Dr. Francis Beckwith

[Teflon93]

Yes.

To me, this interview only goes to show how so many converts make decisions on the emotional level, not the logical one.

Almost every convert to Catholicism from Protestantism I know of has this same overwhelming problem.

But this is only my experience.

…

As I am not very emotional, and made my own decision to convert purely on the rational, I can be the exception to your rule.

Having listened to the interview, Koukl engaged in the same sort of “throw spaghetti at the wall” attempt at argumentation we see around here quite often. One can understand Beckwith being surprised that a friend would do so, but I doubt many of us were surprised.

Koukl talks about Protestantism as though it were a coherent theological whole, which of course it is not. For Beckwith, this was like arguing with a chimera. And since the ostensible purpose was to discuss his conversion story, which the host kept interrupting in drive-by attacks on his own erroneous understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches (he didn’t understand indulgences one whit, for example, and when Beckwith tried to correct him that indulgences apply to the temporal only, he didn’t seem to know what that meant). This is all very typical. At least Beckwith called him on it when he tried the usual tactic of Scriptural cherrypicking.

Beckwith does not claim to be a Catholic apologist. He was sharing his conversion story, and in my opinion the host was quite rude to call him in on that pretense only to try to set him up as an apologist. Koukl should invite Scott Hahn or Patrick Madrid on if he wants an apologetics discussion.

 

[Stephen_C]

Yes.

To me, this interview only goes to show how so many converts make decisions on the emotional level, not the logical one.

Almost every convert to Catholicism from Protestantism I know of has this same overwhelming problem.

But this is only my experience.

…

Dr. Francis Beckwith will be on EWTN’s Journey Home program Sept 24th. Can’t wait…

Also here are some conversion stories posted on the CHN website…you be the judge…
chnetwork.org/converts.htm

 

[Contarini]

As I am not very emotional, and made my own decision to convert purely on the rational, I can be the exception to your rule.

Having listened to the interview, Koukl engaged in the same sort of “throw spaghetti at the wall” attempt at argumentation we see around here quite often. One can understand Beckwith being surprised that a friend would do so, but I doubt many of us were surprised.

I don’t think that’s fair. I thought Koukl had a very consistent and well-argued position. I think he was wrong about justification, but I didn’t think he was “throwing spaghetti at the wall.”

Koukl talks about Protestantism as though it were a coherent theological whole, which of course it is not.

No, Koukl spoke of what he called “Evangelicalism.” I have no doubt that what he had in mind is a fairly coherent position, at least with regards to sola fide and sola scriptura. However, you’re right that he fudged at times–for instance, he admitted that many evangelicals don’t believe in eternal security, yet it seems to me that his entire approach depended on eternal security. Still, it was perfectly appropriate for Koukl to defend his particular version of Protestantism without trying to speak on behalf of every Protestant out there, just as a Catholic would engage a non-Christian from a Catholic perspective while defending Christianity as a whole.

(he didn’t understand indulgences one whit, for example, and when Beckwith tried to correct him that indulgences apply to the temporal only, he didn’t seem to know what that meant).

That was not the impression I got. Koukl brought up indulgences in the context of Purgatory, which was appropriate. Koukl had already acknowledged that Purgatory was about temporal punishment. He has a somewhat wooden understanding of Catholicism (typical of ex-Catholics, whether because of bad catechesis or “convert syndrome” or a combination of the two), but I couldn’t see that it was basically inaccurate. I thought his argument about indulgences was the one really strong one he made. If Purgatory is necessary because even though we have been forgiven we must be actually transformed and cleansed of the effects of sin, how do indulgences work? If the merits of Christ and the saints can be transferred to us through indulgences and thus do away with the need for purgatory, why can’t all the merits of Christ be transferred to us on the basis of our faith, as Protestants teach? It seems to me that indulgences and forensic justification stem from the same basically erroneous approach–legal rather than transformational.

Beckwith does not claim to be a Catholic apologist. He was sharing his conversion story, and in my opinion the host was quite rude to call him in on that pretense only to try to set him up as an apologist. Koukl should invite Scott Hahn or Patrick Madrid on if he wants an apologetics discussion.

I don’t think that last sentence is true. Beckwith is brilliant by all accounts and quite capable of holding his own if properly prepared. When the president of the ETS makes a move like this, he has to be prepared to defend it. (Frankly, and no offence to good Catholic apologists, but I’d much rather hear a philosopher discuss these issues than a professional “apologist,” who is rarely going to get beyond tired cliches. That is, BTW, not true of Hahn.) I agree with you that Beckwith clearly did not expect a debate, and that’s between him and his friend. I got the impression that if Beckwith had known that he’d be facing the kind of arguments he did, he would have waited quite a while longer before going on the air with his story. But because he and Koukl were personal friends and had worked together, he mistakenly thought that he could have a less polemical conversation.

I feel for Beckwith–he didn’t seem to have any idea of the animosity his reversion would stir up. For years he’s been working in an environment where Catholics and Protestants are basically on the same side, and now suddenly he’s being treated like an enemy. He thought he was switching from the American to the British army, and suddenly the Americans are shooting at him as if he were a Nazi!

Edwin

 

[Subrosa]

Hey. Thanks for the encouraging word. This is what I just posted on the comments section of the STR blog:

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

God bless Stand To Reason.

Frank

Hello Dr. Beckwith and welcome to the forums!

Let me say first that I found the story of your journey very inspirational. Thank you for publishing it.

Your post that I have quoted above expresses that very personal journey that Christianity is. While you were on the path you thought that people were following. It turns out that that was a misperception.

It is just as personal for each of us, myself included. This journey has stirred no less a debate for me and the people around me. You will find many similar stories posted here on the forums.

God bless you and your wife (and children?)

Subrosa

 

[mtr01]

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

God bless Stand To Reason.

Frank

Let me also welcome you to the forums, Dr. Beckwith. I would like to echo Subrosa’s sentiments and add that we know you’ll be a vaulued member of our little community here at CA.

 

[Ahimsa]

If the merits of Christ and the saints can be transferred to us through indulgences and thus do away with the need for purgatory, why can’t all the merits of Christ be transferred to us on the basis of our faith, as Protestants teach?

Which Protestants?

 

[Contarini]

Which Protestants?

Fair enough, but I think it’s true to say that insofar as Protestants talk in terms of merit, this is what they believe, period. Those of us who are uncomfortable with the classical Reformation formulation are generally uncomfortable with it because we think the question is being posed in the wrong way.

I suppose you could argue that Restorationists think otherwise, but I don’t think they would want to say that good works have merit, exactly–they simply say that obedience is necessary (which arguably comes to the same thing in the end but doesn’t lend itself to this notion of a financial transfer of credit). Wesleyans such as myself see justification primarily as the forgiveness of sins, and we put a lot of emphasis on sanctification–the real transformation of human beings by God’s grace.

Edwin

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Wow! It’s Christmas at CAF 5 months early!

We’ve been following your swim closely here at CAF, every once in a while posting a link to your latest blog entry or those of Reformers commenting on the significance of your decision.

I am so so surprised and happy to see you here on the threads! I was just getting geared up to email Mr Keating to ask you to give us an article for This Rock. But now to see you on the threads is fabulous! Please feel welcome here and come back often.

:extrahappy: :hug1:

fbeckwith:

…I will confess that my performance was less than stellar, largely because I was prepared for one sort of interview and received another.

We know how it is and understand. It can only be learning for you. And for us.

fbeckwith:

That is not Greg’s or Melinda’s fault. They both are good souls with pure motives, and I love them very much. It is my fault. For I had traveled quite a distance in the past several years, from Protestantism to Catholicism, not realizing that some of my friends were not on the same journey.

I posted earlier that you had been under a lot of stress since April what with the myriad interviews you have given and with the blather on some of the Reformer blogs after your swim.

Apart from the stress of a flurry of activity at the end of university term, I guess some of us realized too that you were trying to find a way to negotiate yourself through the hurt feelings of old friends to say nothing of the political shuffle in the wake of your swim.

fbeckwith:

So, for me, what seemed like a small trek in late April was the conclusion of a spiritual jog that had begun, inadvertently, many years prior. Thus, I saw my friends as only an arms length away, when in fact the distance was greater.

Not fun. I am sorry for this and hope that you will be able to keep what is good among you.

fbeckwith:

And yet, we are so close; so close in fact that we can bridge the distance by our mutual affection and love for Christ, something that theological disputation may not ever be able to bridge this side of heaven.

You, Sir, have a unique vantage point. I have, shall we say, noticed that some on the blogosphere have been attempting to market themselves as having that unique vantage point. But the reality is that they don’t. You do. All the best to you and God bless!

 

[fbeckwith]

Friends:

Because of your interest in my radio interview, I want to draw your attention to my correction of a mistake made by James White several months ago. I let it pass when it first occurred, thinking it would fade away like most internet midrash. Sadly, Mr. White delivered this mistake again on the blog of STR, a ministry for which I have deep affection. For this reason, I thought it was time to correct it in as kind a fashion as I could. I reproduce below an abridged version of my comments. If you want to read the original blog post and combox, you can read it here. Also, because, as I say below, I need to live the life of Christ and quit arguing about this stuff (for the sake of my own spiritual development), this is all I will say on the matter.

Blessings,
Frank​

One of the most important things that Greg Koukl teaches is to read people charitably. It is something that we all fail to do on occasion, and I certainly have failed to do on occasion as well.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, we have an example of this for us right here in the comments box of the STR blog. Mr. White states to me, “… [Y]ou have admitted, repeatedly, that you had not even read the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent until earlier this year." This is not true. However, an uncharitable reading of my initial mention of this could lead one to that conclusion. Here’s what I stated in my National Catholic Register interview:

“…Then I read the Council of Trent, which some Protestant friends had suggested I do. What I found was shocking. I found a document that had been nearly universally misrepresented by many Protestants, including some friends.”

What I said is both consistent and inconsistent with the truth of White’s statement: “that you had not even read the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent until earlier this year.”

Now, let me ask STR readers, knowing what you know about me, how would you charitably approach my comments? Would you assume that prior to earlier this year that I had never read Trent, or would you think, “he took the suggestion of friends and reacquainted himself with a text he had not picked up in years.” If you chose the latter, you are correct.

This is why in my Ignatius Press interview–give soon after the NCR interview–I clarify matters:

“IgnatiusInsight.com: Do you have any formal training in Evangelical theology?

Dr. Beckwith: Yes… [A]t SGU I studied Evangelical theology, apologetics, comparative religion, and church history under Montgomery, Manske, and Michael Smythe. Among the several works that Smythe had us read for his church history course was Progress of Dogma by James Orr, the great Scottish Presbyterian scholar. This is when I first came in contact with the Council of Trent. Orr’s interpretation, as well as the interpretations of others I would read over the years, would shape my understanding of Trent when I finally got around to reading it for the first time a few years later. However, as I pointed out in my NCR interview, when I read Trent again with fresh eyes several months ago at the suggestion of several friends, I was shocked at how much I had missed the first time, largely because I did not read it then with a teachable spirit…”

I believe those are the only two places in which I mentioned the Council of Trent since having returned to the Catholic Church. The first does not say what Mr. White says it says; and the second clarifies what I was saying in the first. Hence, I did not “admit repeatedly” what Mr. White claims.

…

Now you see why reading people charitably is important. Mr. White is a Reformed Christian with a point of view that has a rich and attractive intellectual pedigree, and many of you share his convictions on a variety of matters (and I share some of them as well). But when a friend offers an uncharitable reading of another, it detracts from what we could otherwise learn from our friend. We begin to wonder, “If he can misread Beckwith on such a simple matter, one that a charitable reading will deliver a result that does not impugn his brother’s intellectual virtue but he chooses the opposite, perhaps he reads others that way as well. Perhaps his readings of Church Fathers, Popes, and Councils could be read with a more scholarly, less adversarial posture, that leads one to conclusions more congenial to his opponents’ understanding of these figures and bodies.” Perhaps. But that is another discussion for another day.

I hope the STR readers will indulge me with their graciousness and allow me to depart from participation in this combox so that I may live the life of Christ rather than just arguing about it. I’m 46 years old and I’m tired, for now.

Frank

 

[VociMike]

I suppose you could argue that Restorationists think otherwise, but I don’t think they would want to say that good works have merit, exactly–they simply say that obedience is necessary (which arguably comes to the same thing in the end but doesn’t lend itself to this notion of a financial transfer of credit). Wesleyans such as myself see justification primarily as the forgiveness of sins, and we put a lot of emphasis on sanctification–the real transformation of human beings by God’s grace.

I’m very much with you on this. Obedience (and the love which inspires and entwines that obedience) strike me as the keys. The whole vocabulary of merits and credits and debts that can or cannot be paid strikes me as being very misleading, ending up in many minds in the image of a God who is so insistent on being paid that which he tells us we cannot pay, that he extracts that payment in the pain and blood and death of his own Son. I think that must be one of the most off-putting images that Christianity provides to the outside world, and we need to get away from it, and any hint of it.

 

[BlestOne]

Frank,
I too want to welcome you home and to CA. You are such an eloquent writer and I also find you a man of God. You could have responded with the same veracity that was slung at you, but instead you graciously treated him with respect and courtesy he would not afford to you!!! Now that is taking the high road!!!

Wow, I am looking forward to reading more from you here at CA!!!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

fbeckwith:

Because of your interest in my radio interview, I want to draw your attention to my correction of a mistake made by James White several months ago. I let it pass when it first occurred, thinking it would fade away like most internet midrash. Sadly, Mr. White delivered this mistake again on the blog of STR, a ministry for which I have deep affection. For this reason, I thought it was time to correct it in as kind a fashion as I could.

Professor Beckwith, I hear you when you say that you are tired and I sense that you are sifting through many dramatic changes in your constellation of friends and perhaps even in how you look at friendship. How could this not be so for someone coming home?

Catholicism, for me at least, is a deeply relational kind of faith. Yes it has its rigour as far as the life of the mind goes, but the core of Catholicism is friendship. Friendship with God, friendship with our neighbours, friendship with our enemies, and friendship with ourselves.

From what I have read on the blogosphere – and I could be wrong or even worse half-right – it seems to me that some folks have been launching off from your swim by proposing new polemics even new political strategies.

Some folks get so excited with their latest brainstorms on how they can help God that they don’t hear what does not jibe with their own point of view. They simply don’t hear.

You see that link in my signature? It was getting that I was posting that link and an accompanying explanation a myriad times per day. People would agree that the Logos is Jesus and then turn around and tautologize Sola Scriptura just as though they had never heard it. This was emotionally exhausting for me. So I finally had done with it and posted it in my signature.

The Real Presence is world changing. Some folks walk away.



The reason I am saying all this is that people hearing what agrees with their latest plan for helping God is not going to go away. A great deal of this imho is emotional and does not respond to reason. Yet most of the folks who have told me what turned them toward the Tiber have said that it was the stability and beauty of the reference and reason which Catholic teaching brought to the Gospel that did it for them.

So:

• Polemics rooted in emotionalism is not going away.
• Reason works.
• It is critical for someone just emerging from the Tiber to rest in the Holy Spirit for a good time before ‘going out to bring them in.’
  Even St Paul was sent into the desert for two years (or was it three?) before going into the Mediterranean missions.

fbeckwith:

Also, because, as I say below, I need to live the life of Christ and quit arguing about this stuff (for the sake of my own spiritual development)

God bless!

 

[Contarini]

I’m very much with you on this. Obedience (and the love which inspires and entwines that obedience) strike me as the keys. The whole vocabulary of merits and credits and debts that can or cannot be paid strikes me as being very misleading, ending up in many minds in the image of a God who is so insistent on being paid that which he tells us we cannot pay, that he extracts that payment in the pain and blood and death of his own Son. I think that must be one of the most off-putting images that Christianity provides to the outside world, and we need to get away from it, and any hint of it.

One clarification: I’m describing two different Protestant perspectives here, both of them at odds with the view of the classical Reformers. The “Restorationist” (Christian Church, Church of Christ, etc.) view emphasizes obedience in what I find to be an overly contractual and legalistic way (if we believe and are baptized, God will forgive our sins, etc.). Wesleyans are closer to Catholicism in our understanding of sanctification as union with God and transformation by the Holy Spirit (not that Restorationists don’t talk about this at all, but my Restorationist friends generally admit that the Holy Spirit doesn’t get much press in their tradition), though historically we have often culpably downplayed the sacraments as the means by which this happens (the early Methodists talked a lot about the sacraments, and more recently there has been a recovery of sacramentalism).

Edwin

 

[heisenburg]

I just wanted to say a whole hearted welcome to the forums.

You Are a blessing to have here.

May your journey in Christ continue and always be fruitful

In Christ

 

[cpayne]

:extrahappy: :bowdown2:

 

[cpayne]

P.S. Next time you speak with J. Budziszewski, Robert P. George, Peter Kreeft, Russell Hittinger, or Ralph McInerny, could you get them to post on the forum, too? (When you find time, of course. )

 

[Teflon93]

I don’t think that’s fair. I thought Koukl had a very consistent and well-argued position. I think he was wrong about justification, but I didn’t think he was “throwing spaghetti at the wall.”

Others can listen to it. Beckwith called him on tossing out Scripture in great batches at one point.

No, Koukl spoke of what he called “Evangelicalism.” I have no doubt that what he had in mind is a fairly coherent position, at least with regards to sola fide and sola scriptura. However, you’re right that he fudged at times–for instance, he admitted that many evangelicals don’t believe in eternal security, yet it seems to me that his entire approach depended on eternal security. Still, it was perfectly appropriate for Koukl to defend his particular version of Protestantism without trying to speak on behalf of every Protestant out there, just as a Catholic would engage a non-Christian from a Catholic perspective while defending Christianity as a whole.

He referred to “Protestantism” repeatedly throughout. People can hear it for themselves.

That was not the impression I got. Koukl brought up indulgences in the context of Purgatory, which was appropriate. Koukl had already acknowledged that Purgatory was about temporal punishment. He has a somewhat wooden understanding of Catholicism (typical of ex-Catholics, whether because of bad catechesis or “convert syndrome” or a combination of the two), but I couldn’t see that it was basically inaccurate. I thought his argument about indulgences was the one really strong one he made. If Purgatory is necessary because even though we have been forgiven we must be actually transformed and cleansed of the effects of sin, how do indulgences work? If the merits of Christ and the saints can be transferred to us through indulgences and thus do away with the need for purgatory, why can’t all the merits of Christ be transferred to us on the basis of our faith, as Protestants teach? It seems to me that indulgences and forensic justification stem from the same basically erroneous approach–legal rather than transformational.

Beckwith made the very clear point that indulgences remit temporal punishments. I presume you know the difference. Koukl clearly did not get this.

I don’t think that last sentence is true. Beckwith is brilliant by all accounts and quite capable of holding his own if properly prepared. When the president of the ETS makes a move like this, he has to be prepared to defend it. (Frankly, and no offence to good Catholic apologists, but I’d much rather hear a philosopher discuss these issues than a professional “apologist,” who is rarely going to get beyond tired cliches. That is, BTW, not true of Hahn.) I agree with you that Beckwith clearly did not expect a debate, and that’s between him and his friend. I got the impression that if Beckwith had known that he’d be facing the kind of arguments he did, he would have waited quite a while longer before going on the air with his story. But because he and Koukl were personal friends and had worked together, he mistakenly thought that he could have a less polemical conversation.

Beckwith indicated clearly and in contradiction to your point above that he was not aware of the program being a debate on Catholic theology. Did you listen to the program?

I feel for Beckwith–he didn’t seem to have any idea of the animosity his reversion would stir up. For years he’s been working in an environment where Catholics and Protestants are basically on the same side, and now suddenly he’s being treated like an enemy. He thought he was switching from the American to the British army, and suddenly the Americans are shooting at him as if he were a Nazi!

Edwin

Well, he can speak for himself on that score. Outside of conservative political circles I’m not aware of any other spheres where there is minimal Catholic/Protestant tension.

 

[mgrfin]

As I am not very emotional, and made my own decision to convert purely on the rational, I can be the exception to your rule.

.

I liked your analysis. I like a site like this. It makes Catholics and non-Catholics do some research to understand the issues.
I had to research the Council of Florence, and the Bull, Cantate Dominio, and some of Luther’s writings, and read some more Protestant historians, like Noll, Patrick Collinson, and refresh my memory on the Justification and the Council of Trent, and rediscovered that there were two Caejetans, more importantly read more of the Gospels, and rediscover a hero from my youth, John Cardinal Newman, and re-read his “Apologia Pro Vita Sua.”, Hilaire Belloc - I don’t want to forget about him.

mgrfin

 

[Ahimsa]

The whole vocabulary of merits and credits and debts that can or cannot be paid strikes me as being very misleading, ending up in many minds in the image of a God who is so insistent on being paid that which he tells us we cannot pay, that he extracts that payment in the pain and blood and death of his own Son. I think that must be one of the most off-putting images that Christianity provides to the outside world, and we need to get away from it, and any hint of it.

Do you think the CC can really, easily get rid of the whole vocabulary of merits, credits, and debts?

 

[Teflon93]

I liked your analysis. I like a site like this. It makes Catholics and non-Catholics do some research to understand the issues.
I had to research the Council of Florence, and the Bull, Cantate Dominio, and some of Luther’s writings, and read some more Protestant historians, like Noll, Patrick Collinson, and refresh my memory on the Justification and the Council of Trent, and rediscovered that there were two Caejetans, more importantly read more of the Gospels, and rediscover a hero from my youth, John Cardinal Newman, and re-read his “Apologia Pro Vita Sua.”, Hilaire Belloc - I don’t want to forget about him.

mgrfin

Thank you–you’re very kind.

Newman’s “Apologia Pro Vita Sua” is quite excellent; I read it before my conversion, along with Augustine’s “Confessions” and “City of God”.

Belloc is quite excellent, particularly on the Reformation and what it cost the world.