President Of The Evangelical Theological Society

[Budge]

I dont agree with James White on everything him being a Calvinist, [who probably is faced with most of his brethern converting to Rome]

But he nails this...
[quote]
There are very few "new" reasons for conversion that have not been fully addressed in the past, and Rome's modern apologists have learned that it is never to their advantage to give air to the replies offered by the most careful of their critics.[u]As any review of the current body of Roman Catholic "conversion stories" will bear out, fair, balanced, insightful representation of the facts related to sola scriptura, Papal primacy, the Mass, the Marian dogmas, purgatory, etc., is utterly lacking[/u].[b] Emotional appeals to "the ancient church," mythical references to the "unity" of Rome (those actually inside the communion and familiar with its rancorous disputes cannot help but chuckle at those blissfully naive, breathless commentaries), and the warm feeling of "coming home" to the Church (almost never anything about conversion to Christ) are the keys to successful conversioneering[/b].[/quote]

[Winchester]

Every argument put against the Catholic Church is in part defended by history. the Bible includes history and uses history to prove Christ as the Messiah. Obviously, history is important to God.

When dealing with other Christians, the divinity of Christ is not in question. There's no need to debate it. What is at issue is His Will, and we demonstrate that through history.

In dealing with those who have not accepted Christ, then history can provide compelling evidence as well.

Lastly, to totally condemn White's snide deception, accepting Christ and His Sacrifice is required. Whether or not history helps is of no import. We have to accept Christ, so White is merely commenting on the method, nothing more. His words are empty.

And he demonstrates his prejudice in talking only of "Roman Catholicism."

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Budge' post='1266688' date='May 7 2007, 09:01 AM']I dont agree with James White on everything him being a Calvinist, [who probably is faced with most of his brethern converting to Rome][/quote]

James White's only sibling, a sister, is a convert to the Catholic Church. She'll be on EWTN today on the Jouney Home program. She, too, was a Calvinist and says she was as anti-Catholic as he is. Needless to say, he had an apoplectic fit when she became a Catholic. He is perhaps the best (or best-known) Protestant apologist in the U.S. today and has written many anti-Catholic books, but he couldn't keep his own sister in the Protestant fold once she encontered the Truth.

The Catholic Church is "the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth" 1 Tim 3:15.

Budge, here's another greeting from Dr. Beckwith's blog:

QUOTE

Dr. Beckwith,

I feel like I am just joining the amen choir, but congratulations and welcome home. I have always been a big fan of yours (especially your use of the substance view of personhood to defend the life of the unborn), and my admiration will only grow now that you are a member of the one true Church.

I too left Evangelical Protestantism for the Catholic Church. The move cost me many friends but I gained the Eucharist (John 6:51-58), Confession (John 20:21-23), and the pillar of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15, Ephesians 2:19-20, Revelation 21:14).

I think it was a pretty good trade-off.

Posted by: Arieh

END QUOTE

Likos

[hoosieranna]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1265922' date='May 6 2007, 11:20 AM']The ex-Catholics and Evangelicals and other varities of Protestants at phatmass seem to be avoiding this thread. Hmmmmm. I wonder why? :

Don't youse guys have anything to say about this?

Here's this Evangelical guy with the great big brain, a philosopher and a theologian, and he's gone back home to Rome.

Doesn't it make you wonder if maybe the Church is right and you're wrong?

Likos[/quote]

I didn't see it until now-no active avoidance. I've got nothing to say other than, "Cool. Interesting article." I'm here to learn, not argue. This increases my learning. I've never been much of an Evangelical anyway.

Edited May 7, 2007 by Nadezhda

[N/A Gone]

Did budge just pull the "he was not a BIBLE CHRISTIAN" argument? Is there anyone you do not judge and find less than you?

[Katholikos]

Thanks for your comment, Nazedhda.

For anyone who would like to know more about James White, here's an article from the October, 1993 This Rock magazine.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2.asp[/url]

On Dr. Beckwith's blog, he linked to the blog of a young student on which it was reported that James White announced Dr. B's conversion/reversion -- maliciously and intentionally --before he was ready to do so himself, causing serious problems for the doctor and others. ARF ARF

Likos

[Paladin D]

[url="http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/05/my_return_to_th.html"]Dr. Beckwith's blog[/url]

[i][b][size=5]My Return to the Catholic Church[/size][/b]

"During the last week of March 2007, after much prayer, counsel and consideration, my wife and I decided to seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. My wife, a baptized Presbyterian, is going through the process of the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA). This will culminate with her receiving the sacraments of Holy Communion and Confirmation. For me, because I had received the sacraments of Baptism, Communion, and Confirmation all before the age of 14, I need only go to confession, request forgiveness for my sins, ask to be received back into the Church, and receive absolution.



Given my status as president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), I decided several weeks ago--after consultation with trusted friends--to not seek absolution until my term as ETS president ended in November and then to request that the ETS nominations committee not place my name on the executive committee ballot as an at-large member. I wanted to make sure that my return to the Church brought as little attention to ETS as possible. To complicate matters, I received conflicting advice from wise friends on when and how to address the ETS executive committee on this delicate matter. Some suggested that the ETS executive committee would rather not know about my reception into the Church until after the national meeting in November. These friends recommended I lay low, give a presidential address that is irenic and does not address Protestant-Catholic issues (which I had planned on doing all along), and then quietly ask not to be nominated to the executive committee for the four-year at-large term. Other friends, equally as wise, gave conflicting advice. They opined that my withholding from the executive committee my plans to return to the Church would play to prejudices that some Protestants have about “secretive Jesuit conspiracies” and the like. They were concerned that my planned move would be inadvertently disclosed by friends before the November meeting and that the news that I had withheld information concerning my return to the Church could be perceived by many as a bad witness for the Gospel.

I did not know exactly what to do. So, I prayed and asked the Lord to provide to me clear direction. I believe I received this direction on April 20. On that Friday morning, my 16-year-old nephew, Dean Beckwith, called me and asked if I would be his sponsor when he receives the sacrament of Confirmation on May 13. I could not say “no” to my dear nephew, who has credited his renewal of his faith in Christ to our conversations and correspondence. But in order for me to do this I would have to be in full communion with the Church. So, on Saturday, April 28, 2007, I received the sacrament of Confession. The next day I was publicly received back into the Catholic Church at 11 am Mass at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church in Waco, Texas. My wife, standing beside me, was accepted as a catechumen. (A Baylor student, who I do not know, was present at the Mass and provides an account of it on her blog).

Because I can in good conscience, as a Catholic, affirm the ETS doctrinal statement, I do not intend to resign as a member of ETS. However, because I am sensitive to the fact that my status as ETS president changes the dynamic of my return to the Church, I had originally thought that it was wise for me not to step down as ETS president before my term expires in November. For, I thought that my resignation would draw needless attention to ETS. On the other hand, because I had no doubt that word of my return to the Church would disseminate quickly through private conversation and correspondence over the next six months, I suggested to the ETS executive committee that it appoint someone else on the committee to preside over the remaining meetings in both August and November. I offered to attend those meetings and contribute to them in ways to advance the good of ETS. But I also told the committee that if it did not think it was appropriate for me to attend, I would not. On the other hand, if it thought I should conduct the meetings, I would do so. Regardless, I deferred to their collective judgment on this matter. However, I also told them that I intended to remain as ETS president until my term expires in November, but not to accept a nomination for a four-year at-large appointment to the executive committee after the end of my term.

But, as many of you now realize, word of my reception into the Church was delivered, without my knowledge, to several bloggers. A tiny percentage of these bloggers have engaged in much speculation about my motives, the timing of my move, as well as my status as ETS president. Unfortunately, some of these speculations had pockets of uncharity, for they were not advanced under the assumption that I have a true love for my Evangelical brothers and that I may have had undisclosed reasons, perhaps personal and theologically delicate ones, that time and circumstance prevented me from fully conveying in one full swoop. Fortunately, the uncharitable aspects of these postings have had no impact on people of good will and devout faith, both Protestant and Catholic, who have offered their prayers, advice, and even critical comments to me in the form of private messages adorned by a love of Christ and a sincere desire to honor and respect both me and my wife. Many of these messages, especially the critical ones, have been extremely important in helping me to reassess my decision to remain as ETS president. As I have already stated, my decision was based on a cluster of goods that I thought would be best protected by my completing my tenure and then permanently moving off the executive committee. However, given the immense public attention and commentary that my reception into the Church has provoked, I no longer think that it is possible for ETS to conduct its business and its meetings in a fashion that advances the Gospel of Christ as long as I remain as its president. I now believe that my continued presence as president of ETS will serve the very harms that I had originally thought that my retention would avoid. For this reason, effective May 5, 2007, I resign as both President of the Evangelical Theological Society and a member of its executive committee.

In order to dispel any other rumors, I want to make it clear that no one on the ETS executive committee asked for me to resign. They received my letter concerning this matter during the week of April 30, and I have no doubt that they have since then discussed that epistle among themselves. As stewards of this important academic society, these men not only have the right to do this, they have the obligation. And I would have willingly and graciously resigned if they had asked me to, even if I thought that I could serve out my term with little controversy. But knowing these wonderful gentlemen, and the measured and serious way they take their responsibility, I knew they did not want to be rushed into assessing such a delicate matter. I have no doubt they have been thinking, deliberating, and praying about what to do. But given the fact that it is unlikely that I would have been elevated to the presidency of ETS by its membership if my reception into the Catholic Church had occurred prior to the time of my candidacy, I think it would have been more than reasonable for these gentlemen to ask me to step down. But they had not done so yet. Nevertheless, I am stepping down, in order to relieve them of the burden of that judgment as well as to avoid bringing scandal to either ETS or the Church.

There is a conversation in ETS that must take place, a conversation about the relationship between Evangelicalism and what is called the “Great Tradition,” a tradition from which all Christians can trace their spiritual and ecclesiastical paternity. It is a conversation that I welcome, and it is one in which I hope to be a participant. But my presence as ETS president, I have concluded, diminishes the chances of this conversation occurring. It would merely exacerbate the disunity among Christians that needs to be remedied.

The past four months have moved quickly for me and my wife. As you probably know, my work in philosophy, ethics, and theology has always been Catholic friendly, but I would have never predicted that I would return to the Church, for there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable. However, in January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries. Moreover, much of what I have taken for granted as a Protestant—e.g., the catholic creeds, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Christian understanding of man, and the canon of Scripture—is the result of a Church that made judgments about these matters and on which non-Catholics, including Evangelicals, have declared and grounded their Christian orthodoxy in a world hostile to it. Given these considerations, I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles.

I have tremendous respect for both what ETS stands for as well as for each and every one of the members of the ETS executive committee. If not for them, their predecessors, and so many of their (and our) mentors and teachers in the Protestant Evangelical movement, my present faith would be diminished. ETS’s tenacious defense and practice of Christian orthodoxy is what has sustained and nourished so many of us who have found our way back to the Church of our youth."[/i]

[thessalonian]

What I would have given to be a fly on the wall when he dropped da bomb!

[N/A Gone]

weeeeiiiiiiiirrrrrrrdddd they are not talking about this at all in my school.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1268149' date='May 8 2007, 03:35 PM']weeeeiiiiiiiirrrrrrrdddd they are not talking about this at all in my school.[/quote]

The Evangelical Theological Society, of which Dr. Beckwith was the elected president, has a membership of [b]400 Protestant theologians[/b]. No wonder they're not talking about it at your school!

Dr. Beckwith's coming home to the Catholic Church he once rejected is a really BIG DEAL. Many Evangelicals will follow him into the Church.

Come Holy Spirit and renew the face of the earth!

Likos

[BG45]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1265922' date='May 6 2007, 01:20 PM']The ex-Catholics and Evangelicals and other varities of Protestants at phatmass seem to be avoiding this thread. Hmmmmm. I wonder why? :

Don't youse guys have anything to say about this?

Here's this Evangelical guy with the great big brain, a philosopher and a theologian, and he's gone back home to Rome.

Doesn't it make you wonder if maybe the Church is right and you're wrong?

Likos[/quote]

Well one reason could be that we're in the midst of finals and haven't checked the board in a week. (What possessed me to take Terrorism when I knew the tests would be entirely essay again? Oh yeah...I needed more PoliSci credits...)

For one, I don't really mind if he went back to Rome, if he felt he was being called to the Roman Catholic Church. It is his decision and it should be respected, unlike some of the comments I read on his blog with the Early Fathers being Great Deceivers, and such.

As for wondering if maybe the Church is right and I am wrong...I would not be here if I did not consider that.

[Akalyte]

Praise be to Jesus Christ! Budge, you do know you will one day return to the true Flock right? You'll remember my words.

[Budge]

Never going to happen Akalyte.

All this does is bolster Alberto Riveras warnings about Catholic infiltration of evangelical churches.

This guy had to be in RCIA didnt he before joining the Catholic Church, so that means 6 months at least of playing a pretend evangelical.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Budge' post='1268418' date='May 8 2007, 09:50 PM']Never going to happen Akalyte.

All this does is bolster Alberto Riveras warnings about Catholic infiltration of evangelical churches.

This guy had to be in RCIA didnt he before joining the Catholic Church, so that means 6 months at least of playing a pretend evangelical.[/quote]

Be afraid, be very afraid.

OoOoOoOoOoOoOo!!!

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Budge' post='1268418' date='May 8 2007, 08:50 PM']Never going to happen Akalyte.

All this does is bolster Alberto Riveras warnings about Catholic infiltration of evangelical churches.

This guy had to be in RCIA didnt he before joining the Catholic Church, so that means 6 months at least of playing a pretend evangelical.[/quote]
So... let me get this right.... You're saying that evangelicals who convert were just pretending to be evangelicals?