The Beckwith Chronicles

Francis Beckwith has begun doing interviews on his reversion to the Catholic Church following an extended stay in Evangelicalism, which included a stint as the president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

He has yet to do an interview in a major radio or TV Catholic venue (though those are planned), but recently he granted an interview to Greg Koukl of the Evangelical radio program Stand to Reason.

GET THE INTERVIEW (MP3 DOWNLOAD).

I think Frank did very well under difficult conditions. It was mere weeks after his return to the Church, and the environment was more hostile that expected. In fact, he called Greg on the carpet for presenting a more confrontational interview than he understood would be the case, but the two men are friends and this very much showed through, with both seeking to be charitable and balanced with the other.

I thought Greg definitely engaged in "steamroller" tactics at various points (that is, he threw multiple verses at Frank without letting him have a proper chance to respond), but overall the interview was in the service of truth as the participants saw it.

Be sure to check it out.

More later.

Comments

[ThePol]

Interesting PodCast. Given the history both men have, I'm really disapointed with the way Greg handled the interview. Greg definitely engaged in steamroller tactics.

[Matt]

Dr. Beckwith is going to be on the Journey Home in a month or so. I noticed that on the EWTN schedule.

[Kevin]

Jimmy--you should go on this program too.... :)

[Cearnaigh]

Jimmy,

I think an apologist would have been better suited for such a program as the one linked above.

Just my .02

Cearnaigh

[Kyl]

As a Catholic that appreciates Protestant contributions to apologetics, I’ve been listening to Stand to Reason for years. I thought Beckwith gave some great answers even though he only recently became a Catholic. Catholics should model their apologetic organizations after Stand to Reason (we would leave out Koukl’s apparent anti-Catholicism though:-) Jimmy might want to be interviewed on Koukl’s show. STR is very influential and has been heavily influenced by many of the leading Christian apologists in the world. For example, the ideas of J.P. Moreland have had a huge influence on the educational approach of STR. I do have to say that I too was disappointed with the way that Greg Koukl handled the interview. Greg seemed like he was going for points instead of trying to find the truth on the issues.

[Kyl]

(continued)
I would like to add that usually Greg Koukl does a good job. He simply has a difficult time understand Catholicism.

[Kyl]

(continued)
I meant to put: Greg Koukl simply has a difficult time understanding Catholicism.

[Rick]

Koukl just needs to read Catholic teaching and talk to some Catholic apologists. It seems to me that he has some basic misunderstandings of Catholicism. He claims that he became a "follower of Jesus" and thus had to reject Catholicism. This kind of rhetoric is standard anti-Catholicism. Also, his understanding of Catholic teaching on sin is woefully inadequate. I was glad he actually discussed some important issues, but he needs to read a bit.

[Cearnaigh]

Greetings,

It seems that Francis Beckwith and James White are doing some informal intellectual sparring in the comments section of the Stand to Reason blog post titled: Where did we get the Bible?

White is an Protestant apologist, Beckwith is not a Catholic apologist, but seems to have taken up that role...

Here is the link: http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=blog_iframe

It's been interesting so far.

Cearnaigh

[Barbara]

Greg seemed like he was going for points instead of trying to find the truth on the issues.

Whether it's radio or television, that's what they all do. It's part of the nature of the beast. In fact in television, at least, there is a director speaking into the earpiece of the interviewer, instructing him/her when to 'heat it up a bit', 'get confrontational', etc.

[Esau]

He has yet to do an interview in a major radio or TV Catholic venue (though those are planned)

Jimmy Akin,
You two are friends, right?

Why not have him as guest on Catholic Answers Live?

[Tex]

I'm listening to it now...it would be a great interview if the host would stop inturrupting, engage himself in Christian humility, and try to learn something rather than just keep boxing him in with cherry-picked verses.

[Paul]

Beckwith, on "Right Reason", has mentioned a future radio interview with Catholic Answers Live.

http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/07/my_inbox_runnet.html#more

[Kyl]

Easu writes, “Why not have him [Francis Beckwith] as guest on Catholic Answers Live?” It would be great if Beckwith did that!!!

[Kyl]

If I’m correct about this, Beckwith is going to be talking about his new pro-life book Defending Life
A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521691354
on the Stand to Reason show (Greg Koukl’s show) next week. It should be great.

[rusty]

The first thing that occurred to me is that the host presented the Protestant view on salvation as some sort of unified whole. I'm sure that all the Protestants who do aren't Reformed or hold to a OSAS view would find this surprising.

[Steve Camp]

This interview was terribly embarrassing for Dr. Beckwith. It was painful listening to him stutter about what he believes. He couldn't answer the most basic of questions from the Word of God about his beliefs and reversion to Rome (i.e. was unsure of where certain obvious passages in Scripture were located); and then Dr. B got a bit defensive at Greg for asking him simple and legitimate questions, claiming "bad form" that Greg was debating him rather than letting him just "share his story."

Maybe Frank would be more comfortable being interviewed by Spencer Burke at the OOZE or dialoguing with McLaren at the Emergent Village.

This was very sad. He failed to speak biblically; and didn't speak according to Tridentine claims. I actually felt compassion for Francis. Greg was brilliant AND gracious.

If one is going to defect from Protestant Biblical Christianity to Romanism, one should know why and biblically give an account for such actions... That is reasonable expectation don't you think?

Sola fide,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7

[Esau]

Greg was brilliant AND gracious.

Yeah -- he was a gracious and brilliant as Walter Martin was to Fr. Pacwa back in the days when Fr. Pacwa came on his program!

Talk about resorting to sorry tactics!

[Esau]

If one is going to defect from Protestant Biblical Christianity to Romanism, one should know why and biblically give an account for such actions... That is reasonable expectation don't you think?

By the way, Steve, what's so "biblical" about Protestant Christianity as compared with so-called "Romanism"?

Also, you seemed to have overlooked Dr. Beckwith's post on Right Reason concerning his conversion to Catholicism.

[Tim J.]

"If one is going to defect from Protestant Biblical Christianity to Romanism, one should know why and biblically give an account for such actions... That is reasonable expectation don't you think?"

No.

One only need "biblically give an account" if one is of the opinion that the Bible is the ONLY source of Truth for Christians, which Catholics (and therefore Dr. Beckwith) reject.

Dr. Beckwith may give any defense he likes, and he need not concern himself with conforming to the cramped and artificial Protestant Sola Scriptura viewpoint. In short, if you don't think that considerations of history and reason really count, that is your problem.

There is nothing in the Catholic faith contrary to the scriptures, but there are aspects of it not found explicitly in scripture. How does one give a Biblical account of an extra-Biblical truth?

As for not knowing chapter-and-verse where some passage may be found, are you of the opinion that this means we may ignore the evidence of that passage? Interesting. That does sound more like a game than a pursuit of truth.

[Bern]

Steve Camp -

As Beckwith made clear, he wasn't expecting or prepared for a quickfire debate. Of course he knows why he "defected to Romanism" as you put it (is it really necessary to use such offensive terms?) and has explained eloquently elsewhere. Not that he has to explain himself to anyone anyway.

[SDG]

If one is going to defect from Protestant Biblical Christianity to Romanism, one should know why and biblically give an account for such actions... That is reasonable expectation don't you think?

This coming from a man -- Steve Camp -- whose own attitude toward Catholic teaching is strikingly similar in spirit to Richard Dawkins' impatient contempt toward Christian theology: He treats it as a non-subject that one need not bother understanding before condemning.

The anti-Catholic bombast on Steve's blog is of the type founded entirely on historic armchair polemics with no openness to living dialogue with a lived faith. He pits isolated quotes from Trent and other older sources against isolated quotes from the Catechism and other newer sources, with no interest in any effort to understand the comprehensive teaching that subsumes them both. He condemns JP2 to "perdition" for rejecting "the gospel," but shows no familiarity with, e.g., the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification.

I used to listen to your music, Steve, back in my Evangelical Protestant days, before I realized that my Protestant Bible teachers were wrong about the Bible and the Catholic Church is right. My wife met you back in her college days, when she was involved in Love in Action. There's a photo of you somewhere in our house. I can think of a song or two of yours I still like. It makes me sad that your witness is marred by ignorance and hostility to the Body of Christ subsisting in the Catholic Church.

[Kevin]

Mr Camp,

I am afraid that you are misunderstanding what went on.

Dr. Beckwith understood that he was there to share his story...not for a debate.

Greg did not give him the chance to respond many times//

It was not an apologetics show....it was not his purpose then and he did not have the time in all cases to respond--only short snipits.

By the way "Romanism" is an anti-catholic slur -- please use better language...

To be consistent you could use "Catholic Biblical Christianity" if you like --for that is at least true and a nicer way to address your brothers in Christ.

Kevin

[Esau]

As many seemed to have alluded to already, it seemed more like an "ambush" rather than the planned interview Dr. Beckwith was originally expecting.

[Kyl]

Steve Camp writes, “This interview was terribly embarrassing for Dr. Beckwith. It was painful listening to him stutter about what he believes. He couldn't answer the most basic of questions from the Word of God about his beliefs and reversion to Rome” Camp’s words are flat out false. Dr. Beckwith did very well in the interview. Since Beckwith is a new Catholic he was hesitant, but Beckwith arguments were better than Koukl’s. Beckwith’s arguments were powerful, convincing, filled with history and profound insight. Beckwith’s hesitant speaking is not a major problem. Dr. Beckwith is doing great things to bring Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy together in very important ways. Steve Camp is flat out incorrect about this. Beckwith is just beginning to great things. The Koukl Interview is the start of those great things. Steve should read some more books on apologetics. If he reads some Norman Geisler, he might learn that his views are embarrassingly incorrect. It is sad that people have to listen to Camp’s embarrassing and incorrect views. Try refuting secular humanism, Steve. You would be doing something beneficial. I will pray for you.

In Him,
Kyl

[Mary Kay]

Tim J - Bravo!
(That's as far as I've read so far, just wanted to make sure I didn't forget to say that.)

[Jimmy Akin]

FYI, y'all, Frank Beckwith is scheduled to be on Catholic Answers Live September 5th.

Tune in or download!

[Cearnaigh]

Steve,

I want to be fair, but...

You write:
"If one is going to defect from Protestant Biblical Christianity to Romanism, one should know why and biblically give an account for such actions... That is reasonable expectation don't you think?"

The way you posed this question betrays the obvious fact that you think a "biblical account" of such a "defection" from "Protestant ***biblical Christianity***" to "Romanism" is (by definition, it seems) impossible.

It just seems a bit disingenuous to me, but... I am open to correction.

Cearnaigh

[Marcel LeJeune]

My perception is that Koukl is doing what his listener's would expect him to do - prove Beckwith and in turn, Catholicism, wrong. But, Beckwith was very charitable in trying to make sure that he was not necessarily trying to prove Koukl wrong, but rather defend his belief as rational and Biblical. So, with two different goals there is undoubtedly going to be some friction.

I also believe both were more apt to take a few liberties, because they are friends and sincerely desire to speak the truth to one another. Think of it as listening in to a conversation between two friends who are having some disagreements. They are both attempting to be charitable, but sometimes it comes across a little harsher than they intend.

[Tim]

Jimmy Akin wrote: "he threw multiple verses at Frank without letting him have a proper chance to respond"

What do you mean when you say that Greg didn't let Frank have a proper chance to respond? What did Greg do to interfere with Frank's ability to respond? Did he interrupt? Did he change topics without letting Frank respond to something?

I was my understanding that Frank wasn't prepared to answer some of the questions/arguments. And I understand that was somewhat due to the misunderstanding between the two about the nature of the interview--he wasn't expecting it. OK. But as far as I could see, Greg didn't cut short any of his answers.

[rusty]

The host was consistently interrupting Dr. Beckwith. And, he was consistent in assuming the clarity of his own position while neglecting the fact that Dr. Beckwith assumes the same clarity for the position he holds. Dr. Beckwith was far more charitable than I would have been in a similar circumstance. I know the Bible fairly well, and if I were Beckwith, it would have devolved into a Biblical verse death-match. Winner take all. However, I admire Dr. Beckwith for avoiding that type of non-productive conversation - no matter how often the host wished to overwhelm him with the "clear" scripture.

[Barbara]

Since Dr. Beckwith is a philosopher, why would he even be expected to rely on sola scriptura?

[Esau]

FYI, y'all, Frank Beckwith is scheduled to be on Catholic Answers Live September 5th.

Hopefully, Jimmy Akin will be conducting the interview.

Tim J - Bravo!

Is this surprising?

Actually, I enjoyed SDG's response as well; although, I have noticed that SDG has become rather eloquent in his latest comments on the blog.

Still waiting for his post though on his special Washington D.C. visit...

[Eric]

Steve camp,

What truely ius embarrassing is your music.

[SDG]

Esau: When was I not eloquent? ;)

Eric: Do not return evil for evil, but overcome evil with good. Just a thought.

[bill912]

I noticed that Steve Camp signed his post "Sole Fide", a doctrine which is specifically condemned in the Bible (James 2:24). Ah, the irony!

[M Burke]

Let me see if I understand the Catholic's position on this...

The former president of the ETS, a man with doctorates and masters degrees is going on a Protestant apologetics program called "STANDS TO REASON" with an apologist and yet the Protestant is wrong for expecting the man to have his facts straight regarding Catholic doctrine and the reasons for his conversion?

As for Steve's sign-off message, Protestants do not deny what James 2:24 states, in the context of the rest of James and the rest of Scripture. Unless of course context is unimportant...

[Rick]

Steve Camp,

As others have asked here, be at least polite in your rhetoric. Why use the offensive term "Romanism?" It is like using the n-word in front of an African American. It is a slur.

In the interview (as I posted previously) Koukl said that he left the Church when he became a "follower of Jesus." This implies that Catholics are not followers of Jesus. Such rhetoric is unfortunate and leads to anger and hatred. I could call all protestants "heretics" but what good would that do? It seems to me that honest rational discourse starts when we accept that the other party is seeking truth and refuse to call them names even when we disagree vehemently with their beliefs.

[bill912]

Glad to hear you don't believe in Sola Fide.

[Esau]

The former president of the ETS, a man with doctorates and masters degrees is going on a Protestant apologetics program called "STANDS TO REASON" with an apologist and yet the Protestant is wrong for expecting the man to have his facts straight regarding Catholic doctrine and the reasons for his conversion?

M Burke:

People convert to Catholicism for a whole variety of reasons.

You cannot assume that just because Dr. Beckwith was not able to come up with a verse-by-verse defense for his conversion doesn't make it any less meaningful or valid.

Also, just because he may not have been unable to recite such verses at that moment where he may have felt undue pressure does not actually prove that such verses are, in fact, non-existent.

For example, have an avid apologist like Tim Staples up there, and you'll have a guy that will practically "machine-gun" biblical verses to you by the magazine!

To reiterate, people convert to Catholicism by taking different roads and through various means.

This may or may not include a verse-by-verse scriptural examination of Catholicism; although, I, myself, do know of those who have and, by so doing, converted to Catholicism.

[Mark]

If you haven't looked at the thread on "When Did We Get the Bible?" at http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=blog_iframe you are missing something. James White has taken the occasion to stalk Francis Beckwith - with elbows flying he takes shots at everyone from ; he manages to question the integrity of everyone from Tim Staples to James Akin and Karl Keating. Francis shows, however, that he can dish it out as well and he manages to ensnare Mr. White quite artfully.

I'm still hoping to see one of the heavy hitters make a full reply to the jerk from CNN, Nobody Martin, who insulted the Holy Father ...

[Tim]

Rick: "Koukl said that he left the Church when he became a "follower of Jesus." This implies that Catholics are not followers of Jesus."

Actually, even as you paraphrase his comment, it does not imply what you say. It implies that it is possible to be a Catholic but not a follower of Jesus--and I would be surprised if you had a problem with that proposition. And in the context of the rest of Greg's comments, it implies that he has significant problems with the gospel as taught by the Roman Catholic Church. (But he argues that explicitly.)

However, I believe you're mischaracterizing what he said. I can't check the sound file at the moment to be sure, but IIRC, he was raised Roman Catholic, left the church, spent time as an atheist, and then later became a follower of Jesus.

[Charley]

Even those who do convert based on the early church fathers or on a "verse-by verse scriptural examination of Catholicism" may not be able to pull citations out of their hat. The conversion process takes so much time, and covers so much ground, that the individual is more likely to remember big moments (discovering bishops in the ancient Church, seeing the Euchurist in scripture, etc...) then he will specific verses.

I am a little surprised, however, that a Catholic - to high level Protestant - then back to Catholic would not have a strong "biblical" defense of Catholicism at the ready. After all, the typical Catholic to Protestant conversion is mainly based on scripture (i.e. where is that in the Bible?). One would think that the correction of those misunderstands played a very significant, and thus, rememberable role in his conversion back to Catholicism.

[Charley]

Correction: One would think that the correction of those misunderstand[ings regarding scripture] played a very significant, and thus, rememberable role in his conversion back to Catholicism.

[Mary]

cramped and artificial Protestant Sola Scriptura viewpoint.

You forgot the most important issue: the Protestant Sola Scriptura viewpoint is not only cramped and artificial, it is unbiblical.

[Esau]

Charley:

I can see from where you're coming from why you might harbor such an opinion.

But based on the many conversions I've heard of and even witnessed, each convert's journey to the Catholic Faith is rather unique even though there may be some common variables that may link their conversions along the way.

For example, if you watch "The Journey Home", you'll find there are those converts that are far more adept at handling scripture-based questions from the audience than others regarding the Conversion to the Faith.

Although, I gotta admit, your quandary concerning Dr. Beckwith may well indeed be a valid one; yet, it doesn't erase the fact that his conversion is nonetheless valid and, to him, a journey so meaningful that he actually did convert to Catholicism.

[Servetus]

Boy...

I think James White is going to blow a gasket in a fit of furry!!!

Is funny how Dr. B was smart enough to be elected president of the ETS, since he became Catholic...well he is just a philosopher he is not really a theologian...I wander how many scholarly papers Mr White had ever published by refereed theological publications (I'm talking about serious publications not mom and pop magazines like CRI's)

I particularly like this quote from a fellow "Christian"

"I could never call a man a "friend" who was leading others to trust in a false hope, leading others away from the truth in Christ. Pretending to confess the truth of the gospel, and then denying that confession, has lasting results."

I guess that to him the only good Catholics are, converted Catholics...or perhaps dead ones...

Servetus

[t6574]

"defected to Romanism" as you put it (is it really necessary to use such offensive terms?)

How about "popery"? :)

[Greg Mockeridge]

I think the best characterization of the interview comes from Dr. Beckwith himself:

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/08/when-did-we-get.html

"I do want to thank Greg and Melinda for having me on as a guest. I will confess that my performance was less than stellar, largely because I was prepared for one sort of interview and received another. That is not Greg's or Melinda's fault. They both are good souls with pure motives, and I love them very much. It is my fault. For I had traveled quite a distance in the past several years, from Protestantism to Catholicism, not realizing that some of my friends were not on the same journey. So, for me, what seemed like a small trek in late April was the conclusion of a spiritual jog that had begun, inadvertently, many years prior. Thus, I saw my friends as only an arms length away, when in fact the distance was greater. And yet, we are so close; so close in fact that we can bridge the distance by our mutual affection and love for Christ, something that theological disputation may not ever be able to bridge this side of heaven.

God bless Stand To Reason."

[Rick]

Tim,
You are correct... it is a logical possibility. But fundamentalist Protestants use that kind of rhetoric all the time to imply that Catholics are not Christians. (I know many Protestants who are not followers of Christ either. But I would not tell someone: "After I left the Baptist 'church' at the age of 16, I became a follower of Christ." To say such a thing would imply that the Baptists are not Christians.) In addition, Koukl kept refering to the "Roman Catholic Church" instead of the Catholic Church (a more accurate term). It seemed that his presentation was tinged with stereotypical evangelical slurs.

Tim, I admit, I may be wrong on this. I have a distinct aversion to evangelicals. My father was one. He converted to Catholicism and his family promptly disowned him....I have personal baggage here.

[Zemi]

I've liked Greg's work very much. I'm about to listen to this right away. Jimmy - you take Greg for a two hour interview to CA Live! Really! What would you say? :)

[Perry Robinson]

To be fair, I think Beckwith could have done better. In fact, I think he could have done quite a bit better. He could have talked about how the question isn’t imputation per se, but the ground of imputation. Or he could have called Greg on some of his obvious goofs, not the least of which was implying that sola fide implies that no future repentance is necessary. Greg seriously misrepresented the Reformation tradition on that score. Beckwith could have simply said that since Purgatory is the application of the grace of Christ it in no way detracts from Christ as the first and primary ground of our salvation. He could have also stated that while it may be a theological development, so too by the same token in sola fide since that doctrine depended on late medieval scholastic Nominalism as a necessary precondition. This is why the notion of faith as the formal cause of justification doesn’t appear until that period. Or he could have spoken about say 2nd Pet 2:1 and other apostasy passages that prima facia indicate that redemption and grace was for some who are lost. I mean Greg’s reading of James 2 was weak. Works can’t be the evidence of a genuine faith, (Paul indicates that one can have genuine faith without love (1 Cor 13) since the analogy is soul:body, works:faith-just as the soul makes faith alive, so too works make faith alive. Greg had the causal relation backwards.

I mean really Mr. Camp, do you understand the philosophical Nominalism that grounds the notion of imputation? Do you know what a formal cause is? Do you recognize your own pre-lapsarian anthropology as Pelagian for taking righteousness to be intrinsic to nature? I doubt it. And, are we going to hold most Protestant converts to the same standard? Do most people who leave Rome really grasp the reasons for doing so? No, not really. Koukl was at the brilliant age of 16 when he left. Did he investigate Roman theology? I mean have you spent any serious time in Augustine or Aquinas or Scotus? Don’t think I am some Romaphile. I am Orthodox and I have my own beef with Rome but I have a hard time thinking you meet your own standards.

[Stu]

I read with interest the comments by "Steve" who said that Beckwith could not speak Biblically. I did not hear the interview, but I am sure that is just another attempt to make him look bad for returning to Rome. I can tell Steve that I can defend my decision to convert to Catholicism from the Bible. I would welcome his email. The Bible supports the Catholic Church. You just have to read it, which a lot of those who dislike the Catholic Church do not do. Steve?

[francis 03]

I got the impression that Dr. Beckwith didn't want to (and as he mentioned, wasn't prepared to) have to say explicitly that Catholics and Evangelicals disagree on specific issues. That's completely understandable, but it made the interview a little confusing. I'm sure that has to be chalked up to the miscommunication about the format.

[PhilVaz]

I'm not sure Steve Camp even listened to the whole interview. Beckwith may have started off a little slow, but the discussion picked up near the end and Beckwith did just fine overall.

To see what kind of arguments Koukl has against Catholicism, see his two statements from his recent 06-17-2007 show:

"There was no Roman Catholic Church until about 350 AD" and "Just read the Book of Acts" and "Any follower of Jesus Christ (evangelicals) can easily claim those first 400 years as their spiritual forebear." Hello?

Bishops, a ministerial priesthood, apostolic succession, infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, Eucharist Real Presence and sacrifice, penance and confession and sacraments, Theotokos and explicit Mariology, prayers for the dead, prayers with/to the saints, a visible, hierarchical, one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church centered with a primacy in Rome all shows up clearly in the first 400 years. Koukl needs to read more than J.P. Moreland. JND Kelly Early Christian Doctrines would be a start.

Phil P

[Kyl]

PhilVaz,

Thanks for your insightful comment, PhilVaz. You gave great information and you seem to be very informed on the issues of contempory apologetics. Although I haven’t looked very closely at the webpage that appears to be yours, I’m going to look at it more. The aforementioned page seems to be a great compilation of the very best apologetic work. I was doing volunteer work for apollos.ws and I found that gigantic collection of William Lane Craig debates on what seems to be your page. I had apollos.ws link the debates and there are now many, many more people that are able to listen/look to one of the finest Christian apologists in the world debate (William Lane Craig). You seem to do an outstanding job teaching the general apologetics of people like William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Francis Beckwith, Gary Habermas, Scott Rae, Alvin Plantinga, Scott Rae, etc. You seem to be an articulate Catholic apologist.

In Him,
Kyl

[Paijo]

Hi guys,
Have any of you seen this http://www.bereanbeacon.org/? Any discussion on this site here that you can point me to?

[PhilVaz]

Thanks for the comments Kyl. I really should ask permission when I find these MP3's on the web, but apparently William Lane Craig doesn't mind since his webmaster (www.WilliamLaneCraig.com) took my version of some of his debates which I ripped from Real Audio/Video files and put them on his own media page. So yeah, I only put up the best. I would even put up some James White debates but they won't let me. :-)

You can hear the calls to Koukl I am talking about leading up to the Beckwith interview on my audio page.

Phil P

[Kyl]

Phil P,

Frank Beckwith interviewed by Greg Koukl on "Stand to Reason" 2007 MP3 (see www.STR.org) Is that the one you are talking about? What calls? Who is in the call you are talking about?

Kyl

[PhilVaz]

"Is that the one you are talking about? What calls? Who is in the call you are talking about?"

I added 3 calls from Koukl's previous shows. (1) A call from a lady asking about Beckwith and talking about "bowing down to idols"; (2) a call asking Koukl how he responds to "We were here first" referring to Catholics, Koukl's response was "Just read the book of Acts" and "the first Church was in Jerusalem not Rome" and the absolute zinger "the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist until long after 350 AD"; (3) another call asking about Beckwith's conversion.

Call (1) was from the Koukl program in early May 2007 shortly after Beckwith's initial blog post on his reversion, Call (2) and (3) from the 6/17/2007 Koukl program I mentioned. Then I include the interview from Aug 2007.

So I strung together these calls, then added the Beckwith Interview on my audio page as one MP3. I lowered the quality but might improve it.

Phil P

[Churchmouse]

I hear ya' Steve. Listening to the program I agree, it seems Beckwith was thoroughly unprepared to handle this type of an interview. If the folks here would just "listen" without the bias, I'm sure they would see the obvious. Hey, on another note, this may seem a little cryptic to others: I loved the compilation I purchased about 10 years ago, but the powers that be didn't include "Only the Very Best." Needless to say, I was bummed.

Sola Fide,
CM

[ThePol]

After reading the comments posted on the Stand To Reason blog and listening to the 2 hr show, I have to say that I am incredibly impressed by Frank's humility. It’s clear that he has a deep and thoughtful faith.

[bill912]

If Churchmouse would just read the comments here before accusing others of "bias", I'm sure he would have seen the obvious, and not embarassed himself by signing off with "Sola Fide".

[bill912]

"...it seems Beckwith was thoroughly unprepared to handle this type of interview."

As has been pointed out above, Beckwith had been led to believe that the interview was going to be of a different type.

Reading, again.

[Sola Sola]

Beckwith had been led to believe that the interview was going to be of a different type.

"Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season" and "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."

[bill912]

And your point is?

[Steve Camp]

Jimmy:

Thanks for the dialogue here.

To begin, one personal question for you: are you into country music? Living in Nashville I have several friends in the CMA; and I only mention that because your picture here looks like you're trying to shop for a country record deal? The Catholic Cowboy? Jimmy A and The Papal Review? Benny and the Tetz? First single: My Akin, Breakin’ Heart? Just curious. :-).

Biblical Christianity is not commiserate with Romanism (that is not a slur, but an accurate label). When Rome denies the sufficiency of Christ's once for all propitiatory sacrifice; imputed righteousness; justification by faith alone; the veracity and absolute authority of the Word of God, etc. and has not repudiated additions to the Scriptures or the gospel by asserting the false doctrines of: The Fifth Marian Dogma, the Mass; the Treasury of Merit, Purgatory, the sacrament of penance, prayers to the dead, the Immaculate Conception, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, etc., then your theological claim to being orthodox and consistent with biblical Christianity is false and will in fact sound like a bad country song.

Tradition over truth... easy to understand, but damnable to its listeners (Matt. 15:6-9).

I will give Benedict his props though, is he unashamedly Romanist and consistent with the heretical convictions of Tridentine doctrine. The Pope understands we are not the same. He even understands we can't be a part of the same church. He, unlike others, actually drew some lines in the sand and I for one appreciate it. Though he preaches a false gospel; pastors a false church; and occupies a false office - at least he's forthright about it and is not the politician John Paul was.

Romanism is not Pelagian; but clearly semi-Pelagian: grace + merit; faith + works; Christ + Rome. "Bend it Like Beckwith" clearly demonstrated that in his interview--though not articulate on explaining either Roman doctrine or biblical truth (because he is more philosopher than theologian) he stumbled his way through. And yes, I listened to it all... twice.

When Rome so prostitutes the gospel of grace by faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, I would think that many of you here would investigate that perversion. This is serious—we’re talking about the gospel and your eternal salvation (Gal. 1:6-9; Roms. 3:21-26).

This discussion is simple and here is my challenge to you: define how a Romanist can have peace with God? (using Scritpure alone); define the gospel (using Scripture alone); what does it mean to be saved and what must someone do to be saved (using the Scripture alone); and then defend your doctrines (i.e. The Fifth Marian Dogma; purgatory; the Mass; penance; the Treasury of Merit; etc.) (using Scripture alone).

“Eggs Benedict” has made his claims and still upholds Trent---but go to the Word of God and examine carefully Rome's convictions. I say this not condescendingly, but in my dialogue with Romanists, I find that most have never done so or even bothered to read Trent, VI or VII or the 1994 Catechism. I.e.: The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church declares: "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls." (Pg. 29, #95)

It is a sincere request.

Jimmy--country music awaits you.

[Jim]

Frank Beckwith come across as a man of faith and I can tell he is a humble person. Unlike James White and Steve Camp who are captive to their reformed tradition of catholic bashing, Beckwith is a true gentleman. Now this White chracter is going to focus his hated on Beckwith.

[Thomas Aquinas]

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."

Beckwith was indeed prepared to give the reason for his hope--that is, share his narrative and thought processes. Koukl did not allow him to do so, even though he had invited Beckwith to be on the show to do precisely that. That's what we call "bait and switch," which means that Koukl did not obey the second half of the verse you failed to publish above: "But do this with gentleness and respect."

[Mr. Flapatap]

Jesus founded a Church. He did not write a book.

[bill912]

Here's another serious request: Learn what the Catholic Church (not the Roman Catholic Church, as the Roman Catholic Church is one of 22 Churches that make up the Catholic Church) actually teaches, instead of condemning the Straw Man Church you have been taught to call "The Roman Catholic Church".

"Romanism" IS a slur. As has been pointed out above, it is the equivalent of certain racial slurs.

[Bend It Back]

Beckwith was indeed prepared to give the reason for his hope... Koukl did not obey the second half of the verse you failed to publish above: "But do this with gentleness and respect."

According to Beckwith, "I will confess that my performance was less than stellar, largely because I was prepared for one sort of interview and received another. That is not Greg's or Melinda's fault. They both are good souls with pure motives, and I love them very much. It is my fault."

[bill912]

"Rome denies":

1)"the sufficiency of Christ's once for all propitiary sacrifice". We don't.

2)"imputed righteousless". Correct. We are made truly righteous, not just given a paint job.

3)"justification by faith alone". Correct. To repeat my above comment to your post of yesterday: The Bible specifically condemns the dictrine of Sola Fide(James 2:24)

4)"the veracity and absolute authority of the Word of God"(by which, I assume you mean the Bible). We do accept the veracity of sacred scripture. It was our Pope and bishops, acting on their Christ-given authority, who determined which books belonged in the Bible and which didn't.

I'll let others correct the rest of your errors.

Jesus Christ will never satisfy the hearts and minds of those He hasn't saved.

[Esau]

Jesus Christ will never satisfy the hearts and minds of those He hasn't saved.

That certainly explains why it was actually the Catholic Church that actually put the Bible together by selecting the books that were to form its New Testament Canon (which Protestants to this day still accept -- ironically enough) and it was also the Catholic Church that practically spread Christianity throughout the world since the very beginning!

Perhaps you and Steve Camp should start reading this wonderful book called the Bible -- in its ENTIRETY, rather than nit-picking verses without understanding their actual context!

[John Henry]

Dude, what a trip! The Steve Camp in a Jimmy Akin comment box. Looks like the countdown to the apocalypse is on.

Stevie baby. First, step back and take a breath. Now. Probably half of the people in this thread became Catholic from a Protestant background, by coming to the conclusion that Romanism was eminently more biblical than whatever flavor of Protestantism they had subscribed to.

You list about a million things we are supposed to respond to prove ourselves legit. I will choose one almost at random:

Rome denies the sufficiency of Christ's once for all propitiatory sacrifice

Actually, not only does the Great Harlot affirm the sufficiency of the sacrifice, she also affirms its "superabundance" (cf. CCC 411).

You've got your panties in such a wad that you can't even see the positions your enemy is holding.

And another, because this is one of my faves:

Romanism is not Pelagian; but clearly semi-Pelagian: grace + merit; faith + works; Christ + Rome.

Romanism is not SP. Here's how I know. Because it was Romanism that done condemned it. Now, stay with me here. SP is not grace + merit and faith + works. The very council that condemned SP (2nd Orange) affirms both merit and the necessity of works for salvation. SP denied the necessity of grace, period. Which Romanism does not do.

I will say, however, that your candor is refreshing.

[A Simple Sinner]

Matt, you are right. Dr. Beckwith is scheduled to be on "The Journey Home" Sept 24. 2007.

[John Henry]

what must someone do to be saved

In response to the grace of Jesus Christ:

1) Repent (Acts 2:38)
2) Turn in faith to Jesus Christ (Romans 3:28)
3) Be baptized (1 Peter 3:21; Acts 22:16)
4) Work out your salvation (Phil 2:12) with the works God has prepared beforehand (Eph 2:10)

Under part 4, several things could be said:

4a) Receive the bread of life (John 6:53)
4b) If we sin, confess them (1 John 1:9)
4c) If we sin mortally (1 John 5:16), confess them to the successors of the apostles (John 20:23)
4d) Do justifying good works (James 2:24)
4e) Help those in need (Matthew 25:32-46)
4f) Keep the commandments (John 14:15)
4g) Etc

Steps 1 and 2 may be inverted. Steps 4a through 4f may vary depending on the individual.

But I am sure I have completely misinterpreted those verses. Right?

[Churchmouse]

One other thing: Why is it that someone like Beckwith is but a footnote amongst the Catholics (he may have been cited or alluded to in some Catholic publication or whatnot, the majority of Catholics completely oblivious as to who he is), but the moment someone of his stature reverts, all of a sudden, everyone knows who he is, he's a great, humble guy, and an astute scholar and everyone has something to say about him. I just don't get it???

[Esau]

Churchmouse:

Do you read anything Catholic?

If you did, you would certainly see how Catholic Theologians, such as even Cardinal Ratzinger himself, refers to the works of various Protestant biblical scholars in his own works.

Of course, I doubt that you actually read such products of the Harlot of Babylon, or whatever else the Catholic Church is (has been) called.

[Tim J.]

"Jesus Christ will never satisfy the hearts and minds of those He hasn't saved."

I'm sorry, I can't find that verse in my Bible. Can you help me out? I'm just an ignorant Catholic.

While you're at it , please find me the verse that states the Bible is the "absolute authority", or even what the Bible IS.

Similarly, I can't find the passages that give the Four Spiritual Laws and the Sinner's Prayer. Boy, am I embarressed...

[Tim J.]

Sorry... "embarrassed".

[bill912]

"How embarraskin!"

[Tim J.]

Guess I fergot to eats me spinach... Ugg-ugg-ugg-ugg...!

[Angelz]

Yep, pretty much.

[Angelz]

Simple Sinner:

“Justification cannot come through the law (see Gal. 2:21; Acts 13:38-39). Each of us-every single human being (see Rom. 3:10-12, 19-20)-has failed to do what God's law requires of us (Gal. 3:10; 6:13; cf. James 2:10). But to understand what God requires, we must see what Christ provides. In his mercy, God has provided his Son as a twofold substitute for us. Both facets of Christ's substitution are crucial for our becoming right with God. These facets are grounded in the twin facts that (1) we have failed to keep God's law perfectly, and so we should die; but (2) Jesus did not fail—he alone has kept God's law perfectly (see Heb. 4:15) —and so he should not have died. Yet in his mercy God has provided in Christ a great substitution—a "blessed exchange"—according to which Jesus can stand in for us with God, offering his perfect righteousness in place of our failure and his own life's blood in place of ours. When we receive the mercy God offers us in Christ by faith (see Acts 16:31; 1 Tim. 1:15-16; 1 Pet. 1:8-9), his perfection is imputed—or credited or reckoned—to us and our sinful failure is imputed—or credited or reckoned—to him. And thus Jesus' undeserved death pays for our sin (see Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:5-6; Rev. 5:9); and God's demand for us to be perfectly righteous is satisfied by the imputation or crediting of Christ's perfect righteousness to us. "If justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose" (Gal. 2:21). But "God has done what the law ... could not do" (Rom. 8:3)

Have a happy.

[Esau]

"Jesus Christ will never satisfy the hearts and minds of those He hasn't saved."

I'm sorry, I can't find that verse in my Bible. Can you help me out? I'm just an ignorant Catholic.

While you're at it , please find me the verse that states the Bible is the "absolute authority", or even what the Bible IS.

Similarly, I can't find the passages that give the Four Spiritual Laws and the Sinner's Prayer. Boy, am I embarressed...

Posted by: Tim J. | Aug 8, 2007 10:33:16 AM

As usual, Tim J. nails it!

[Smurf Breath]

And your point is?
Posted by: bill912 | Aug 8, 2007 7:28:06 AM

I think the point is you're evading whether Beckwith was thoroughly unprepared for an interview, or thoroughly unable to explain why he reconverted. Are you able to articulate any standards by which you would judge between the two situations, or are you just determine to engage in spin doctoring no matter what the truth is?

[bill912]

I don't think that was his point. He didn't mention me, or evasion, or spin doctoring.

[Churchmouse]

Churchmouse:

Do you read anything Catholic?

Sure did, do, and done, considering I was a Catholic for the first 24 years of my life. I still keep up with the changing face of the Church.

If you did, you would certainly see how Catholic Theologians, such as even Cardinal Ratzinger himself, refers to the works of various Protestant biblical scholars in his own works.

I have no way of knowing if Ratzinger ever referenced Beckwith or even if he knows who Beckwith is. I heard the guy was infallible in matters of faith and morals, I just didn't know that omniscience came with the territory :) Anyway, the point I was making is directly regarding those on forums/boards such as these. Do I believe that the Catholics here were familiar with Beckwith prior to his reversion. Uhuh.

Of course, I doubt that you actually read such products of the Harlot of Babylon, or whatever else the Catholic Church is (has been) called.

oooh...you must be one of those guys who thinks every non-Catholic responder harbors Chick-ian traits. Rest assured. I read quite a bit of stuff, Catholic and Protestant, and have never associated Rome with the "Harlot." You shouldn't be so "hair-triggered."

[Esau]

oooh...you must be one of those guys who thinks every non-Catholic responder harbors Chick-ian traits.

Not really -- just getting a feel for who you are.

If that were actually the case, I would hardly spend my time reading Protestant commentaries and such.

I have no way of knowing if Ratzinger ever referenced Beckwith or even if he knows who Beckwith is. I heard the guy was infallible in matters of faith and morals, I just didn't know that omniscience came with the territory :)

Not Beckwith per se, but he has referrenced certain Protestant bibilical scholars in his works.

Now, if you find fault with him not having referrenced Beckwith specifically in his work, then you are expecting him to be omniscient in some way that he knows everybody and anyone in the Protestant world.

[John Henry]

“Justification cannot come through the law...etc, etc

Angelz,
I presume you were answering my post, seen as Simple Sinner never said anything related to your post, and his one post was above mine. A Catholic would be able to agree with most of what you said, with a couple of caveats.

Caveat 1) is Catholics understand baptism to actually effect our justification (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27, 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21 etc), repentance and faith being preparations for the actual justification.*

Caveat 2) is that not only are we reckoned righteous, but Catholics understand us to have actually been "made righteous" (Rom 5:19). The declarative word is actually effective.

As for the rest, preach on.

* And yet Paul says we are justified by faith, right? But Catholics would understand him, in this case, not to be laying out a stick diagram of how to "get saved", but rather to be emphasing the necessity of Christ over and against the Mosaic Law. Which happened to be a big deal back in his day.

[Tim J.]

Obviously, Beckwith's conversion makes some people uncomfortable and they would rather not see it being discussed.

[Churchmouse]

Not really -- just getting a feel for who you are.

Huh. I don't get it. You get a "feel" for folks by assuming things about them???

If that were actually the case, I would hardly spend my time reading Protestant commentaries and such.

What does this have to do with anything?

Not Beckwith per se, but he has referrenced certain Protestant bibilical scholars in his works.

But considering the theme of this blogpost is Beckwith, how is this relevant to anything I said. Again, I am talking about Catholics in forums/boards such as this one.

Now, if you find fault with him not having referrenced Beckwith specifically in his work, then you are expecting him to be omniscient in some way that he knows everybody and anyone in the Protestant world.

You're losing me fast, Esau. YOU were the one who brought up Ratzinger, remember. I don't know how any of this is relevant to the thread. My remarks were tongue-in-cheek considering you brought up Ratzinger and, again, considering this is about Beckwith, you strayed off-theme. You surely didn't counteract anything I said. It's true. The Catholics who comment such as this one, more than likely, never heard of Beckwith prior to his reversion, but now he is the bomb-diggety who everyone knows.

[SuzanneG]

I am so sad to hear Steve Camp acting like such an ass. (Can I use that word Jimmy?) The problem with folks like Steve Camp is that they never listen to the answer to their accusations. They have no idea whether or not someone might have something to teach them - they sit back arrogantly content to mock what they do not understand.

My honey is not like this (SDG) This is something I love about him - even as a Protestant, he was never satisfied with the pat Protestant accusations. He was a seeker and a lover of truth. He did not name-call. He took people seriously. He respected them. He listened to their answers. He remains this way. So does Jimmy. Both of them could clobber their theological opponents with 3/4 of their brain behind their backs. But they are filled with charity, because they love Truth more than they love looking like they are clever.

Steve Camp can make fun of Catholics all he likes, but he does not have the courage to listen with any degree of intellectual humility. It makes me sad.

[Esau]

The Catholics who comment such as this one, more than likely, never heard of Beckwith prior to his reversion, but now he is the bomb-diggety who everyone knows.

In other words, you're expecting Catholics to be "omniscient" in the manner you had already alluded to previously in that they're expected to know everybody that is anyone in the Protestant world?

Do you know everybody that's anybody in the Catholic world?

Huh. I don't get it. You get a "feel" for folks by assuming things about them???

No -- I get a "feel" by how they respond.

[Brian Walden]

One other thing: Why is it that someone like Beckwith is but a footnote amongst the Catholics (he may have been cited or alluded to in some Catholic publication or whatnot, the majority of Catholics completely oblivious as to who he is), but the moment someone of his stature reverts, all of a sudden, everyone knows who he is, he's a great, humble guy, and an astute scholar and everyone has something to say about him. I just don't get it???

I think I read that Mr. Beckwith was known in the pro-life community, which contains many Catholics. I think the reason his conversion has been so big in Catholic circles is because the ETS made such a big deal out if it. The only reason everyday Catholics heard about it was because of the din Protestants were making.

So my question in return is: Why is it that someone like Beckwith is but a footnote amongst the Protestants (he may have been cited or alluded to in some ETS publication or whatnot, the majority of Protestants completely are oblivious as to who he is), but the moment someone of his stature reverts, all of a sudden, everyone knows who he is, he's a lost, disoriented guy, and a misguided scholar and everyone has something to say about him. I just don't get it???

[Churchmouse]

Forget it, Esau. You evidently didn't get what I originally said and now are confusing it. It's all gone pass you.

Sola Fide,
CM