Justification and Catholicism

With the reconversion last week of Francis Beckwith, the President of the Evangelical Theological Society, to Roman Catholicism, questions have arisen again about the relationship between Catholicism and Evangelicalism. Beckwith said (among a number of other things) that the reason for his reconversion centered around his understanding of justification:

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.

Elsewhere he affirms declares that "I still consider myself an evangelical, but no longer a Protestant." In other words, the Catholic view of justification does not contradict the evangelical view of justification. As with the attempts over the past few years to minimize the distinctions between Catholicism and Evangelicalism (Evangelicals and Catholics Together), this kind of statement ignores a number of key issues. In fact, it is not possible to be both evangelical and Catholic because (this is a short, but critical list):

1. To accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification is to accept the role of Mary as co-redeemer with Christ.
2. To accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification is to accept the Roman Catholic practice of communion, which emphasizes that Christ is literally present in the elements of the bread and cup, meaning that the initial sacrifice of Christ was inadequate (invalidating passages like Heb. 10:11-14).
3. To accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification is to accept the doctrine of purgatory, which teaches that there is no security in salvation and that there is a dependence on works to produce salvation -- even the works of others can produce my salvation.
   
4. To accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification is to accept the Roman Catholic view of Scripture, which embraces the Apocrypha as Scripture; believes the Pope to be able to speak infallibly on theological issues, such that his words supersede the words of Scripture; and accepts tradition as having more authority than Scripture.
   

In fact, the second statement, "The Gift of Salvation," produced by Evangelicals and Catholics Together includes this statement:

While we rejoice in the unity we have discovered and are confident of the fundamental truths about the gift of salvation we have affirmed, we recognize that there are necessarily interrelated questions that require further and urgent exploration. Among such questions are these: the meaning of baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, and sacramental grace; the historic uses of the language of justification as it relates to imputed and transformative righteousness; the normative status of justification in relation to all Christian doctrine; the assertion that while justification is by faith alone, the faith that receives salvation is never alone; diverse understandings of merit, reward, purgatory, and indulgences; Marian devotion and the assistance of the saints in the life of salvation; and the possibility of salvation for those who have not been evangelized.

With so many key issues left unresolved, there is and can be no "togetherness." The Roman Catholic doctrine of justification is far from an evangelical understanding of justification. And for Beckwith to minimize those issues is, frankly, foolish.

Additionally, for Beckwith to suggest that Catholicism teaches a Biblical view of justification is to ignore the Reformation and all those who died in defense of Protestantism. The central issue for Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and all the Reformers (many of whom died in defense of this) was the very issue of how a man comes to be declared righteous before God. To say that there is no distinction is to invalidate that entire movement as irrelevant and even wrong.

The issues that have been placed "on the discussion table" by Beckwith's return to Catholicism are of central importance to our faith. They must not be ignored. Our very faith depends on it.

--------------------------------

Other helpful responses:

• John MacArthur, "Explaining the Heresy of Catholicism"
  
• Carl Trueman, "Thoughts on the Return to Rome of Professor Beckwith"
• James White, "Head of the Evangelical Theological Society Swims the Tiber"
• Pulpit Magazine, "Mother Church?"
• ETS statement