite around principles in 1846, see:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.v.viii.html

These two, taken from that document, would suffice:

"1. The Divine inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures.

'2. The right and duty of private judgment in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures."

Interesting to see how much more irenical the Evangelical Society is today than distant forbears.

[Susan Peterson]

I would say that the clear intent of the wording was to exclude Catholic and Orthodox believers, even if the literal meaning of the words does not. Therefore I think he would do best to resign.

I also see from his webpage that he is supposed to begin a new position at Baylor (may have been there previously but is changing jobs there?) in June 2007. Is this the school that previously fired a professor who converted to Catholicism? Somebody may come back and say, "No, that was_________College." I admit I am not really up on Protestant colleges. But I wonder whether he will also pay a cost to his academic career for returning to the Church.

I wonder why Jimmy tolerates "John" above (not JohnD) who spouts nonsense about Vatican II and the Novus Ordo, and further nonsense about the Pastoral Provision and the Anglican Use. Jimmy is extraordinarily tolerant. How silly of this John to think that Dr. Beckwith made this move without studying all of the disputed theological issues, or without thoroughly questioning himself as to whether he can honestly accept the teachings of the Church.

Thank God for Dr. Beckwith and let us all say a prayer for him in whatever difficulties this brings to him. I am sure it is also bringing him joy, so let us rejoice with him.

We should remember that those who disagree are doing so out of zeal for Christ, and deserve only our prayers, not our scorn, even when in mistaken zeal they speak harshly of us.

Susan Peterson

[SDG]

SDG, thank you. Also, I thank you for your lucid posts on Scripture and Tradition. I think I would, in essence, agree with you, though we might have some subtle differences in our views.

Thanks, Joe S. It's possible that there may be subtle differences in our views. At the same time, different idioms and manners of expression, more than differences of substance, might also be a factor. (I am here using the formulations of my Western tradition, but the thought behind them is not inextricably wedded to these formulations.)

FWIW, I have a warm appreciation for Eastern Christianity -- warmer, I think, than some of my Orthodox friends feel for Western Christianity! -- and in general my feeling is that the actual substantial and essential disagreements between our two communions, though not negligible, are substantially less formidable than is often appreciated.

[Puzzled]

The ETS fell out of evangelical Christianity a year or so ago when they would not remove the "Open Theists" -- temporal henotheists and no true monotheists, from the ETS. At that time, those who still held to Biblical inerrancy, left the ETS.

If the ETS has room for people who have put themselves outside of historic monotheism, I don't see why they would have any trouble with Roman Catholics - unless of course, the Catholics are too orthodox for them. . .

[Puzzled]

I suspect that Catholics were not on the mind all that much when the ETS was founded. The big danger then (and now) are those who call themselves evangelicals, but who think that the Bible has error in it, especially when it goes against the spirit of the age.

John is obviously a RadTrad, lying about John Paul the Great, and about the Anglicans.
John White is obviously a Calvinist and presumably reads the Bible through the filter of TULIP.

Actually, from what has been posted from Vatican I and Dei Verbum, the Catholic position is compatible with sola Scriptura supra omne. Or so it appears. Me, miss something? Most likely.

BobCatholic, your attack on sola Scriptura appears to me to be incoherant, and not in keeping with the authentic teachings of the Church.

Paul, the first thing Luther threw out was buying grace with money. He didn't think that what Tetzel was doing was in keeping with Church teaching - and he was right.

[francis 03]

but it's all the same as far as I'm concerned

This refers to what the Protestant thinks of what a Catholic believes about infallible Church documents and Scripture, right? So-- granting that the Protestant understands the Catholic teaching about the difference between the two-- I don't have a hard time imagining him saying that the both fall into the same category, of the "word of God written." His belief that the Bible is the only thing in that category would turn not on his definition of the category, but just on his conviction that there's nothing else in it.

Is this underestimating the Protestant desire to put Scripture in a sui generis category? Jeb?

[BobCatholic]

>BobCatholic, your attack on sola Scriptura appears to me to be incoherant, and not in keeping with the authentic teachings of the Church

Please explain.

The relativism of sola scriptura prevents sola scripturists from having a firm definition of what sola scriptura means. How can one practice a doctrine that cannot be defined?

And if I then take the original definition of Sola Scriptura, its latin definition (meaning "scripture alone") then it cannot be practiced, as traditions and magisteriums are used by sola scripturists.

[Mike Petrik]

Puzzled,
I agree that BobCatholic's post was imperfectly expressed, but I think he's right as far as he goes. Since Scripture must be subject to interpretation, both Catholics and sola Scriptura Protestants in fact resort to reason and tradition as tools. Catholics, at least acknowledge this, whereas many sola Scriptura Protestants don't -- which is just a falsehood grounded in stubbornness. On this I think Bob is right. What I think he missed is that our "T"radition contains a Deposit of Faith that includes truths which, while compatible with Scripture, are not sourced in Scripture. As I suspect you were suggesting, the fundamental flaw of sola Sciptura does not lie in its inadequacies of exegesis, but in the error that all theological truths are contained in Scripture.

[BobCatholic]

Correct Mike.

Not all theological truth is found in scripture. I could easily ask my infamous 4 questions to prove that easily.

Using Scripture alone, please tell me:
1) Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27?
2) Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
3) Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example: There was a version of Matthew's Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
4) Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?

The answers to these infamous 4 questions were determined infallibly, and correctly.

[Snowman]

Puzzled,
I'm a bit "puzzled" myself; I've seen this reference to TULIP a few times lately, but I'm unfamiliar with the term. It looks like an acronym, but I haven't been able to guess what it stands for. Can you (or anyone else) enlighten me? Thanks much.

[BobCatholic]

Tulip:
http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/calvinTULIP.html

It is a man-made tradition, based on John Calvin's interpretation of scripture (his tradition)

[Esau]

Jimmy has a great article on it.

He summarized it as follows:

The debate is centered on the well-known formula TULIP. Each letter of this acronym stands for a different doctrine held by classical Calvinists [There are some Calvinists, known as Amyraldians or "four-point Calvinists," who hold all of TULIP except for " L "] but rejected by Arminians. The doctrines are:

Total depravity,
Unconditional election,
Limited atonement,
Irresistible grace, and
Perseverance of the saints.

A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP By JAMES AKIN

[Kyl]

Welcome Dr. Beckwith! You should become some type of strategist for the Catholic Church. Your knowledge of ethical issues would probably make a huge impact. God bless you.

[Memphis Aggie]

About the ETS statement, I agree with Jimmy that as written it seems OK technically (I'm no expert). But given the intent I think it's prone to multiple interpretations that are informed by ones own tradition and background, sounds familiar doesn't it? :)

Just take the seemingly harmless term "Bible". Protestants exclude books we Catholics include. It's the same word, but not the same thing.

[Smoky Mountain]

What is the ETS? If it's so hostile to Catholics, why would a Catholic want to be a member?

[Brian]

What is the ETS? If it's so hostile to Catholics, why would a Catholic want to be a member?

I think its more the novelty that they specifically worded their statement of faith in the way they did "Because [they] didn't want any Roman Catholics in the group," yet that statement alone doesn't exclude any Catholics from membership.

[Smoky Mountain]

How ire(o)nic of them.

[Smoky Mountain]

Perhaps "ir[e|o]nic" would be better.

[Brian]

But given the intent I think it's prone to multiple interpretations that are informed by ones own tradition and background, sounds familiar doesn't it? :)

I think this is part of the reason why the statement hasn't done it's job. The ETS includes so many denominations that they can't make it more specific without excluding some of their own along with the Catholics.

[Tarhiel]

Welcome home, mr.Beckwith. I don´t konw what to say more. I´ll just keep you in my prayers.

Be blessed,

lk

[MNJohn]

Considering Jimmy's statement:

"The Bible and the Bible alone is the word of God written (as opposed to the Word of God Incarnate, the word of God in nature, or the word of God handed on through the Church in parallel to Scripture)."

and John's response to Jimmy's article:

"I don't follow Jimmy's reasoning. The statement that the Bible alone is the "Word of God written and is therefore innerant" would exclude magisterial statements of the Catholic Church. The logical conclusion is that magisterial teachings, including teachings from Church tradition, are not innerant. This contradicts a Catholic understanding of divine revelation.

and bold off's response to John:

"Non sequitur. The sentences reads: "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs." From this it may be understood that [a] only the Bible is the word of God written (this is true) and that [b] only the Bible is therefore inerrant (i.e., inerrant because the word of God written). Grammatically and logically it does not follow that the Bible alone is inerrant — only that nothing else is inerrant due to being the word of God written."

Bold Off - is it your suggestion that the magisterial statements of the Catholic Church are not the word of God written? Weren't many of these magisterial statements derived from the same method the various of the Bible were? Certainly you learned of these magesterial statements from some written source, and not from some magical unwritten communication chain dating back perhaps several hundred years. Then, aren't these magisterial statements, recorded and appearing in written form, and derived from the same methods as the canon, also inerrant? Finally then, aren't these written, inerrant magisterial statements extra biblical?

I think this is the point that the other John is trying to make. Rather than becoming defensive and adversarial toward the other John or myself, please kindly explain the flaws in what I perceive to be John's and my logic.

stated another way, if both the bible and magisterial statements are written and inerrant, then how can Jimmy's aforementioned statement pass muster?

Thank you and peace,

MNJohn

[Snowman]

Thanks, Esau and BobCatholic, for the TULIP links. Leave it to Jimmy to have answered that question already (and long ago - I'll have to start reading deeper into the This Rock archives).

[SDG]

is it your suggestion that the magisterial statements of the Catholic Church are not the word of God written? Weren't many of these magisterial statements derived from the same method the various of the Bible were?

Once again:

The books of the Bible were written under divine inspiration and have God as their Author. They represent active divine revelation.

The age of divine revelation is now closed. No new public revelation, no new inspiration or divine Authorship, no new word of God, is being given.

Magisterial statements of whatever gravity do not constitute divine revelation (though they attest it), are not written under divine inspiration (though they are written under divine protection), do not have God as their Author (though they may be said to have God as their Editor), are not the word of God (though they attest it).

Hope that helps.

[Edwin]

:is it your suggestion that the magisterial statements of the Catholic Church are not the word of God written?:

I don't think it's a suggestion. It's obviously true that the Catholic Church does not teach that the magisterial statements are the Word of God. Rather, they _contain_ the Word of God and witness to it. In other words, the Catholic understanding of magisterial documents is like _some_ Protestant views of Scripture, but not like the view of Scripture maintained by the ETS.

: Weren't many of these magisterial statements derived from the same method the various of the Bible were?:

I'm not sure what that means or how it is relevant.

: Certainly you learned of these magesterial statements from some written source, and not from some magical unwritten communication chain dating back perhaps several hundred years.:

Some of the early statements might rely on traditions that had not previously been written, but generally speaking that's true. How is it relevant? That is in fact the _opposite_ of the way Scripture originated. Scripture (NT Scripture at least) originated when the Apostles or their disciples committed the Gospel (previously proclaimed orally) to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Later magisterial documents draw both on Scripture and on the continuing proclamation and interpretation of the Gospel by the Church. They are derivative.

: Then, aren't these magisterial statements, recorded and appearing in written form, and derived from the same methods as the canon, also inerrant?:

I do not believe that the Catholic Church teaches that magisterial documents are intrinsically inerrant by virtue of being magisterial documents. They are inerrant when they solemnly teach dogma. Scripture, however, cannot err (with regard to the purpose for which it was inspired) because it is inspired by God. It is not simply protected from error.

Edwin

[Leigh]

OT:
Tarhiel - Morrowind much?

[Jordan Potter]

I see here that the word "inerrant" is being applied by both Catholics and Protestants to Catholic magisterial documents. That's the wrong word. "Inerrancy" in Catholicism applies only to the Bible. The word you guys want is "infallible," not "inerrant."

[Elijah]

Welcome to the Church Dr. Beckwith and family. I've never been president of an evangelical group (or any other group, actually), but, as a convert to the Church with rabidly anti-Catholic relatives and as a man responsible to God for guiding a family, I have empathy for you.

***

I seem to remember reading something that said that the truths proclaimed in magisterial documents are assured but that the actual wording is subject to revision if such revision were needed in order to clarify the intent of a passage. Anyone know if I'm remembering correctly?

[SDG]

"Inerrancy" in Catholicism applies only to the Bible. The word you guys want is "infallible," not "inerrant."

I appreciate the intended clarification, Jordan, but I'm unsure how helpful this is.

On its face, "infallibility" seems to mean the quality of being incapable of erring, while "inerrancy" seems to mean the quality of not being erroneous, or perhaps, to stretch the point, the quality of being certainly and definitively without error.

It would thus seem to be teaching authorities -- not documents or teachings per se -- that might most usefully be described as "fallible" or "infallible" (or as exercising a charism of infallibility [or not], etc).

By contrast, it would seem that documents might be described as fallibly or infallibly written, or that teachings as fallibly or infallibly set forth; but the actual documents and teachings themselves are neither "fallible" nor "infallible," only "errant" or "inerrant."

Side note: If we use "inerrant" to refer to documents that are certainly and definitively without error (as opposed to documents of whatever weight that simply contain no errors in fact), it seems to me that documents of lesser weight will need a different word besides "errant," which seems to imply actual errors. Many non-infallibly written magisterial documents may be completely without error; heck, even Jimmy (or by a freak chance even James White!) might write a blog post that contains no errors. Perhaps a term like "non-inerrant" might cover such cases? Or perhaps we might simply stick to saying that the document was not infallibly written, or that its teaching is not infallibly proposed?

Thus, we would say that both scripture and magisterial documents of the greatest weight are inerrant, whereas the Magisterium is infallible, or exercises a gift of infallibility, when it teaches under certain conditions. Other documents may be "non-inerrant," if written and promulgated in a non-infallible fashion.

Does that make any sense? Any other comments or suggestions?

[StubbleSpark]

Too many posts!

I will just offer up my congratulations and ask for everyone's prayers for a dying coworker.

Peace.

[francis 03]

My tendency is to understand infallible = "incapable by nature of being wrong" and inerrant = just plain "isn't wrong." This would obviously make infallibility a subcategory of inerrancy. I would consider both to be appropriate descriptors of either a single statement or a source of authority.

So a blog post with mistakes on it would be in error and fallible. One without any mistakes would be inerrant, but fallible. If the blogger chose such a narrow topic about which he knew so much that he never made any mistakes, then as a blogger he would be inerrant but fallible, at least as to that topic. If the Holy Father were to start a "blog ex cathedra" (which would be incredibly cool), then both he as a blogger and his blog posts woudl be both infallible and inerrant as to matters of faith and morals.

FWIW, I would add another category on top of this: "inspired," for Scripture. This would refer to things that God affirmatively communicated to the writer, rather than simply protected from error (as with infallibility) or permitted to be without error (as with inerrancy). So infallibility itself is a subcategory of inspired.

You could argue that there should be other categories. For instance:

* The actual words of God, in Scripture or elsewhere in general revelation.
* The words of God in private revelations
* The words of people, in scripture or elsewhere in general revelation, speaking actual words that came directly from God
* The words of angels or saints in heaven, in scripture or elsewhere in general revelation
* The words of angels or saints in private revelations.

All of these, I think, are more than "inerrant" as I just defined it. Some of them are also more than "infallible" and even "inspired;" others just seem incommensurate with those.

[francis 03]

Actually, regardless of whether or not you accept my terminology, such a project of creating a hierarchy of Catholic auhorities, and clearly explaining their logical relationships to each other, could probably be really helpful to people whose idolatry radars are immediately set off by "all this stuff" that Catholics believe is "from God."

[whosebob]

On another note, very sadly, a Catholic-convert of many years and of great reputation, Bill Cork, has just "re-converted" to Seventh Day Adventism.

[Jordan Potter]

When the Church speaks of inerrancy of Scripture, it means not a single error is taught anywhere in Scripture. But the Church has never claimed inerrancy of its magisterial documents. For example, in ex cathedra definitions, it is only the definition itself that is graced with infallibility, not the entire document in which the definition is made. The theological arguments and scripture interpretations that are deployed to support the definition may sometimes be in error, but the definition itself is infallible. The bull Unam Sanctam, not only defines Extra Ecclesiam Non Salus, but also teaches the doctrine of the Two Swords. Only the definition in Unam Sanctam is infallible, but the doctrine of the Two Swords is fallible and therefore possibly in error (though quite possibly true).

But even if every single sentence of every single magisterial document were infallible, since the Church herself never says her documents are inerrant but reserves that word for Holy Scripture, it is necessary that we all refrain from using "inerrant" for documents of the magisterium.

[StubbleSpark]

One of the reasons Catholics operate with interpretive tradition "on the table" (openly admitting its necessity and use) and Protestants do not boils down to fundamental worldviews.

Catholicism deals in realities and Protestantism in symbolisms.

For example, Catholics have a concrete understanding of the answer to the question: what is the Church? Protestants are ecclessiastically agnostic. Whether "the Church" includes or excludes Catholics, non-Evangelicals, Lutherans, Episcopalians, agnostics, Mormons, etc is a matter that differs not only from community to community but even to the individuals comprising these communities. Other points of contention would include the necessity of the Church for salvation, whether it was established by Christ, matters of liturgy, the degree and breadth of authority, whether a faith needs apostolic tradition to be considered valid, etc.

Rather than deal with the disturbing fog of this confusion, Protestantism simply resigns itself to the belief that the concretes cannot be known. Sometimes this is swallowed up in symbolic language, and still at other times it is left to the eternal and egalitarian love of God. Both are agnostic in character.

It will be noted that the bulk of these agnosticisms are employed in matters directly concerning "the Church" or her direct extensions -- her teachings. What remains concrete for Protestants is the Bible and nothing else. Faith, its definition and efficacy must also belong to that amorphous cloud of Protestant confusion.

Thus the Protestant bemoans the Catholic's lack of understanding of Scripture while the Catholic bemoans the Protestant's lack of understanding of the Church.

While modern Catholic apologists have made much progress in defending the faith (as taught by the Church) in purely Biblical terms, the arguments fall on deaf ears for Protestants whose symbolic understanding of the Church renders ecclesial apologetics immaterial.

Protestant apologists, on the other hand, are faced with the much more daunting task of arguing a biblical interpretation tradition that is not biblical and preaching a historical church that is not historical.

The result is a war of attrition -- where one side makes slow but certain progress and the other can only hope to shore up the walls with deeper and deeper animosity.

[Kyl]

Smoky Mountain,

You asked what the ETS is. The Catholic Church teaches that Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics are Christian. People like James White systematically try to go against that teaching. It seems that white would love it if Catholics had nothing to do the ETS. That explains (partially at least) why a person like white wouldn’t want a Catholic to have much to do with ETS. The ETS has an abundance of true views that the Catholics can and should hold.

In Him,
Kyl