Dave,
Check out Jimmy Akin's blog (www.jimmyakin.org). He seems to confirm what...ahem..."Bishop White" is reporting.
James White's post is laughable (but sad) for so many reasons. But to focus on just two, he writes: "The very fact that he was elected as one standing in a particular theological spectrum who, then, abandons that position in a substantive, directly relevant way, would be enough to bring a moral imperative to bear upon him." But Catholics are wrong when they question that happening in the 16th century? and this, "While most sat in stunned silence, I and a friend with me broke into wild applause." I wonder if they had their own little section of election.
I commented on Jimmy Akin's blog:
===============
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.
…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… Now he is in the Church that fully upholds and promulgates the morality that he has been boldly, heroically championing for years.
Amen.
But I wonder what must this fellow must be thinking!
http://thumbsnap.com/v/lt5k8MUo.jpg
Welcome home Dr. Beckwith. “…bring hither the fatted calf…” (Luke 15:23).
If he's in heaven, by God's grace, he's thinking, "man, if only I had come to my senses during my earthly sojourn, how much division and falsehood and misery in Christian circles (and even bloodshed) could have been avoided!"
If he's in hell (God forbid), he would probably think something (Screwtape-like) such as: "this is a terrible victory for the enemy. We will have to bring out every weapon in our arsenal to run down this man as much as possible, and discredit him; anything but reason and truthfulness. Thankfully, our agent James White (who is foolish enough to think he is working for the other side, when he acts like this! What a useful idiot!) has made a good start of the effort already."
Welcome Dr. Beckwith!
Well, if Luther is in heaven, it was indeed by God's grace alone, cause if anyone could claim not to have in any way "merited" heaven by good works, Luther certainly could! 
LOL,
White: I would imagine we will, in time, be provided a fairly full apologia of his decision. At that time it would be highly appropriate to once again provide a biblical response.
I LOVE IT! This one is a KEEPER.
I dont know what is wrong but the irony is so great that I almost have tears in my eyes...I just cant take the insanity of it all! I cant wait to see what White has to say about the eternal security aspects of this apostasy by Beckwith. So apparently it is possible for "true" Christians to turn to Rome...then again Beckwith was proably never saved to begin with .
Oh, and one more thing I cant wait for is the Journey Home on EWTN next Monday. James White's Sister is on it! 
I always thought it odd that someone so committed to a monegistic theory of salvation as James White would be so preoccupied with the reasoning of others who have reached different conclusions on theological matters. I mean if Dr. Beckworth has left Evangelicalism and "turned his back on the Gospel" than obviously God has not willed him to be saved, right? So why worry about his reasons for doing so? Certainly he could never convince those whom God has willed to salvation to follow suit and those who might follow him are hellbound anyway. Of course, perhaps he needs to convince himself that Dr. Beckworth was never really saved in the first place else this would have a detrimental effect on the perserverence of the saints. This is the unspoken weakness of TULIP that its supporters secretly fear - it sounds good as a theory but its clinical sterility simply does not fit with the messy realities of human experience.
Speaking of the messiness of human experience, "than obviously God has not willed him to be saved" should obviously be "then obviously God has not willed him to be saved." Unless of course I was predestined to that error.
Albert:This is the unspoken weakness of TULIP that its supporters secretly fear - it sounds good as a theory but its clinical sterility simply does not fit with the messy realities of human experience.
Thank you, you made my day. This is so funny and yet so sad at the same time. The news today of such a high level Protetstant converting is a call for rejoicing!
The even better news is that this is just the beginning, I truly believe there will be more and more famous conversions in the near future.
The great Bishop White has blessed us all with another post on the subject, entitled (gotta love this) The Roman Moonbats
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?i...php?
itemid=1962
Some highlights (note especially his hilarious "reply" to me, where he has introduced his latest tacks -- about his 17th and 18th by now -- of regarding me as an extremist wacko and "stalker"):
=====================
I'm not sure why anyone would think I would ever be happy about someone abandoning the gospel of grace for the sacramental system of Rome, and obviously, when someone like Frank Beckwith does this, we will be treated once again to repeated illustrations of just how shallow post-evangelicalism is in reference to its commitment to the core truths of the gospel of grace.
. . . Now, moonbat is an interesting phrase. It is generally used to describe the wacko left, but it strikes me as being particularly descriptive of wackos in general, unhinged folks who have no self-control and are utterly controlled by their angry emotions. Most religions have their moonbats. Rome surely does. Off the top of my head, we can list Vinney Lewis, Art Sippo, Dave "the Stalker" Armstrong, and the ever-loquacious Mark Shea.
About four hours after I posted the article on the Beckwith reversion, Armstrong posted a rambling attack on...who else? I think DA was just upset he wasn't "in the know" like Akin. Now, I expect moonbat behavior from DA. His track-record speaks for itself. I mean, bats hang in trees, right?
===================
ROFL!
Most religions have their moonbats.
Ain't that the truth! Take this comment from John Calvin for example:
“All things being at God’s disposal, and the decision of salvation or death belonging to him, he orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born DEVOTED FROM THE WOMB TO CERTAIN DEATH (ab utero certae morti devoti), THAT HIS NAME MAY BE GLORIFIED IN THEIR DESTRUCTION.”
http://books.google.com/books?id...rom+the+womb%
22
http://books.google.com/books?id...morti+devoti%
22
Now that’s what I'd call really BATTY!
Such rejoicing there must be in heaven regarding Dr. Beckwith’s return to the Church. May he be surrounded by our prayers and support. I agree this could be just the beginning of a wave of conversions and homecomings. Praise God!
Kathy
Most religions have their moonbats.
Ain't that the truth! Take this comment from John Calvin for example:
“All things being at God’s disposal, and the decision of salvation or death belonging to him, he orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born DEVOTED FROM THE WOMB TO CERTAIN DEATH (ab utero certae morti devoti), THAT HIS NAME MAY BE GLORIFIED IN THEIR DESTRUCTION.”
http://books.google.com/books?id.....rom+the+womb%
22
http://books.google.com/books?id.....morti+devoti%
22
Now that’s what I'd call really BATTY!
Ben M
__________________________________________________
_______
Ben M.
You forgot the context of Calvin's statement -- the sentence before is a quotation of Proverbs 16:4.
And the principle is combined with Ephesians 1:11, and John 17:12 and John 6:70.
It may seem cruel, and harsh, to most people; but it is not batty, if you mean by “batty”, “crazy”, “illogical”, “weird”, “irrational”, etc. It is not "batty" when one tries to harmonize all the verses together.
Do you agree that God gets glory, even from justly judging unbelievers in hell?
See Revelation 14:10 “anyone who worships the beast . . .”
Will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of His holy angels and in the presence of the lamb.”
“in the presence of the Lamb” ought to cause us to catch our breath in awe.
Albert: This is the unspoken weakness of TULIP that its supporters secretly fear - it sounds good as a theory but its clinical sterility simply does not fit with the messy realities of human experience." Nick
As many Reformed folks have said, "it is unfortunate that we are seen by others as "Only 5 points"; remember those were formulated in response to the 5 points that the followers of Jacob Arminius made. Reformed folks would say, "we have many other points"
"then obviously God has not willed him to be saved." Albert
No good Reformed Calvinist makes this kind of statement or acts toward a person like this as long as they (the persons you are talking about that left Evangelical protestantism, whether it is FB or anyone else) are living. We are not to judge that. We don’t know the hidden mind and mysteries of God. We live in time and space and Reformed folks do pastoral work with passion and emotion; or they all should. To say all Reformed Calvinism is clinical and sterile and without emotion or passion is just false. True, some are tempted to operate that way; but there is lots of healthy internal critique of that bad temptation or tendency, when it occurs.
Yes, on paper, because Calvinists are talking about ultimate and heavenly realities of God's Sovereignty and foreknowledge and His decrees, etc. and if you don't know or experience a balanced Reformed church that is full of love and passion and emotion, and not just intellect, that seeks to apply the principles pastorally and not in a dry, clinical, theoretical manner, to you, and to many, it does seem clinical and impractical, etc.
But proper application of Reformed principles in daily life would never agree to the caricature that you made. No good Calvinist would say, "It was never God’s will that that person would be saved” as long as the person is still living. And even after someone dies, we should all be careful of judging where they went; we simply don’t know.
We also live in the messy realities of human experience; and only God’s Sovereignty calms the mind and heart in the midst of it all. I cannot figure it all out; it is too high for me; I rest in Your wisdom and Sovereignty.” That is sweet and keeps me from going insane. Psalm 131 -- “I do not try to figure everything out and things too wonderful for me”
Dr. Beckwith's first post on his return to the Catholic Church:
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/
a...turn_to_th.html
Ken,
I am fully aware that the Reformed tradition is not as how I described. I was not referring to the Reformed tradition as a whole nor to most Calvinists as a group but rather to a certain group within that tradition who set themselves up as the purity police withn Protestantism and use the 5 points and the solas as their sole determining factors. These folks - generally from the Reformed Baptist side (who are far more Baptist than Reformed) - conveniently overlook Calvin's relatively high sacramental views, his condemnation of anabaptism as a heresy, etc. The folks over at reformedcatholicism.com are far closer in spirit to Calvin and Luther than anything you will liikely find from Mr. White.
Thanks Albert for clarification.
Still, your statement made it look like that all Calvinists seek to determine someone's eternal destiny before they die; and base it on God's eternal decree and foreknowledge and election.
No one is supposed to do that; even if they believe that God ordains some from all the nations to be elected to salvation, and He justly passes over the others not chosen in reprobation.
That is God's business.
Even Reformed Baptists do not do that. I am one, though not in the official "Reformed Baptist" denomination. Many Southern Baptists are seeking to return to the Reformed heritage of its founders. But they are also recognizing the need for a warm, loving, balanced Calvinism, and a healthy pastoral theology and practice that does deal with the mess of every day life.
Dave, two points albeit minor ones...
1) While Dr. White may be an expert on Calvinism, he certainly is not an expert on Chiroptera. Flying fox bats, which live in Africa and Asia are the only ones that hang in trees. The bats that live in North America are cavity dwellers for the most part. They might hide inside a tree but you would not find one hanging from one.
2) More seriously...Why is Dr. White calling you a stalker? Stalking has a specific legal meaning that in most states constitutes a criminal act. Remembering the recent discussion about whether a logo or symbol may be offensive to someone, people may disagree as to whether Chief Wahoo is offensive, but almost all people would agree that falsely impugning a person's character by claiming that person is engaging in criminal behavior is per se offensive not to mention actionable defamation. I sincerely hope Dr. White takes a moment to retract his words or at least clarify what he means by "stalker". It is one thing to criticize a person's viewpoint, regardless of how one feels about it; it is another to suggest that a person is engaging in criminal activity.
If Dr. White is so sure of the validity of his belief he would not exhibit the kind of anger and vitriol that he does. Such anger comes from either fear and/or pride. Even when Jesus called certain Pharisees and others hypocrites or whited selpuchres, he was not doing such merely to insult, but to drive home the point that those folks were violating their own precepts using words that other Pharisees and scribes used themselves in their debates and discussions to call into question a particular teaching by a particular Rabbi or school.
AOMin.org's mission statement, as it were, is: "Our ambition...is to be pleasing to Him" (2 Cor. 5:9) How is it pleasing to Our Lord to slander another person? How does such calumny further the mission of preaching the gospel? What does it say about the kind of person that James White is?
White has a few comments on the student's blog linked in Dr. Beckwith's post.
James White calling someone a "moonbat" is like Rosie O'Donnell calling someone a "conspiracy theorist."
"Moonbat" connotes treating blatantly crazy premises as if they were valid beliefs deserving of rational consideration (IOW, believing conspiracy theories).
Kind of like, say, White's theory that a LIBRARY is part of a secret Romish disinformation campaign. You will note that demanding an investigation of a speculative theory with absolutely no evidence in the face of numerous more reasonable explanation is a tactic also used by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. And that is to say nothing of White's conspiracy theory about the "established church" resisted by Athanasius as the lone advocate of sola scriptura.
The idea that someone with a documented record of believing anti-Catholic conspiracy theories (and historians like George Salmon and Leonard Verduin who scarcely rise above them) would have the chutzpah to call people "moonbats" condemns White about as clearly as anything could. As Dave noted, it's simply part of the pattern of insulating oneself from reality that I documented here:
http://
crimsoncatholic.blogspot....solipsista.html
White checked out of the real world with respect to Catholicism long ago. His own sister (whose "Journey Home" will be televised on EWTN tomorrow) has this opinion, and who would know better? Thank God for the witness of St. Patrick, shining the light of Heaven to dispel the conspiracy theories of her youth! All we can do is pray for a miracle, because the facts are incapable of speaking to a conspiracy theorist. He genuinely thinks his opponents are "unhinged" and "utterly controlled by their angry emotions." But I think most of us, in our more prayerful moments when we put aside our irritation at the crazy things being said, honestly just feel sorry for him, just like we feel sorry for anyone who has been conned into believing something ridiculous.
Great comments. Thanks.
1) While Dr. White may be an expert on Calvinism, he certainly is not an expert on Chiroptera. Flying fox bats, which live in Africa and Asia are the only ones that hang in trees. The bats that live in North America are cavity dwellers for the most part. They might hide inside a tree but you would not find one hanging from one.
ROFL!
Some people may not have been aware that this was a direct reference to a recent portrait of mine where I was sitting in a tree (because my wife and I both love the "bare branches" look, and we got the blue sky in the background, too, which was part of the idea).
Both White and James Swan have gotten a lot of mileage out of making fun of that. Profound apologetics there, isn't it? That's about as close as they get to ever "refuting" anything I write.
2) More seriously...Why is Dr. White calling you a stalker?
I really have no good idea, but the best I can figure (trying to get inside their warped "reasoning") is that I visited his chat room for two days before I was summarily kicked out for no reason. Apparently in White's mind (utterly terrified at the prospect of me leading the sheep astray) this constitutes "stalking." Apart from that it refers, I reckon, to my several recent refutations of his arguments. He sees that as "stalking" I guess. Nothing really makes any sense of such a ludicrous charge but that is my best guess.
Of course, I had ignored him for two years (excepting one lengthy reply), but as soon as I started refuting some of his stuff again he immediately branded me as a stalker, and now a moonbat and who knows what else, and laughed about how I was "up a tree" and so forth.
Doesn't that make perfect sense? I take a picture with some bare tree branches in it, as part of a series of outdoor portraits, and that is proof positive that I am a wacko nut!
Whew . . . pray for this man (my family tries to remember to do so every day when we say grace at dinner). I don't even want to think about the hurt, suffering, obvious emotional insecurities, and spirituality inside of this poor man if this is how he expresses himself outwardly. Like Jesus said, "the tree is known by its fruits."
We all laugh at his manifest folly and (often) sheer silliness but I never cease to realize for even a moment that there is a human being woefully deficient in many things behind all this bluster, in need of a good dose of spiritual renewal (as well as an education in basic biblical theology and Church history).
Correction to "His own sister (whose "Journey Home" will be televised on EWTN tomorrow)": it will be televised Monday May 7.
Paul Hoffer,
You did a great job pointing out the legal meaning of stalker. It is obviously wrong to use that term for Dave.
Ken,
Do you agree that God gets glory, even from justly judging unbelievers in hell?
I think the key word here is "justly." And I suppose this a fundamental point on which we differ. For who determines what is and is not a "just" action of God? Luther? Calvin? Joe's bible church?
Catholics certainly think it neither right nor just that God
"orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that some men are born DEVOTED FROM THE WOMB TO CERTAIN DEATH, THAT HIS NAME MAY BE GLORIFIED IN THEIR DESTRUCTION."
Does this not seem to you utterly irreconcilable with the concept of a God who is infinitely merciful and good?
Why do chose to put your trust in Calvin rather that, let’s say, the Council of Orange (529 A.D.)? Or perhaps you have never heard what this council had to say on this very matter. I ask you to consider the councils words:
"According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. WE NOT ONLY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY ARE FOREORDAINDED TO EVIL BY THE POWER OF GOD, BUT EVEN STATE WITH UTTER ABHORRENCE THAT IF THERE ARE THOSE WHO WANT TO BELIEVE SO EVIL A THING, THEY ARE ANATHEMA.”
http://www.reformed.org/
document..._of_orange.html
I don’t know about you Ken, but I think Dr. Beckwith would now agree this council’s teaching.
Peace.
In response to Ken Temple (5-5-07, 5:17pm)
Ken,
I think you missed what I was getting at. The Once Saved Always Saved understanding of Calvinism ultimately turns around and condemns the very members it was supposed to comfort, that is what I think Albert was saying. This is the "secret fear" we were addressing, the fact that even plain reason can be used to demonstrate Reformed gospel is really not such "good news" at the end of the day.
Ken,
Do you agree that God gets glory, even from justly judging unbelievers in hell?
I think the key word here is "justly." And I suppose this a fundamental point on which we differ. “
We probably would just have to disagree on what is just, if your understanding comes out differently that what I see that the Bible teaches. In our view, which is Biblical, is that God has the sovereign right to judge all of us in hell. Because we are guilty of sin from the start, it is not unjust to send anyone to hell. God out of His great love and mercy saves some from all the nations; and He lets the others, or passes by the others in justice, withholding mercy. That is the definition of justice; and that is the definition of mercy, “withholding that which we deserve”.
Calvin’s wording seems harsh and the style of writing and choice of words is difficult to modern ears. But what he is wresting with are the harder texts of Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 and Proverbs 16:4 and the case of Judas, who according to John 6:70 and 17:12 seems to indicate that this was decided beforehand.
And Romans 9 seems to indicate this about Pharoah. Yes, it is difficult to our human emotions, and we should weep and be humble in this area. As Francis Schaeffer said many times, “If you can talk about hell without moist eyes, you don’t understand.”
But as long as Judas was alive, the way we live here down on planet earth and in the realities and mess of real life, as someone rightly said, there is still the real offer and invitation to repent and belief.
Response to Ben M.s comment continued.
Of course, it strains the brain and heart to go beyond these things, but Calvin and the heirs of the Reformed tradition sought to give thought to those passages that are typically avoided by most people who read the Bible.
To go beyond the truths into human speculation and running with the arguments into areas that the Bible does not allow, is to go into “hyper-Calvinism”, which is to pre-judge and not preach the gospel to all people.
Hyper-calvinism is a heresy that takes the implications of things too far and seeks to judge who is elect and who is not; and yet we don’t know that; and because it seeks to do that; it does not preach the gospel to all individuals without exception. It dampens evangelism and passion and emotion and practically eliminates it. Some wait for some kind of fruits or evidences of being regenerated before they will evangelize. This is also wrong.
Biblical Calvinists evangelize, as Charles Spurgeon, George Whitfield, did, and as D. James Kennedy, and John Piper do; as James White does also. To call him a “hyper-Calvinist is just wrong; and shows that those people do not even know what a “hyper-Calvinist” is.
My point is that you and Nick and Alvin seemed to say that Calvinism teaches that once someone leaves Evangelicalism, or Biblical Christianity for something that is considered not the true Gospel, then that person is automatically going to hell, and it was decided upon in the eternally past council of God, and that Reformed doctrine says that about people before they die. That is not true.
For who determines what is and is not a "just" action of God? Luther? Calvin? Joe's bible church?
If you agree that “no one goes to hell unjustly”, and that no can make such statements or judgments about a person while they are still alive, and that each side, pastorally and evangelistically continues to pray and invite and call for repentance; then the only disagreements are over the secret eternal counsel of God in His mind and His foreknowledge and fore-ordination.
Catholics certainly think it neither right nor just that God
"orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a manner,
[that is the implication of all things according to the counsel of His will in Ephesians 1:11]
that some men are born DEVOTED FROM THE WOMB TO CERTAIN DEATH,
[that is the implication of John 17:12 (about Judas, with John 6:70) and Proverbs 16:4 (if the day of evil means, “the day of judgment”), and also Romans 9:14-23, although the word “devoted” used by Calvin is too strong in my mind for me]
THAT HIS NAME MAY BE GLORIFIED IN THEIR DESTRUCTION."
[Again, Romans 9:14-23 teach this, that it is just for God to send us all to hell, and that the vessels of wrath are “prepared for destruction”, but the vessels of mercy are “prepared beforehand for glory”. Notice that election and predestination are positive things, for salvation and mercy and glory, and that is the side that has the little Greek word, “beforehand” (pro) in verse 23, whereas the vessels of wrath do NOT have this word, indicating that God is not active in their predestination, but rather treats them passively, that is, He leaves them in their state of sin that they are already in, and holds them accountable for their own sin. They are merely “prepared for destruction” or “sitting on ready for judgement”. We are all like sheep, going astray to our way, going over the cliff into destruction to hell, but God in His mercy chooses to save some from all the nations and picks some out of His love for salvation from going over the cliff.
Does this not seem to you utterly irreconcilable with the concept of a God who is infinitely merciful and good?
No, because both His holiness, justice, and Sovereignty, and His mercy and goodness are all true at the same time. No one goes to hell unjustly. What about Pharoah? Romans 9:14-17 – verse 14 -- “what shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! . . . “
Why do chose to put your trust in Calvin rather that, let’s say, the Council of Orange (529 A.D.)?
My trust is not in Calvin per say, but rather in God, and in His word, which I give you as the basis for Calvin’s statements.
Or perhaps you have never heard what this council had to say on this very matter. I ask you to consider the councils words:
"According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. WE NOT ONLY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY ARE FOREORDAINDED TO EVIL BY THE POWER OF GOD, BUT EVEN STATE WITH UTTER ABHORRENCE THAT IF THERE ARE THOSE WHO WANT TO BELIEVE SO EVIL A THING, THEY ARE ANATHEMA.”
http://www.reformed.org/ document..._of_orange.html
Thanks for the link to the Council of Orange. I did not know about those details. As with all historical documents that are not “God-breathed” and therefore, not inspired, as also with the Early Church Fathers, we are committed to always testing their statements with the Word of God, the canonical Scriptures. The Council of Orange condemned Semi-Pelagianism right? Did not John Cassian and others considered as saints by the RCC hold to this understanding?
Also, the issues of God’s Sovereignty in salvation and election and perseverance, etc. was still being worked out and developed, and with the introduction of extra-biblical concepts, such as baptismal regeneration, (that by the physical act of going through the rite of water baptism, grace was bestowed in an automatic way, regardless of the faith of the recipient, which is what much of the Early Church seems to have believed and taught, and where Evangelicals would say this is one of the first and main mistakes and false doctrines that are introduced at an early time, also penance (rather than repentance), Latin becoming the main language of religious writing, thus replacing Greek, thus taking the scholars farther away from proper exegesis, priestly ex opera operato absolution, and later, indulgences and the treasury of merit, etc. These are the early corruptions of the gospel message that began in the early church, from a Protestant viewpoint.
I don’t know about you Ken, but I think Dr. Beckwith would now agree this council’s teaching.
Peace.
Ben M
Don’t know. My position for now is to let him explain himself, as he has begun to do on his blog , and that everyone should treat him and all others with respect and gentleness (I Peter 3:15), and stick to issues rather than questioning motives, ad hominem, and name calling,. He did the right thing, to resign from President of ETS.
Beyond that, I cannot, and I do not want to judge him as to his eternal standing; and you also should not impute to Reformed theology that it doctrinally or in practice does that, before a person dies. And even then, we just don’t know; it is too hidden and secret to us humans. We can rest with God’s justice and mercy and love.
Peace to you also.
In response to Ken Temple (5-5-07, 5:17pm)
Ken,
I think you missed what I was getting at. The Once Saved Always Saved understanding of Calvinism ultimately turns around and condemns the very members it was supposed to comfort, that is what I think Albert was saying.
Nick
Pastorally balancing comfort and warning is admittedly, very difficult. Augustine said this was the hardest thing of all in Pastoral ministry. But you and I, I think both admit that both comfort and warning are there in the NT. Hebrews is full of warnings, so is the rest of the NT. One example is Galatians 5:19-21. I am talking about the principle, not about anyone in particular. I do not judge F. Beckwith or others. The problem with yours and Alvin’s comments are that you are assuming that the Reformed doctrine and practice automatically judges someone in this life before they die, and settles on those things that are secret in the hidden counsels of God’s foreknowledge; and you implied that Reformed folks believe that about people such as F. Beckwith, and others. We are not to judge their future. James White did not do that either, he merely said that he should resign from being President of ETS, as a matter of integrity, which thankfully, he did.
We are not to comfort people with the theological pillow of “once saved, always saved” when they are living in deliberate sin. This is the mistake of that strand of evangelicalism, that tries to comfort people who are living in deliberate sin, rather than confronting them. That strand of evangelicalism also puts too heavy emphasis on an experience of “saying a prayer” or “going down the aisle” or “responding to an altar call” or “getting baptized”, etc. These things within themselves do not save or regenerate a person’s soul.
The Once saved Always Saved is not normally how Calvinists talk, rather they call it “The Perseverance of the Saints” and the eternal security aspect is only one aspect of that larger doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. See I John 2:19 The Once Saved, Always Saved is mostly from the modern Southern Baptists who have left their historical roots of Calvinism, and other free church evangelicals who abandoned the other 4 points of the 5 points of TULIP.
This is the "secret fear" we were addressing, the fact that even plain reason can be used to demonstrate Reformed gospel is really not such "good news" at the end of the day.
Nick
It is both good news for the believers, but also a warning to those who do not cling to the Biblical gospel, or church goers who are living in deliberate sin. There is no secret fear. For a good explanation of the Perseverance of the Saints, and what apostasy means from a Reformed perspective, from Hebrews 3:12-15 see John Piper’s sermon at: www.desiringGod.org – go to Sermons and look under by Scripture and go to Hebrews 3:12 passage. There are also lots of other sermons and articles there that explain these things.
"for the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
I Corinthians 1:18
"for we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things?"
2 Corinthians 2:15-16
This shows, with your comments, and all the above explanation, that the Reformation and Sola Fide was not "easy believism" and it was not "anti-nomianism", which is what Trent seems to think that the Reformers taught.
Ken,
For the record, Catholicism never says someone is off to hell without hope. If someone leaves the CC then that is a mortal sin and unless they repent cannot be saved.
In response to your 11:56 am post, a couple of points.
First concerning the "perseverance of the saints", the truth is the Reformed stoled this concept from Augustine yet the Reformed position does not teach "perseverance". There is nothing to persevere in because you cannot fall. Persevere means you can fall but you can also be reconciled. The concept of "persevering" when there is no danger of falling is nonsensical.
Second, you dont understand the "secret fear" I am talking about. The "secret fear" is the fact you cant know if you are elect nor can your pastor nor can he make comments such as "Jesus died for YOU". This conclusion follows the Calvinist's own logic until it turns around and traps them in the very web they spun. Sadly many Calvinists refuse to accept the logical conclusions.
As for Eternal Security in general, places like the Westminster Confession are very clear an elect cannot fall, and even if they delve into a life of sin that has no bearing on their salvation.
(Continued from above)
Regarding you last comments about what Trent taught...Trent merely sealed up all the holes because it saw all the logical conclusions (and even some of the preaching) that issues such as Faith Alone introduced. The fact is "easy believism" and antinomianism are simply the logical conclusions to some of the Protestant systems of soteriology. The pastors who preach it today are merely pointing out the logical conclusions.
C'mon, guys; we don't need all the bolding. Excessive bolding and capitals in Netiquette is regarded as "yelling."
Sorry Dave,
I thought caps was "yelling", I sincerely did not know bolding italic was considered "yelling" in computer/email/blog etiquette.
I only did that to offset my comments in between the previous ones from others.
Nick,
I would say that it seems that you don't understand what Perseverance of the Saints is as defined and taught by historic evangelical Protestantism.
No problem, Ken. It just looks weird, mainly, if there is too much bolding. Italics works better to differentiate the other guy's comments.
What do you mean I dont understand what Perseverance of the Saints means? What did I get wrong?
Nick,
I wrote, “it seems” you don’t understand the Reformed view of the Perseverance of the Saints because you are mixing
1. the issue of the elect
with
2. the practical issue of pastoral counseling and us as humans not being able to know the elect, especially if there is deliberate sin. In the “mess of real life” (as someone earlier wrote, maybe it was you), pastoral, biblical counseling confronts people living in deliberate willful sin: “The Scriptures indicate that you are not acting like a true believer, and if you don’t repent, the warnings are such that indicate that you are not a believer.”
“. . . those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Gal. 5:21
“By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commands.” I John 2:3
The Bible and its warnings, those above and also those in Hebrews 2:1, 3:12-15, 6:4-9; 10:26-31, and many others, do not offer any comfort or theological pillow of “once saved, always saved” to those who are living in deliberate sin.
You wrote:
“As for Eternal Security in general, places like the Westminster Confession are very clear an elect cannot fall, and even if they delve into a life of sin that has no bearing on their salvation.”
The WCF does not say, “even if they delve into a life of sin” – that “that has no bearing on their salvation.”
It does say that the elect can “fall into grievous sins; and for a time, continue therein”
Since we can only know the elect by:
1. Their profession of faith in Christ
2. Evidence of fruit and change and good works and growth in holiness
Also, we can say and preach “Christ died for you” generally in the offer of salvation to all, and specifically to those who profess faith in Christ in encouragement.
Although, I realize many Reformed folks avoid saying that in evangelism because they don’t know who the elect are, especially before any profession of faith or evidence of faith.
But after trusting in Christ, we can say, “. . .I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me.” Galatians 2:20
Hebrews 6:7-8 shows the key to knowing who the true believers are by their evidence of growth in fruits and vegetation.
Hebrews 6:9
"But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you and things that accompany salvation though we are speaking in this way."
The warnings are there in the teeth of every day life ("the mess of everyday life", as someone put it) and are to be used in pastoral counseling to warn people about their souls, when they live in deliberate sin; but also the writer of Hebrews says he is convinced that the beloved who have true salvation, will persevere and repent and get back on track. He says, "though we are speaking in this way"
This shows that we cannot say to people, "you can delve into sin and that will have no effect on your salvation", rather we speak the warnings of Scripture to those who are living in sin.
The WCF does not say, “even if they delve into a life of sin” – that “that has no bearing on their salvation.”
It does say that the elect can “fall into grievous sins; and for a time, continue therein”
Since we can only know the elect by:
1. Their profession of faith in Christ
2. Evidence of fruit and change and good works and growth in holiness
[I did not finish my thought; sorry, it is late ]
then, "the elect" as God knows with infallibility, is a different issue than the practical pastoral issue of dealing with those living in sin.
My point is that you and Nick and Alvin seemed to say that Calvinism teaches that once someone leaves Evangelicalism, or Biblical Christianity for something that is considered not the true Gospel, then that person is automatically going to hell, and it was decided upon in the eternally past council of God, and that Reformed doctrine says that about people before they die. That is not true.
O.K. then, Ken, if Dr Beckwith dies believing that the Catholic Church is what she says she is, accepting all her doctrines as truth, not wavering in that belief at all, do you think then that he is going to hell?
Ken,
I think we got some stuff mixed up. The Perseverance issue was not the same as the knowledge of election. I was originally addressing the knowledge of election and later made some comments about some perseverance comments you later made.
Anyway, in regards to your posts you start off talking about "true believers" in contrast to those who are not really believers with the impression those follow up verses you provide were only talking about them. I disagree, those verses are talking to genuine Christians who have the real possibility of falling away.
As for what "living in deliberate sin" means is another issue you have to deal with (not including the Christian's free will aspect which is another can of worms I have yet to find a Calvinist explain to me) because if you think about it you cant condemn a Christian for a single murder or rape because they weren't exactly "living in deliberate sin" it only happened once. From there the question arises how much sin is too much? 2,3,4??
Regarding the "theological pillow of “once saved, always saved”" the Reformed Christian who finds them self in grave sin has two options, either believe this has no bearing on their salvation or question if they were ever saved. If they go with the latter then that starts down a slippery slope.
Next the issue of the Westminster, you said:The WCF does not say, “even if they delve into a life of sin” – that “that has no bearing on their salvation.”
It does say that the elect can “fall into grievous sins; and for a time, continue therein”
The WCF is extremely clear it has no bearing on their salvation, whether my quotes were exact doesnt mean I was misrepresenting the WCF.
Finally, and this is what I was originally getting at, you said:
Since we can only know the elect by:
1. Their profession of faith in Christ
2. Evidence of fruit and change and good works and growth in holiness
Thats just it, if you think about it for a while those DONT tell who the elect are, including oneself.
For example the following question should be a good start in convincing you why this is true:
Is everyone who thinks they are part of the elect really part of the elect? Why or why not?
Peter -- your question hits the nail on the head.
I honestly don't know. I admit, that may seem to be a cop out to you and some others, but it is my gut feeling.
Nick,
The warnings are "though we are speaking this way" - Hebrews 6:7-9
Only God knows for sure and those that "fall away" were apparent believers, but not real beleivers.
I John 2:19 "they left us because they were not of us" (They never were really regenerated)
Judas was like that -- hanging out and being with the disciples and Jesus.
". . . you are clean, but not all of you. For He knew the one who was betraying Him; or this reason He said, "Not all of you are clean."
John 13:10-11
". . . I never knew you . . . " Matthew 7:23
Peter -- your question hits the nail on the head.
I honestly don't know. I admit, that may seem to be a cop out to you and some others, but it is my gut feeling.
A fair enough answer for me, Ken.
You also wrote:
Only God knows for sure and those that "fall away" were apparent believers, but not real beleivers.
With that statement in mind, I would like to re-post Nick's question to you as I don't think you answered it:
Is everyone who thinks they are part of the elect really part of the elect? Why or why not?
Beckwith's interview in Christianity Today:
http://www.christianitytoday.com...y/119-
33.0.html
I commented on his blog:
Dr. Beckwith,
I thought you did a superb job in the interview: in my opinion, better in all respects (content, presentation, charity, ecumenical approach) than many Catholic apologists who have been in the Church 10 or 15 years could have done.
God is going to use you mightily to explain the Catholic faith and to help bring about 1) more unity and understanding, and 2) more conversions to the Catholic Church. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever about this.
The opportunities already (as seen in the more open-minded Protestant comments) for bridge-building and good-spirited, amiable comparative theology and ecclesiology are almost boundless.
You and your family are in our prayers.
Dave,
Thanks for keeping us up to date on this with that link. That was a great ice breaker interview. It was clear his old theology did not satisfy him in a way that he could live with, it was only feeding him partly, and when he found out what he was missing his eyes were opened permanently.
The good thing about many Protestant to Catholic convert apologists is that they know how to explain Catholicism to Protestants. (There is actually a Catholic apologist joke that says the best Catholics are converts and reverts, in a embarrassing way this is true)
With that statement in mind, I would like to re-post Nick's question to you as I don't think you answered it:
Is everyone who thinks they are part of the elect really part of the elect? Why or why not?
Peter
No, there are many who “think” they are saved, or part of the elect, but in fact are not.
Why not? Because, for one, I can think of 2 verses:
Matthew 7:22 “Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord . . . “
Matthew 7:23 “. . . I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice wickedness . . . “
These show that there are many who think they are “in”, but they are not.
We see that many can “claim” or profess to be believers, but are not believers. That is also what James 2:14-26 is about. Some one may say, “I have faith”, etc. “you believe that God is one, you do well, the demons also believe and shudder.”
Ken,
Ok, but if a person can think they are elect and find out they are not then that means any so called assurance was never really assurance.
You cant know if you are elect, much less anyone else, because it is based on the same subjective assumption/feeling that you are...and as you admit above, "thinking" you are elect does not translate into actual election.
Thanks Nick, you obviously see where I was going with this. A person thinks that they are in the group until he is before the judgement seat of God and finds out that Christ never knew him. To me, assurance of Salvation means that if you believe and obey, there will be no terrible surprises for you on judgement day. You are assured of your salvation. You don't have to worry about God not fulfilling His promise to you.
Peter,
I agree, the problem with Reformed theology is that it is an all or nothing game in which the individual plays a passive role, thus they can only assume. Because Catholics believe in free will, we can have a conditional assurance that if we actively obey we know we are doing God's will.
For example Catholics believe as the Bible teaches that Baptism regenerates (Titus 3:5), thus if you have undergone Baptism you can be assured you have done God's will and received grace. The reformed would say Baptism does nothing except for the elect, thus just because a person underwent Baptism doesnt mean anything concrete, you can only assume it did something for you. Same thing with prayer, Catholics teach if you pray, for example, the Lords prayer, He hears it and is pleased. If you are reformed you cannot know if God heard your prayer because just because you prayed doesnt mean you are elect, in fact if you were never justified then that "prayer" was actually a sin. The list goes on and on...
And if you are going through life assuming then there can be no such concept as "assurance", worse yet you could even be PREsuming which is a sin. The fact is these disturbing conclusions are simply the logical conclusions of the reformed system.
Indeed, Nick. Makes me wonder how Calvinists sleep at night with this dark cloud of uncertainty hanging over their heads.
current interest loan rate stafford current interest loan rate stafford current interest loan rate stafford. cash advance chicago cash advance chicago cash advance chicago.
Commenting by HaloScan
