Recently the news about Francis Beckwith has been buzzing around many blogs about his return to Rome. Even in this site I’ve had one of the highest hits and several exchanges of comments. Obviously, Romish and Romish sympathetics did not like my implication of Beckwith’s action as apostasy. That is completely understandable (coming from them).
But what is continually confusing and bothersome is the pro-Rome views amongst professing evangelicals including notable evangelical scholars. One such example is David Howard’s article “Rome-ward Bound” in Wall Street Journal (Howard is noted Old Testament scholar). Regardless his noted scholarship I am disappointed with his article nonetheless. I think he gives mixed messages. But he is not alone in having sentimental or sympathetic view toward Beckwith. What is more troubling to me is how can professing evangelicals shy away from calling apostasy as apostasy. I mean what else do you call leaving the biblical gospel for something else as not apostasy? I thought apostasy means just that. But apparently, professing evangelicals are afraid to call it what it is. That is why I am so glad that there are men like Dan Phillips of Pyromaniacs who calls it what it is.