Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
|
Calvin and the Death Penalty For Roman Catholics
11/26/2007 - James Swan
While looking through Catholic apologist Steve Ray's blog, I came across a very brief entry that I found curious:
No, "today's Reformed & Presbyterians" would not agree that Roman Catholics deserve the death penalty. The society we live in does not reflect the same sentiment as sixteenth century Europe. Modern European Catholics don't think Protestants should be executed for theological reasons either, while in the sixteenth century, I'm sure many did find executing Protestants a worthy cause. I assume Mr. Ray used this quote for its "shock" value, but if you've ever read any simple biography of the Reformation, this type of quote doesn't really shock. Most of the Reformers were of the opinion that the death penalty could be used for theological reasons.
The reason though why this quote got my attention is because I don't recall ever reading of Calvin advocating the death penalty for Roman Catholicism. I realize this type of sentiment from Calvin's pen is not out of the realm of possibility. I happen to have the book Mr. Ray has cited, John Calvin: The Man and His Ethics by Georgia Harkness. Even though Mr. Ray didn't provide a page number, I managed to track down the quote:
That Mr. Ray simply used this information for its polemical and shock value becomes very clear when the actual context from Ms. Harkness is provided. She states Calvin was outspoken on the death penalty for heresy, but he was "far more guarded about Catholicism" (p.95), and that Calvin seemed very reluctant to arrive at the conclusion that the idolatry of Catholicism deserved the death penalty (p.96). In fact, of the quote in question, Harkness states it is the only quote she could find in which Calvin states such sentiment. She goes on to point out,
Any of you familiar with this book realize that Georgia Harkness was not overly sympathetic to Calvin. One may disagree with her interpretation and conclusion on this issue. I'm sure many Catholics interested in "shock" arguments now have another quote for their arsenal. But one needs to look at the methodology put forth by those entrenched in promoting Catholic apologetics. Steve Ray cited Calvin from a book he may have actually not read. If he did, I question why he would direct his readers to a context that spends more time defending Calvin than actually indicting him (he links to Amazon so you can buy the book as well). This isn't even a difficult quote to track down if one wished to read Calvin in context. Mr Ray has been promoting his works on the Early Church Fathers, recently stating that "Those who begin to dig deeper frequently become Catholics." Well, I just dug a bit deeper into one of his Calvin citations by looking at the book he refers to, and I'm not impressed.
Would Today's Reformed & Presbyterians Agree? Jean Calvin, father of the multiple Reformed & Presbyterian denominations, said: "Persons who persist in the superstitions of the Roman Antichrist [Catholicism] . . . deserve to be repressed by the sword." Harkness, Georgia, John Calvin: The Man and His Ethics NY: Abingdon Press, NY, 1931
No, "today's Reformed & Presbyterians" would not agree that Roman Catholics deserve the death penalty. The society we live in does not reflect the same sentiment as sixteenth century Europe. Modern European Catholics don't think Protestants should be executed for theological reasons either, while in the sixteenth century, I'm sure many did find executing Protestants a worthy cause. I assume Mr. Ray used this quote for its "shock" value, but if you've ever read any simple biography of the Reformation, this type of quote doesn't really shock. Most of the Reformers were of the opinion that the death penalty could be used for theological reasons.
The reason though why this quote got my attention is because I don't recall ever reading of Calvin advocating the death penalty for Roman Catholicism. I realize this type of sentiment from Calvin's pen is not out of the realm of possibility. I happen to have the book Mr. Ray has cited, John Calvin: The Man and His Ethics by Georgia Harkness. Even though Mr. Ray didn't provide a page number, I managed to track down the quote:
In a letter to the Duke of Somerset, Protector of England during Edward VI's minority, he urges the rooting out of Roman abuses in that country in these words: "There are two kinds of rebels who have risen up against the King and the Estates of the Kingdom. The one, a fantastical sort of persons, who, under color of the Gospel, would put all into confusion. The others are persons who persist in the superstitions of the Roman Antichrist. Both alike deserve to be repressed by the sword which is committed to you, since they not only attack the King, but strive with God, who has placed him upon a royal throne." [Harkness, p.96]
That Mr. Ray simply used this information for its polemical and shock value becomes very clear when the actual context from Ms. Harkness is provided. She states Calvin was outspoken on the death penalty for heresy, but he was "far more guarded about Catholicism" (p.95), and that Calvin seemed very reluctant to arrive at the conclusion that the idolatry of Catholicism deserved the death penalty (p.96). In fact, of the quote in question, Harkness states it is the only quote she could find in which Calvin states such sentiment. She goes on to point out,
"...[I]n this letter he drops the suggestion without developing it. He has much to say about the need of extirpating papal abuses, but only a brief word about extirpating Papists themselves. Had Calvin really meant seriously to recommend the use of the death penalty, it is unthinkable that he would have been content to make the recommendation in so casual a fashion. Still more manifest evidence of his reluctance is the fact that he did not, in practice, attempt to employ the death penalty upon any Catholic. Servetus has no Catholic counterpart. Catholics were banished from Geneva, but there is nothing unique in this, since it occurred before Calvin's arrival and was common practice. Aside from his insistence that the company of true believers be not polluted by the presence of Papists, Calvin's venom found expression in words rather than overt acts. In a nature which usually drew conclusions with inexorable logic, this reluctance to advocate the killing of Catholic idolaters is significant. It indicates that Calvin was not, by his own volition, a persecutor, and that considerations of human charity sometimes outweighed legalism" [Harkness, p.96].
Any of you familiar with this book realize that Georgia Harkness was not overly sympathetic to Calvin. One may disagree with her interpretation and conclusion on this issue. I'm sure many Catholics interested in "shock" arguments now have another quote for their arsenal. But one needs to look at the methodology put forth by those entrenched in promoting Catholic apologetics. Steve Ray cited Calvin from a book he may have actually not read. If he did, I question why he would direct his readers to a context that spends more time defending Calvin than actually indicting him (he links to Amazon so you can buy the book as well). This isn't even a difficult quote to track down if one wished to read Calvin in context. Mr Ray has been promoting his works on the Early Church Fathers, recently stating that "Those who begin to dig deeper frequently become Catholics." Well, I just dug a bit deeper into one of his Calvin citations by looking at the book he refers to, and I'm not impressed.
08:41:19 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
When Footnotes Attack!
11/24/2007 - James Swan
"If the world lasts for a long time, it will again be necessary, on account of the many interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of faith." Epis. ad. Zwingli (ap. Balmes, p. 423)" - Martin Luther
It is an odd occurrence when Catholic apologists cite Martin Luther. I've found citations to editions of Luther's writings that have been out of print for hundreds of years, or citations from his writings that have never been translated into English. The quote above is a perfect example. One is left wondering if the current batch of Catholic apologists are fluent in Latin and German and have access to the rarest of books in the Luther corpus. So far, none has admitted either.
For instance, commenting on this very citation, a footnote from Catholic apologist Steve Ray says, "In a letter to Heinrich Zwingli, Martin Luther conceded that reformers would again have to take refuge in the Church councils in order to preserve the unity of faith on account of the many interpretations that were given to the Scriptures (see Epis. ad. Zwingli)" [Source: Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church, p. 45]. He's also cited this quote in a few articles available on-line (documented here).
I strongly doubt Steve Ray actually read "Epis. ad. Zwingli" and translated it from Latin into English. This citation is a reference back to European Civilization: Protestantism and Catholicity Compared By Jaime Luciano Balmes, published during the 1800's. On page 423, Balmes cites the quote from Luther, stating "Luther writing to Zwinglius...". This quote though does not come from a letter. By consulting the current edition of Luther's Works, the quote is from That These Words Of Christ, “This Is My Body,” etc., Still Stand Firm Against The Fanatics (1527) [LW 37]. Steve Ray said the quote is from a letter written to Zwingli, but this quote is from this treatise directed toward Zwingli.
If one simply reads the quote as it stands, it appears to be saying that Luther believed Church councils and creeds are necessary in order to "preserve the unity of faith" because sola scriptura is some sort of blueprint for anarchy. Well, creeds are indeed useful. Even during Luther's lifetime, statements of faith were produced from Luther and his immediate circle. So what is going on here? How can Luther hold to sola scriptura, but yet say the Church needs to have the Christian faith "decreed by a council"? Didn't Luther say "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other- my conscience is captive to the Word of God"?
What's going on here is what typically happens when Catholic apologists cite Luther without actually reading Luther. After speaking about the controversies and divisions surrounding the Lord's Supper, Luther says,
"If the world lasts much longer, men will, as the ancients did, once more turn to human schemes on account of this dissension, and again issue laws and regulations to keep the people in the unity of the faith. Their success will be the same as it was in the past " [LW 37:16].
Granted, this citation does not at first appear identical to the one popularly used by Catholics. However, "on account of this dissension" in the preceding paragraph is explained to be differing interpretations given to the Scriptures. "Human schemes " issuing "laws and regulations" keeping people "in the unity of the faith" does sound a lot like receiving "the decrees of councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of faith" as stated above.
Note the last sentence: "Their success will be the same as it was in the past." Their success will be, according to Luther, failure, because "human schemes " "laws and regulations " are not the work of the Holy Spirit, but of men. The text goes on to say, "In short, the devil is too clever and too mighty for us" because "If we wish to stand upon the councils and counsels of men, we lose the Scriptures altogether and remain in the devil’s possession body and soul." So rather than proving Luther wanted to "take refuge in the Church councils in order to preserve the unity of faith " as Steve Ray claims, Luther said the exact opposite in this text.
I've been accused by self-proclaimed Catholic apologist "professionals" as nitpicking Catholic apologetic writings when it comes to Luther. It's one thing to not provide enough information as to give clarity to an issue, it's quite another to cite a source that is saying the exact opposite of which one is claiming. Well, perhaps Steve Ray can produce a letter of Luther's to Zwingli saying that a Church council will be needed in the future to settle the issues between them. Then again, I doubt very much Mr. Ray actually cares if he's cited Luther accurately. Catholics frequently cite Luther as a polemical tool in their writings, while most in the Protestant world realize what Luther said, or didn't say, really isn't all that important.
The back cover of Crossing The Tiber claims the book is "thoroughly documented with over 400 footnotes." Footnotes are supposed to provide documentation for claims being made. I look up the material put in footnotes simply to prove that the methods employed by some in Catholic apologetics are the same methods used when they made their dramatic swim across the Tiber. They began with a desire to swim, and then sought out facts to justify that swim. When they cite Luther, they cite him as he needs to be cited in order to make the swim a success.
00:01:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
"Enough. No more pearl casting for me, and no more dusty sandals." --Michael Bauman
11/15/2007 - James White
It seems Dr. Bauman has concluded his participation in the thread noted earlier. But his means of doing so has surely left me bewildered. Evidently, charity in accepting a revert's confession of faith is a good thing, but it seems to leave no charity left for anyone who would dare to ask you biblical and logical questions concerning your position.Michael Bauman said...I am uncertain who Dr. Bauman might have in mind here, to be honest. While some may differ in their definitions, it has been rather clear that the issue revolves around whether a person can confess a Protestant faith and then confess a Roman Catholic faith without committing an act of apostasy. I have challenged Dr. Bauman on this point, insisting that biblically, limiting a "Christian confession" to an orthodoxy theology proper (i.e,. Trinitarian confession) is a sub-biblical definition, and, unless he is going to assume the Judaizers were still to be appropriately identified as "Christians," though anathematized ones, it does seem that one's view of the gospel is definitional to one's confession of faith. Hence, to have once confessed what Rome declares anathema, and then to go back to Rome and confess Rome's dogmas, would inevitably involve an act of apostasy. I suppose I missed someone in the seventy plus comments who missed the meaning of apostasy, but I sort of doubt it.
1.) I don't see the wisdom or untility of continued engagement on the subject of Frank Beckwith's alleged apostasy from Christianity with folks who do not know the definition of apostasy.
2.) I don't see the wisdom or utility of continued engagement on the subject of Frank Beckwith's alleged apostasy from Christianity with folks who cannot distinguish between first century Judaizers and modern Roman Catholics.Again, it is difficult to know who Dr. Bauman could be referring to. I clearly see the difference: the Judaizers were less heretical. In fact, that has been my point all along: the Judaizers did not have nearly the time Rome has had to come up with all sorts of unique additions to the gospel so as to limit the grace and glory of God and insert the control of man. Those poor fellows were pikers in comparison to Rome! So again, everyone I have seen in the conversation has been able to distinguish between the Judaizers and the Roman Catholics.
Now, it is just possible that Dr. Bauman does not have a meaningful response to the questions based upon the anathematization of the Judaizers by Paul based upon a soteriological heresy, rather than a strictly theological one. In that case, maybe, just maybe (though we would surely hope this is not the case!), this is a rhetorical shot meant to cover such an inability? Let us hope not.
3.) I do not see the wisdom or utility of continued engagement on the subject of Frank Beckwith's alleged apostasy from the faith with folks who cannot distinguish between the gospel (faith in Christ, which Frank clearly affirms) and assent to sola fideism (a theory of justification, which Frank does not affirm). Failure to distinguish between them means you do not know the gospel.Let me see if I can grasp this: the gospel does not involve anything about the work of Christ, His death, His burial, and His resurrection; it has nothing to do with law, merit, or works or even grace. The gospel is "faith in Christ" and nothing else! Hence, Paul had not the first reason for his actions in Galatia, yes? Such would be the inevitable conclusion one would draw from this radical redefinition of the gospel as being naked faith in Christ---without the slightest element of what Christ did and why.
But please note, aside from this amazing assertion, we here have an alleged Reformed Evangelical not only defending the authenticity of a Roman Catholic as his "brother in Christ," but beyond this, if anyone questions that Roman Catholic's faith in Christ, it is a "serious sin" (as he first said) and now, amazingly, Dr. Bauman has concluded that he can conclude someone "does not know the gospel" if they do not make the same artificial distinction he makes between the Christ who is the object of faith and the Christ who died upon Calvary's tree (i.e, Person and Work go hand in hand)! Let's make sure we get this: confess that Marian dogmas are part of the gospel, and that's OK. You are still a brother in Christ. Confess that there can be those who claim to believe in Christ but who deny Him by their additions to his work, and you do not know the gospel at all! To call this reversal amazing is to confess the limitations of human language, to be sure.
This kind of rhetoric might be a little more bearable if we had some meaningful answers to the question asked on the basis of the apostolic example of Paul's dealings with the Judaizers in Galatia. But, those answers, evidently, are not forthcoming. But let us hear clearly the voice of modern American academia: sola fide is a mere theory of justification. Confess it to be a part of the gospel, and you are thereby cut off from the gospel itself!
4). I do not see the wisdom or utility of continued engagement on the topic of Frank Beckwith's alleged apostasy from faith in Christ if Frank is not allowed to affirm in his own words whether or not he has faith in Christ. His personal testimony to faith in Christ is every bit as full and compelling as any such confession of faith recorded for us in the Gospels or in Acts. At least the Inquisitors let the accused speak for himself before condemning him. Not here.What an amazing image to conjure here, given how many saints died at the infallible hands of Mother Rome for their refusal to confess the very same additions Bauman now seeks to make irrelevant to true confession of faith in Christ. I tremble at the thought of those who gave their lives for simple faith in Christ when such language can be used by a modern "heir" of their sacrifice.
It is ridiculous to say that anyone has refused to "hear" Beckwith's confession. I can only conclude that Bauman would join the many who, a few years ago, were ushering John Paul II into the heavenly realms on the very same basis. False gospel? No worries. Prayed to Mary for your salvation? That's cool. All is well. (Of course, if you actually confess sola fide as part of saving faith you are anathema! To the fire with you!).
So we are now told by this "Reformed" theologian that a Roman Catholic confession of faith is "every bit as full and compelling as any such confession of faith recorded for us in the Gospels or in Acts." Would that include, or exclude, the confession of faith obviously made by the Judaizers, Dr. Bauman? Oh, I forgot, that question has been dismissed out of hand, no reason given. OK, how about the proto-gnostics at Colossae? No? OK, those who went out from the fellowship in 1 John, but who denied the reality of Christ's incarnation? Wait, that's more of that theology stuff, and we really can't get past just saying "I believe in Jesus" can we? If we start asking "Who is Jesus?" or "What did He do?" that seems to be too much.
Of course, Bauman is simply making things up when he says Beckwith was condemned before being allowed to speak. I would imagine almost everyone here has listened to Beckwith's comments in a number of forums---I certainly have. This is just rhetoric without substance at this point.
Enough. No more pearl casting for me, and no more dusty sandals.Goodness, I do believe Jesus used that terminology to speak of "swine," did He not? In fact, both references have to do with separation from unbelievers and the judgment of God. And upon what basis does Bauman aim such strong language at those who does not even identify directly in his comments? Evidently because they dare to ask him questions that reveal that his formulations on the matter of saving faith are muddled and unbiblical, and that he is grossly inconsistent in calling down such condemnations not upon those who have added every kind of falsehood to the gospel under the guise of Rome, but upon those who would dare to identify Rome's gospel as a false one! If you are left gasping at such incoherence, welcome to the wonderful world of post-evangelicalism. "This isn't your grandfather's gospel." And how.
13:21:13 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
The New Catholic Answer Bible (Part two)
11/15/2007 - James Swan
I have the New Catholic Answer Bible sitting under a pile of books on my desk. A while back, I posted my initial review, The New Catholic Answer Bible (Part One). After documenting this "Answer Bible" did not contain the answers about the particular aspects of Roman Catholicism that I've been looking for, it easily made its way to the bottom of the book pile.Not hearing back from the publisher when I wrote them also was a factor in rotating this book to the bottom. I simply wanted to find out who wrote the verse-by-verse commentary . The verse-by-verse commentary is not representative of current trends in popular Catholic apologetics, so I am curious to know who authored these notes. On the other hand, the plentiful inserts (with drawings reminiscent of Watchtower literature), do represent the typical argumentation prevalent in Catholic apologetic materials.
There are 88 pages of insert apologetic material placed throughout this Bible. These are to equip Roman Catholics to "better respond when challenged about the Catholic Church and its teachings." I would guess that in a Protestant /Catholic dialog, a Protestant bringing up a verse may get the response, "Let me turn to one of the inserts in my New Catholic Answer Bible for your answer." In other words, this Answer Bible doesn't provide a Catholic with what is needed: a concise verse-by-verse commentary presenting a coherent modern Catholic apologetic.
As evidence the inserts and verse commentary is mismatched, I often noticed the verse commentary seems to steer away from typical Catholic apologetics, while the inserts present the typical current trend of Catholic pop-apologetics. For instance, the verse commentary on Luke 1:28 says nothing about Mary being immaculately conceived, while the insert uses it as its prime proof-text. The text of the Bible used (NAB) translates kecharitomene "Hail, favored one!" and the verse commentary explains it simply as an announcement paralleling that given to Zechariah about the birth of John. The insert though translates kecharitomene as "highly graced" or "full of grace," and is an "...indication of an unparalleled grace given by God to our Lady: She was conceived without the defect of original sin" (Insert R-1).
Commenting on Matthew 1:25, the verse commentary states, "The Greek word translated 'until' does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus' birth, nor does it exclude it," while insert Q-1 defending the perpetual virginity of Mary, says, "[W]hen St. Matthew in his gospel says that Joseph 'had no relations with [Mary] until she bore a son' (1:25), he does not necessarily imply that such relations followed afterward." Notice what's different between the two answers? The insert leaves out anything that would suggest "nor does it exclude it." The insert goes on to argue that "until" should be understood to give credence to perpetual virginity.
Insert H-2 asks "Is Purgatory in the Bible?" It immediately cites 2 Maccabees 12:38-42 as scriptural proof. The verse commentary though points out only that what is being mentioned is similar to the Catholic teaching of Purgatory, "...but not quite the same." Well, is the verse teaching about Purgatory or not?
Such is the schizophrenic nature of this "Answer Bible." A number of examples similar to this could be be provided. It's no wonder the publisher never wrote me back. I would be interested in actually contacting those who wrote the verse commentary to get their reviews of the apologetic inserts. Recall, in my previous entry I mentioned the authors names of the inserts weren't provided either. The inserts appear to be some sort of collaboration between Dr. Paul Thigpen, editor of The Catholic Answer magazine and My Daily Catholic Bible (Our Sunday Visitor) and Dave Armstrong (a self-proclaimed Catholic apologist).
00:01:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Willful Blindness? You Decide
11/14/2007 - James White
I noted this morning the "Keyboard Carpet Bombing" techniques of Phil Porvaznik. You have probably never heard of ol' Phil, since Phil has a major problem standing up and being counted when he is challenged to do something more than sit behind a keyboard. He won't do debates, won't call in to programs where he would be challenged, etc. But he has links, lots and lots of links! And he seems to think it is funny to climb into any exchange on the net and derail it through KCB (Keyboard Carpet Bombing).In any case, he claims to be a great expert on yours truly. Yet, after all these years of listening to my debates, listening to the Dividing Line, etc., Phil still doesn't get it. I was just checking the combox where Dr. Beckwith posted the long quotes from the Council of Orange and where Dr. Bauman commented on his view of apostasy, and found this from Phil's keyboard:
James White "creates" grave differences by misrepresenting Catholic doctrine. For example, he continues to say we are not "perfected" by the Catholic gospel. But we are likewise not "perfected" by the Protestant gospel either since sanctification in Protestant theology is an ongoing process. We are still being sanctified or made holy (Heb 12:14), becoming perfected. So we not "perfected" yet in either Catholic or Protestant or Reformed theology.Notice the game plan here. First, accuse me of misrepresentation. Yet, where does he document the misrepresentation? He doesn't. He knows that he can go to Mass repeatedly and not be perfected by so doing. So watch the bait-and-switch. He makes the (false) accusation, and then as evidence, presents an irrelevant observation that, evidently, he hopes will suffice---at least for his target audience. If Porvaznik has listened to all the debates he claims to have, he knows the vast difference between Rome's parceled-out-through-the-sacraments concept of grace, and in particular, the limitation of the forgiveness offered in the Eucharist, and my presentation of the God-centered gospel wherein the elect are united with Christ in His death, so that His perfect righteousness is imputed to them, so that, as I explained here, for example, years ago, they are perfected by that work. He would know that the Bible uses "sanctify" both positionally (and hence in a way parallel to "justified," especially in Hebrews) and experientially, and that he is equivocating, discussing experiential sanctification (parallel to being conformed to the image of Christ throughout our lives) as if it was identical to positional sanctification (brought about through our union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection). The knowing reader will find Phil's attempt disingenuous and even insulting, but like so many pop Roman Catholic apologists, he doesn't seem to be concerned about those who will detect his errors. His audience seems to be a willing accomplice in his schemes, and hence doesn't mind the linguistic shell-game.
So is Phil just the product of his many years of suppressing the truth that is right before his eyes? Or is this willful blindness, purposeful in its intents? I do not know. But I know Phil won't defend his claims in any context where he actually has to respond to direct criticism, because Phil knows what I know: he can't. Let's pray God will convict the gentleman of his ways.
21:41:56 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Steve Ray Parrots the "Baptists at Nicea" Line
11/14/2007 - James White
Evidently Steve Ray doesn't have much to say. Though he was quite proud of himself when he posted his many page pdf a few months ago (cobbled together, obviously, from pre-existing materials lurking in the recesses of his hard-drive), he quickly decided that though he had spent the weekend doing that, I wasn't worth responding to, so, he wasn't going to reply to the refutation of his claims. Fair enough. Yet, this morning, out of the blue, he links to the single most embarrassing thing Patrick Madrid has ever put in print: Envoy's decade old hit piece against me regarding a footnote in my article on the Council of Nicea in the Christian Research Journal. You know, the article that set the standard for Roman Catholic pop apologists, where you don't mention the writer you are lampooning, and don't even give your readers a reference to the original article so that they can see how badly and obviously you are misrepresenting them? Yes, that one. Even if Ray has taken note of the easy refutations of this article that have been around for a long time, and how even referring to such reprehensible writing decimates one's credibility, I truly doubt he would allow that to stop him. Cheap shots are easy and quick, and as long as you have no respect for your audience, they are quite useful.09:34:27 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
Dr. Bauman on Beckwith and the Concept of Apostasy
11/14/2007 - James White
Dr. Michael Bauman of Hillsdale College has responded to my comments on the blog entry noted earlier. I provide my response here for the simple reason that once again we have an excellent example of why comboxes are antithetical to meaningful theological exchange. As soon as I posted the link to that blog discussion, Phil Porvaznik saddled up his donkey and meandered on over, dumping a pile of his tired, worn-out, "I will keep saying this, but run for the hills and never defend myself because I know I can't" garbage into the thread, producing a flood of "go look at this link and I refuted White over here and look at this by this guy" stuff. Hence, it is simply not worth the effort for folks to try to fight their way through all the spam produced by the Porvazniks of the Internet. So I provide my reply here, a theological spam free zone:Jim,
As someone with a PhD in Historical Theology from a Catholic university, and as someone who taught both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology at that university, I can assure you that you do not dissent from Rome more than I do. But your (and my) dissent from Rome is not the issue when it comes to accusing Frank Beckwith of apostasy
Dear Dr. Bauman:
Oh, but I believe it is, unless you believe that one can profess fealty to Rome without professing fealty to her Gospel.
If Frank Beckwith once truly made a gospel profession wherein he embraced the absolute sufficiency of Christ to save outside of all human additions, eschewing Rome's man-centeredness and proclaiming the sole glory of Christ in salvation, and then knowingly embraces Rome, how can this be anything other than an act of apostasy? How can one say "faith alone, Christ alone, to the glory of God alone" and then say "propitiatory Mass that never perfects, grace mediated through Mary, temporal punishments, purgatory, and satispassio"? Or to return to the Galatian context, what basis does anyone have to believe that one can say "faith alone in an all sufficient Christ" and "circumcision necessary to have true faith in Christ" at the same time without involving such a contradiction as to render words meaningless? What is it about the Galatian heresy that rendered its proponents anathema that is not present in the pantheon of Roman additions to the gospel? How many times does Rome have to say "no, no, faith alone is not sufficient, you need sacraments, you need the priesthood, you need indulgences, confessions, penances, and a never-perfecting re-presentation of Calvary" before she catches up with the Judaizers in Galatia?
Because apostasy is the rejection of one's faith in Christ, and therefore a rejection of one's Christianity, the issue of apostasy is whether or not Frank is a Christian. The issue is whether or not he has saving faith in Christ. If you'd like to know the answer to that question, then ask him. If you ask him if he is a sinner who deserves Hell, I suspect he will say "yes." If you ask him if he has faith in Christ crucified, buried, resurrected and ascended, I suspect he will say "yes." If you ask him if anyone can be redeemed apart from the saving work of God in Christ, I suspect he will say "no." If you ask him if he has left his saving faith in Christ, I suspect he will say "no." The only way to know if any of my suspicions above are correct is to let him speak for himself.
And if I ask if he believes the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice that does not perfect? If I ask him if he goes to a man who is identified in his ordination as an "alter Christus" to find sacramental forgiveness? Does he pray to Mary, and believe she was bodily assumed into heaven? Does he believe those dogmas are part of the gospel? Does he believe he will go through purgatory and undergo satispassio so as to be perfected before entering the presence of Christ?
Dr. Bauman, every single Judaizer in Galatia could have answered your questions above "correctly." Yet, they were pronounced anathema by Paul. Why?
In other words, Frank Beckwith himself gets to make his own profession of faith, not you or I, and not anyone else on this blog.
Of course, but unless one is willing to make Christianity a matter of merely personal opinion, the issue of apostasy cannot be turned into a matter of personal predilection. Words have meaning. Scripture defines truth. Rome's gospel remains contradictory to grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone, and if Dr. Beckwith once professed those things (and I have often noted I have yet to find a clear confession of those things on his part in his post-Rome but before going back to Rome period)and now professes faith in Rome's teachings, which cannot but include the necessary negation of these beliefs through confession of such concepts as transubstantiation in the Mass, purgatory, etc., there is no other meaningful term for such a reversal than "apostasy," is there?
If we Protestants can set aside the self-congratulatory and triumphalistic imposition of Reformed scholasticism and its competing theories of justification for just a moment, and let the man make his own testimony to faith in Christ in his own words, then I suppose that we can put an end to the scurrilous and baseless public denigration of a valued brother in Christ, a denigration that characterizes too many of the entries on this thread. But we'll have to be quiet long enough to let him speak for himself about his faith. Hopefully that deferential, respectful, and teachable silence is not too stiff a challenge.Frank Beckwith is not the Pope, Dr. Bauman. He does not get to define Rome. I know it is very popular to make everything about the individual today, but the fact is, he is the one using the phrase "full communion with Rome." So, is it full, or partial, with the extent being dependent upon what he "feels" is appropriate? If you are in full communion with Rome, you believe her dogmas, do you not? Does Frank Beckwith confess the dogmatic necessity of the Immaculate Conception and the Bodily Assumption of Mary? Papal Infallibility? If he does not, that is wonderful! I hope he will tell the folks at Catholic Answers that. And Envoy Magazine. And mention it this weekend in talking with Scott Hahn. And I would encourage him to speak out against purgatory and indulgences and priests who call themselves "another Christ" and all that heresy that Rome has encrusted herself with. But I really don't expect to see that happen, do you?
It comes down to his testimony in his words; not yours, not mine, not anyone else's. It comes down to Frank's profession of faith, not to your or my objections to Catholicism.No sir, that's just not the case. Frank Beckwith does not define Roman Catholicism. Rome gets to do that. If you truly believe that as long as a person says they are a Christian, it matters not what the substance of their profession is, then I must believe you find the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses good "brothers in Christ" as well? Why draw any lines at all? Maybe the Christian/Muslim woman up in the Northwest has it right?
I'm sorry, but that kind of thinking is muddled and confused. If you can't tell the difference between "faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone to the glory of God alone" and Rome's man-centered, peace-robbing, soul-destroying "gospel," then God has not spoken, He has not even mumbled, and we are of all men most to be pitied.
09:11:55 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
On the Sinfulness of Calling Apostasy...Apostasy
11/11/2007 - James White
Some comments were made regarding the ever-developing Beckwith saga (including Frank Beckwith posting canons from the Council of Orange) here. Beckwith dares to reduce the issue of Rome's gospel to mere theories regarding imputation versus infusion. Another comment was left by Dr. Michael Bauman, accusing anyone of sin who would identify Beckwith as an apostate. I provide here the comment I at least attempted to leave on the blog. It begins with a citation of Dr. Bauman:You're missing the point, Shane. Despite your repetition to the contrary, Frank Beckwith has not denied the gospel. The gospel is salvation through faith in Christ. The gospel is not assent to sola fide. Frank has moved away from your (and my) view of justification. Movement from that is not movement from the Christian faith. One begins to think that you, not Frank, has forgotten gospel content: Salvation comes by faith in Christ, not faith in sola fide. He has it, and he has it just as clearly as anyone you or I know.
No, Frank does not need me to speak for him; nor has he asked me to. But then, he doesn't need you to speak TO him. He already gets it. He's a Christian, a man with faith in Christ. To call him an apostate is a serious wickedness on your (or anyone's) part, and an exercise in bearing false witness against your neighbor.
Dear Paul:
In reviewing your letter to the churches of Galatia, we, the modern men of the 21st century, have come to the conclusion that you truly missed the point in your very pointed and, may we say, unloving comments regarding the faithful brothers with whom you had but a minor theological difference. We are in particular offended that you would identify men who clearly confess faith in Christ and who have risked their lives for their faith "false brethren." Who are you to make such a harsh judgment, in light of their many evidences of faith? These men are Christians, and to call them false brethren is a serious sin! You are bearing false witness against them! And to dare to read the intentions of their hearts so as to say they were "sneaking" into the fellowship is simply beyond the pale. You should be ashamed of yourself! All you disagree on is a minor point of theology! They believe in Christ! They believe in His resurrection! They simply believe one should be circumcised so as to be a part of the covenant people of God! How narrow of you to exclude them from the fellowship of faith simply on the basis of such a minor thing as this! Why won't you focus upon the areas of agreement you have? Why focus only upon differences, the negatives? Don't you realize you will never win people to your views if you continue to act in this fashion? We seriously request that you apologize to the faithful brothers you anathematized in your ill-advised letter to the churches of Galatia. By this, true peace and unity might be achieved!
Dr. Bauman says that it is "a serious wickedness on your (or anyone's) part" to say that a person who moves from confession of the solas to that of Rome is an apostate. May I ask what then constitutes apostasy in Dr. Bauman's world? Evidently, the gospel is no longer a part of what defines the Christian faith? So now we only identify as apostates those who engage in formal heresy regarding, say, the Trinity? Hopefully the resurrection? But now it is "OK" to confess that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice that can be approached 20,000 times without bringing perfection, that celibate priests can be called "alter Christus" in their ordinations and that they can, by sacramental power, render Christ present upon Rome's altars, that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and infallible in teaching authority, that no grace accrues to anyone outside of Mary by God's design, and that Mary was Immaculately conceived and Bodily Assumed into heaven, and that if you die with temporal punishments of sin upon your soul you undergo satispassio in purgatory, and it's all just a slight difference over imputation versus infusion? All these dogmatic definitions of the gospel itself are just so much minor theological drivel, so that one can confess them, or not, and all is well? This is the clarity of modern theology?
Let me make it plain and clear: if I ever confess such things, and deny the perfection of the work of Christ in my behalf, consigning my Lord and Savior to the role of merely making salvation possible if I cooperate enough, please, I beg of my brothers in Christ, have the intestinal fortitude and love of God and His gospel to call me what I would be: an apostate. To refuse to do so is to show that you fear the face of men more than you honor God Himself.
Do we have such a low view of Scripture that we do not believe the gospel has been revealed with sufficient clarity to identify Rome's abomination for what it is? Can we be so easily duped as to think that the difference between Rome's religion and the gospel is merely a matter of a theory of imputation vs. infusion? Are we so blind?
I suppose we can surely admit that Rome does not add to the clarity of the situation given the massive confusion that now reigns in the highest halls of her leadership. Inclusivism and universalism exists side-by-side with "old time Rome" so that identifying Rome's current orthodoxy is next to impossible. And it surely makes it challenging to attempt to hold Rome's apologists to any consistent standard, for they can switch back and forth between various positions as the need arises.
Dr. Beckwith posted a number of canons from the Council of Orange. I'd like to provide another citation and see if Dr. Beckwith likewise accepts this one:
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Denzinger 714).
I would invite Dr. Beckwith to examine the context, historically, of these words. Look at the beliefs of the men involved in writing these words. What they mean is obvious. So, does he believe these words? Does it really sound like the Council of Constance viewed the difference between Rome and "schismatics" as a minor thing? Surely, this came before the Reformation, but to try to reduce the differences between the Reformation and Rome to a mere difference of "theory" regarding justification is not only laughable, it is, in my opinion, simply reprehensible. To refuse to see Rome's view of justification within the full context of Rome's soteriology is either deceptive, or just plain ridiculous.
Since it has been said that it is sinful to identify a convert (or revert) to Rome as an apostate [and please note, I have often said that I do not know if Dr. Beckwith is actually an apostate, since I have yet to find any solid evidence that he ever abandoned Rome's views of man and grace to begin with], let me say that I believe it is sinful to accept the calling of God's people in a truly Reformed congregation, swear fealty to such Reformed standards as define that faith, and then at the same time refuse to have the honor and integrity and love for truth to speak the truth plainly regarding Rome's false gospel. If you do not believe the gospel is clear enough to distinguish from Rome, then I suggest you are not Reformed, period. Please stop adding to the confusion by saying you are. It would be much appreciated.
James White
www.aomin.org
21:24:49 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -
|
