Koons moves over as well

you had mentioned earlier that you were dealing with the case for moving to Rome. what caused you to stay where you are?

why are these "high profile" guys moving?

it seems many are longing for a connection to the historical Church. to be tied to historical Christianity and to be apart of the movement as a whole. This seems to be the primary motivating factor.

I have to agree, along with Dr. Koon, that the new perspective puts Luther and Melanchthon's position on justification in some considerable doubt. The traditional reformed view, however, the NP has only strengthened (which is surprising considering that the Christians most in arms against the NP belong to the PCA). It's hard not to see, based on what Dr. Koon read and said, that this for him was a choice between Lutheranism and Catholicism. That's OK for him I guess, but I think reformed theology has a lot more to bring to the table, and makes the most biblical (and experiential) sense.

Also, Beckwith did a short interview with Christianity today (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-33.0.html) You see the same sort of Lutheran-Catholic dialectic on justification by faith: "I just think if you hold to a highly cognitive, almost legal model of justification, there is no component for God's grace working out salvation within you".

He's right: Luther overemphasized Paul's use of legal language; he also lost the eschatological aspect of Paul's thinking, both of which caused faith to be the work that brings salvation, excessive individualism and a bunch of other problems.

Pauls speaks of justification using legal AND mystic language (en Christwi), and the mystic language in particular connects the "us in Christ now" (having been declared righteous (aka justified) now) and the "us in Christ in the eschaton", when God is all in all and that declaration becomes a full fledged reality. So what you get is a "now and not yet". Those whom he justifies he glorifies (Rm 8.30); we have that promise. And with that promise, we run the race inbetween the present declaration and the not yet full reality, where if we hold to the faith, we may work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

That doesn't mean we have to run into the arms of Rome, though. Classical (Calvin, Kramer, Knox vs Zwingli and especially modern) Reformed understandings of justification (which have been a big influence on NT Wright) have kept both of these categories together, yet distinct under the covenant grace of God which begins and informs our sanctification (God's grace working out in us). They also keep away the Catholic error of collapsing justification into sanctification, which has a tendency towards that late medieval view of justification by penance. We are called (saved) by Grace, which leads to faith, and by God's mercy we are sanctified by holding to that calling in faith until we are glorified with Christ.

Anywho, I'm loving Jesus right now, and these are just some procrastinating thoughts as I don't study for my exams.

Ben,

Yes, it seems the historical connection is there, but for these men the intellectual history is compelling as well. Remember, they are philosophers and the Roman church actually has a philosophical tradition which is both rigorous and faithfully Catholic.

J. Budzizewski, whom I just found out converted 3 years ago gives his reasons here

This one is weird because I have met him and spoken to him on several occasions.

As to my own convictions, here is a very brief summary:

Attractions to Rome:
Tradition, authority, appearance of unity, longevity of the institution, great thinkers I have been blessed by (mainly Aquinas and Chesterton).

Why I am not Catholic:
Church history - Rome became the central location of this church due to Rome's political power in the first several centuries of the Christian movement. The mingling of state power with the gospel was incredibly injurious to Christian identity.
Scripture - it seems to me that the only reliable apostolic witness is Scripture.
Clear erring by the Roman church on the gospel - I think it is just axiomatic that the Roman church has taught and supported error (this will get some Catholic apologist on me for sure). The recent converts say "the Reformation was needed" but now the church has it figured out better. Men and women lost their lives in the reformation over being faithful to scripture.
Doctrine I cannot submit to the doctrines of Rome - immaculate conception, sinlessness,and bodily assumption of Mary. The doctrine of purgatory, papal infallibility, etc.

Personally, I want to be historically connected to what many call "the great tradition" which connects all Christians through the past. I think the modern evangelical movement is silly at times and has no historical and intellectual moorings. This is sickening to me and a reason for some conversions no doubt.

Here is what I am working on as a preamable for a doctrinal statement I am writing:

Jacob’s Well stands among a long line of Christian people dating back to Jesus Christ and the teaching of his apostles. In articulating our beliefs we want to both clarify where we stand on certain teaching issues, but also define areas we consider open for robust theological discussion. As Christians we are connected to the faith once for all entrusted to the saints, preserved in Scripture, and handed down faithfully by the churches throughout time. As with all followers of Jesus we hold to the core convictions as represented in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

We are also confessional Christians in that we hold firmly that the apostolic teaching is found in the Scriptures, the sixty six books of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. This therefore is the highest authority in our lives and we submit joyfully to its teaching for we believe it to be the very words of God. The Bible is to be interpreted by both believers and the community and we desire to teach and life faithfully in accord with the truth of the Word of God.

Additionally, we believe in discussion, wrestling and formation of our theology over time. We also believe some things are settled doctrine, without which one would not be considered to be a follower of the living Christ. In this document we have two primary goals. First, to declare fully things which we do not consider up for debate, things that we treasure together, foundational truth from which we dare not move. These things we hold tightly in a closed hand – protecting, teaching, finding our very identity and joy in the precious revealed truths of our faith. Second, we also want to say what we believe about those issues and their biblical moorings. We also desire to state openly which issues are open for intramural debate in our church. We encourage, engage in, and wrestle deeply with this issues to arrive at personal convictions on these matters. However, we hold them in an open hand, with a diversity of viewpoints welcomed in the congregation, even amongst our leaders.

Ben S,

Great stuff - I too agree that a conflagration of imputation and union with Christ is very important. The two are married very much in a now not yet manner. The reformed view of perseverance gets very much to the necessity of continuing in the faith.

Your post brought to mind an article I read Saturday in Modern Reformation Mag entitled
A More Perfect Union? Justification and Union with Christ by
J.V. Fesko

Check it out if you have not procrastinated too long :)