Return to Rome by Francis J. Beckwith - A Protestant response: part 3

In the previous two parts of this review series I gave attention to the key issues that led to Beckwith deciding to return to the Roman Catholic Church, namely sola scriptura (here) and justification by faith alone (here). In this final post I will reflect on whether its is meaningful, given his rejection of key Evangelical teachings for Beckwith to designate himself an 'Evangelical Catholic'. Of course, in a sense, the writer is free to call himself what he wishes. My only concern is whether his self-designation is meaningful.

Evangelical and Catholic?

It is in the last chapter of the book that Beckwith addresses the issue of his identity as an 'Evangelical Catholic'. Quite rightly he points out that 'Evangelical' has its origins in the biblical word, Evangel meaning 'Gospel' or 'Good News' (p. 128). But does Beckwith as a Roman Catholic still hold to the biblical Gospel? Now, there is a huge amount of common ground between Evangelical Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church. Both groups hold to the doctrine of the Trinity as set out in the historic creeds, we agree that Jesus is a divine person with a human nature in accordance with the definition of Chalcedon, we confess together that Jesus was born of a virgin, died for our sins, and rose again from the dead and so on. But there are important differences between Evangelical Protestants and their Roman Catholic counterparts.

The crucial difference is over the issue of whether we are saved through grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone to the glory of God alone. For all that Roman Catholics may say about the good works of the saints being grace-enabled, any talk of human "merit" tends to undermine the gracious character of salvation. According to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, "no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification...". However, the Catechism goes on to say that, "Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life (see here)." Note, "we can merit for ourselves and for others...the attainment of eternal life". Should the faithful fail to merit the attainment of eternal life, then after death they will have to spend time in purgatory, where they will purified from remaining sin before entering heaven. Time in purgatory can be shortened through the meritorious works of others such as prayers for the dead, penance, and the Eucharistic sacrifice (see here).

The Roman Catholic doctrine of "merit" suggests Christ's obedience and blood are not sufficient to save his people from sin. While salvation is initiated by grace, the full reward of everlasting life is dependent on the meritorious good works of the believer. Any such idea is contradicted by countless Scriptures, Ephesians 2:8-10, 2 Timothy 1:8-10, Hebrews 9:13-15. The Gospel is good news because God justifies the ungodly freely by his grace, Romans 1:16-17, 3:24-26, 4:5. Good works are the believer's grace-enabled response to the transforming power of grace. They do not help to "merit" everlasting life. We are saved by grace alone in Christ alone. Christians will certainly be judged by Christ according to their works (2 Corinthians 5:10). The Lord will hold his people to account for their actions. But the believer will stand before God clothed in the righteousness of Christ (Romans 8:31-34). It is because they are justified by faith in Christ alone that they will be welcomed into the eternal inheritance of the saints.

I submit that because official Roman Catholic teaching undermines the Gospel of salvation revealed in Holy Scripture that it is not meaningful for Beckwith and other Roman Catholics to label themselves "Evangelical Catholics". In the words of Paul, the gospel of Roman Catholicism is a "different gospel" (Galatians 1:6-7). Indeed the Council of Trent explicitly anathematises justification by faith alone, a doctrine that lies at the heart of Evangelical theology (see here). In terms of church history the designation "Evangelical Catholic" is hard to swallow. Evangelicalism as a movement has its roots in the Protestant Reformation. In church-historical terms, Beckwith may as well call himself a "Protestant Catholic".

Beckwith left the Roman Catholic Church in his teenage years and became an Evangelical Christian because Rome could not satisfy his spiritual longings at that time. Despite his being elevated to the position of President of the Evangelical Theological Society, he returned to Rome for basically the same reason. It is pretty sad that Evangelicalism apparently failed to offer sufficient theological vision and spiritual depth to feed his soul. I submit that the wider Evangelical world needs to return to the deep riches of the historic Reformed faith. Perhaps there are some encouraging signs of this happening in the States (see Colin Hansen's Young, Restless, Reformed here and also have a look at Hansen's piece on Evangelical and Catholics in Christianity Today here). I am grateful to Francis Beckwith for entering into a friendly dialogue with me (here, here and here) as he picked up on my reviews.

Return to Rome by Francis J. Beckwith - A Protestant response: part 2

In part 1 of this review series I introduced the book and suggested that two substantive doctrinal issues led Beckwith to question his Evangelical Protestant faith and consider reconciling with the Roman Catholic Church: the doctrine of Scripture and justification by faith alone. In part 1 I homed in on what Beckwith had to say on sola scriptura. I was glad to see that the author read the post and thought it "fair minded" (see here), although he disagrees with my conclusions (see his response). Now I would like to look at the reasons Beckwith gives for his change of mind on justification by faith alone. In the final part of the series I will reflect on whether its is meaningful, given his rejection of key Evangelical teachings for Beckwith to designate himself an 'Evangelical Catholic'.

Justification by faith alone

Beckwith does not intend to present a full apologia for the Roman Catholic view of justification in these pages. He simply wants to let his readers in on the processes of his own thinking as he moved from a Protestant to Roman Catholic position. He came to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic view has greater explanatory power in relation to the biblical material than the Evangelical Protestant teaching. This is a strong charge given the Evangelical insistence on basing doctrine on sound biblical exegesis. But what of his arguments? In the space of a blog post I can't respond to every point he makes. For the sake of brevity I especially want to zoom in on what he has to say between the relationship between justification and sanctification in Roman Catholic and Protestant thought.

As far as I can see "sanctification" not clearly defined, but the assumption seems to be that in the biblical texts he quotes, "sanctification" means spiritual transformation or the life of good works that is included in justification. (He cites, 1 Corinthians 6:11, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Titus 3:5-8 etc - see p. 103-106) There are two problems with this construction. The first is that Beckwith fails to distinguish between positional or definitive sanctification and progressive sanctification. In the texts cited, positional sanctification is invariably in view. As Reformed Theologian John Murray pointed out, "it is a fact too frequently overlooked that in the New Testament the most characteristic terms that refer to sanctification are used not of a process, but of a once-for-all definitive act (see here)." In the texts cited justification is placed alongside definitive sanctification because on union with Christ the believer is at one and the same time declared righteous and set apart to God as holy. In the texts listed above Paul is not conflating justification and the life of sanctified good works. The key idea is position or status not process, hence the aorist tense of the verbs in question. But even here, justification and definitive sanctification remain distinct aspects of salvation, otherwise why would Paul bother to distinguish between them?

Second, Beckwith suggests that in understanding justification forensically, Protestants have difficulty with the Bible's teaching on transformative sanctification. But this is not the case. We hold with Calvin that in Christ the believer receives the "double benefit" of forensic justification and transformative sanctification (Romans 5 & 6). If Roman Catholics including Beckwith said that salvation has both forensic and transformative aspects, I would agree. The wider category of salvation includes both justification and the grace-enabled life of good works. But justification is the forensic aspect of salvation and it should not be merged with regeneration or transformative sanctification. Paul insists again and again that the believer is justified by faith apart from the works of the law (Galatians 2:16, 3:10-14) and sets faith against works in the context of justification (Romans 4:5).

It is wrong of Beckwith to suggest that Evangelical Protestants have a problem integrating the Bible's teaching on the need to work out salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12-13). Maybe the sectors of Evangelicalism in which Beckwith moved did not have an especially great emphasis on progressive sanctification, but the Reformed tradition has always been keen to stress the importance of the life of godliness and the value of good works - see Westminster Confession of Faith XVI. The voluminous Puritan writings on practical piety are enough to silence Beckwith's charge. (See Volumes 6 & 7 of the Works of John Owen, or take a look at J. I. Packer's Among God's Giants for a contemporary appreciation of the Puritan and Reformed teaching on holiness). Contrary to what Beckwith would have us believe (p. 113), there is even even room in Reformed theology for the deification of the believer, when understood in the light of Scripture. Here is John Calvin,

"Peter declares that the purpose for which believers are called is, that they may be “partakers of the divine nature,” (2 Pet. 1:4). How so? Because “he shall come to be glorified in his saints and to be admired in all them that believe,” (2 Thess. 1:10). If our Lord will share his glory, power, and righteousness, with the elect, nay, will give himself to be enjoyed by them; and what is better still, will, in a manner, become one with them, let us remember that every kind of happiness is herein included. But when we have made great progress in thus meditating, let us understand that if the conceptions of our minds be contrasted with the sublimity of the mystery, we are still halting at the very entrance". (The Institutes of the Christian Religion III:XXV:10)

The trouble is that Roman Catholic theology has the tendency to synthesize the different aspects of salvation so that hardly any distinction is made between regeneration, justification and transformative sanctification. The quote from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church on pages 107-108 bears this out (paras 1989-1982 here). It is as if all the different features of salvation have been placed in a Vatican blender and reduced to an undifferentiated soteriological gloop. For Beckwith as a Roman Catholic, "justification includes sanctification" (p. 103 - his own emphasis). More than that, Beckwith agrees with the Catholic teaching that in justification God makes us "inwardly just" (p. 110), making justification virtually equivalent to transformative sanctification. But in Holy Scripture these terms do not all mean the same thing. Regeneration or being born again (John 3:3) is the initial act of saving transformation. Transformative sanctification is the ongoing process of spiritual renewal. Justification is the forensic declaration that the believing sinner is right with God on the basis of Christ's finished work. These key theological words are not interchangeable. Substitute "sanctifies" for "justifies" in Romans 8:33-34 and the force of Paul's argument is blunted. Justification is the opposite of condemnation. It does not refer to the ongoing process of the believer being conformed to the image of Christ, although that too is an integral feature of salvation (Romans 8:29). Distinguishing between justification and sanctification is not as Beckwith suggests another instance of "bifurcation" in Protestant thought. It is simply a matter of being sensitive to clear biblical distinctions in order to preserve the integrity of the different aspects of salvation. A salvation I stress that is not received in disparate bits and pieces, but complete and entire on the believer's union with Christ.

As Beckwith acknowledges (p. 108ff), one of the main Protestant objections to Roman Catholic teaching on justification is that the inclusion of good works in justification effectively undermines the believer's assurance of salvation. How can the Christian ever be sure that he has done enough good works to merit acceptance by God? Beckwith tries to meet this objection by suggesting that even in Protestant teaching, "good works are a necessary condition for true justification." (See p. 109). It is true that good works validate the believer's claim to be truly justified because the faith that alone justifies does not remain alone. As Paul says, "faith works by love" (Galatians 5:6). It is here that the teaching of James comes into its own (James 2:17). But good works do not constitute a condition for justification. The sinner is justified by faith in Christ's finished work alone. That is the primary basis of the believer's assurance, Romans 5:1. But Beckwith makes a salient point when he says that, "The Protestant can repeat the sinners prayer and answer the altar call until the cows come home. But if she shows no evidence of 'good works', her eternal fate remains in serious doubt (p. 110)." There is certainly more to genuine saving faith than saying the "sinners prayer". Such an approach betrays the fact that the wider Evangelical world has a superficial understanding of conversion. The more biblical teaching of Reformed theology insists that salvation in Christ includes forensic justification and the new life of good works. The one is never present without the other. But good works are not needed to supplement the work of Christ in order to help merit salvation. We are saved by grace alone. That is why we reject Catholic practices such as penance, the confessional and prayers for the dead.

In conclusion I suggest that the little word alone stands at the heart of the difference between Evangelical Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church. The Reformed Churches hold that on the basis of Scripture alone that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone through grace alone to the glory of God alone. That is what the Reformers understood so well in their controversy with the Roman Catholic Church. If Beckwith felt he could no longer hold to the solas of the Reformation then he did the right thing in retuning to Rome.

Return to Rome by Francis J. Beckwith - A Protestant response: part 1

Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic,
by Francis J. Beckwith, Brazos Press, 2009, 144pp

In 2007 Francis Beckwith, President of the Evangelical Theological Society caused something of a stir when he resigned from office on the grounds that he had returned to the Roman Catholic Church. I say returned to the Roman Catholic Church because Beckwith was raised a Catholic and did not become an Evangelical Christian until his late teens. His disillusionment with post Vatican II Catholicism made him search for spiritual fulfilment among Evangelical Protestants. With touching honesty Beckwith tells the story of his reenchantment with the Roman Catholic Church into which he was baptised and confirmed as a child. Surprisingly, amongst other influences he cites Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary as a catalyst for his return to Rome (p. 83). He quotes Trueman's review of Is the Reformation Over? - here.

To get to the nub of things, it seems that two substantive doctrinal issues led Beckwith to question his Evangelical Protestant faith and consider reconciling with the Roman Catholic Church. The first was the doctrine of Scripture. The second was justification by faith alone. In this post I will discuss the what Beckwith has to say on sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura

Increasingly Beckwith struggled with the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura, finding the Catholic teaching where God reveals himself through Holy Scripture and the traditions of the Church more appealing. Of course, if Church teaching is a source of continuing revelation alongside Scripture, then it doesn't matter that certain Catholic dogmas can't be found in the Bible. On that basis the primacy of the Pope, purgatory, the Marian doctrines and so on may be accepted simply as the authoritative dogmas of the Church. The fact that they have no evident biblical foundation is besides the point. The Church has infallibly pronounced that these dogmas must be accepted by the faithful and that's that. However, it might be objected that Beckwith has not properly understood what the Reformers meant by sola scriptura. He seems to have had a rather biblicist understanding of the doctrine that excludes the role of the church as reader and teacher of Holy Scripture. By sola scriptura, the Reformers did not mean to separate the Bible from the Church. Rather they insisted that the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture is the supreme authority in the Church. The Church has ministerial authority to interpret and bear witness to the message of the Bible, but the Church and her traditions remain under the critical authority of God's written Word. The Church may restate the teaching of Scripture using other than biblical language in order to make its message plain, but she cannot add to God's self-revelation in Holy Scripture. Confusion on this point leads Beckwith to charge the Evangelical Theological Society with inconsistency in its doctrinal basis, which reads,

"The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.
God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory." (See here).

Beckwith objects that the ETS statement on the Trinity uses words such as "person" and "essence". As he points out this is not the language of the Bible, but of the creedal heritage of the Church. Tacitly, he suggests ETC has recognised that the Church as well as the Bible is a source of revelation about God - the Catholic position. But this is not the case. Evangelical Protestants hold that biblical truth sometimes needs to be stated in extrabiblical language in order to preserve the meaning of Scripture in the face of heretical misunderstandings. That is exactly what happened at Nicaea. When the Church acts in this way she is not supplementing biblical revelation, but preserving the integrity of what has been revealed, 'erecting a fence around the mystery' as Augustine put it. In this vein Beckwith has also misunderstood what the Westminster Confession says about deduction from Scripture. He quotes WCF I:VI

"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."

Beckwith suggests that in speaking of deduction, the WCF views theology almost as "branch of mathematics". He alleges the Puritans who drew up the confession used Scripture as a repository of truths from which principles could be logically deduced, sidelining the confessional heritage of the Church (p. 80). But this is not the case. The Westminster Confession deliberately incorporates the insights of earlier creedal documents. For all its Puritan distinctives, at heart the confession a work of Catholic theology. Its statement on the Trinity (Chapter II) bears all the hallmarks of Nicean orthodoxy. Its chapter on Christ the Mediator (VIII) freely uses the language of the Definition of Chalcedon. Its doctrine of sin and salvation is positively Augustinian (chapters IX-XVIII).

By not limiting the whole counsel of God to what is expressly set down in Scripture, the Puritan divines were distancing themselves from heretics such as the biblicist Socianians who insisted that biblical truth must be expressed in purely in biblical language. The Church's doctrine of the Trinity in terms of God being a union of three persons in the one divine essence may not be found in Scripture in just such words. But the doctrine of the Trinity may be properly deduced from Scripture as part and parcel of the whole counsel of God. Deduction here is not a case of autonomous human logic, but an exercise in holy reason as the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit seeks to faithfully articulate and defend God's self-revelation in Scripture.

Evangelical Protestants in the Reformed tradition certainly do not understand sola scriptura to mean that the interpretation of one believer is just as good as another or that the Bible should be read individualistically apart from the the creedal heritage of the Church. The Church has ministerial authority to expound the word through the teaching and preaching of her pastors. But the Church has no magisterial authority to add to Scripture or to rule infallibly on its interpretation. We do not need the Roman Catholic Magisterium to tell us how to read the Bible. But that does not mean that sola scriptura a recipe for theological anarchy. The Bible is God's clear and present Word to the Church. Its basic message concerning salvation in Christ is clear for all to see, while opinions may differ over the meaning of some difficult texts. However, differences of biblical interpretation are not the sole preserve of Evangelical Protestantism. The Church Fathers did not always agree. Is Beckwith suggesting that the Magisterium has succeeded in eliminating all disagreement on matters of biblical interpretation among contemporary Roman Catholic scholars? It would be hard to substantiate such a claim.

Beckwith's issues with sola scriptura are misplaced. His concerns have more to do with a narrow Fundamentalist biblicism than the historic Reformed teaching on the relationship between Scripture and the Church. In this book Beckwith complains that Evangelicals have often misunderstood the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. That may well be true and we must work harder to try and understand what each other is saying. But from his critique of sola scriptura, it seems that the former President of the Evangelical Theological Society did not have an accurate grasp of the view of the Bible he thought he was rejecting when he returned to Rome. That is regrettable and maybe it is an indication of the need for the wider Evangelical world to engage in further theological reflection on the doctrine of Scripture that goes beyond "the battle for the Bible". While biblical inerrancy is to be defended a la the ETS basis of faith, there is more to a rounded doctrine of Scripture than fighting for that particular truth. In my view Words of Life by Timothy Ward is a step in the right direction - see review here.