Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Return to Rome: A new review of Return to Rome

Here's a response by Frank Beckwith to William Webster's article about Beckwith's book Return to Rome.

Return to Rome: A new review of Return to Rome

11 comments:

John Watt said...

Thank you for posting the link to Mr. beckwith's response. You may actually want to read his book before you offer more criticism. You often seem to offer criticism that is simply a repeat of other critics without any evidence of reading the relevant material in full.

Jennie said...

Hi John,
my blog is a place where I can record all the info. I've found, learned, and written about church issues that I'm interested in. Sometimes I just put things here so I can remember to read them later, when I have time. I don't have much of a book budget, so if it's not online I can't always read it. Now that we're off school for the summer and I'm less busy, I'll try to get it at the library, because I'd like to read it for myself.

Moonshadow said...

I use my blog the same way ... it's mostly for me.

I didn't read Beckwith's entire rebuttal but I think that's been my subconscious reaction to Webster's selective use of Orthodoxy's criticism of Rome: the East is working under assumptions that Westerners like Webster wouldn't accept if known. But ignorance is bliss: Webster doesn't know them!

Cheers!

Jennie said...

Hi Teresa,
I think Webster probably does know them, but is just showing that even people who believe some of the same things have valid reasons for not agreeing on everything.

Paul said...

Hi Jennie,
More on Dr. Beckwith.
http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3956

Jennie said...

Thanks Paul,
I'll read that.

Paul said...

Great,
James Swan is able to sum up things very succinctly.

Moonshadow said...

I've started reading it and have an objection:

This is a quote from William Webster, I believe -

"there were books in these manuscripts that were never considered canonical by the Jews or the Church, in particular, 3 and 4 Maccabees."

If the "Church" generously includes the Christian East, then 3 & 4 Maccabees are received, i.e., considered canonical. See the second table on Michael D. Marlowe's venerable Bible Researcher web site.

Again, more evidence that Webster doesn't know the East!

Jennie said...

Teresa,
I think when Webster uses the word 'Church' with a capital 'C' he is referring to the Roman Catholic Church. I do the same thing myself, using a lower case 'c' when I refer to what I consider the scriptural use of the word.

Moonshadow said...

Maybe Webster uses "Church" that way but he's still wrong about books being received or not.

I agree, actually, that the inclusion of books in sacred, bound, extant collections only means the book was read in church. Beyond that, we don't know a book's status. But for some people, that alone ought to be enough.

Jennie said...

You may be right about Webster not knowing the Eastern Church, as his background, like mine, was in the Roman Catholic Church.