More on Beckwith from Carl Trueman:

But to argue that the patristic authors are more Catholic than Protestant is arguably to impose anachronistic categories upon the first five centuries. Further, given the variegated nature even of the extant patristic writings, it is to beg questions of the kind: Which authors? Whose theology? The temptation for both Catholics and Protestants has always been to prioritise those writers most conformable with their own later traditions. ... Truth be told: we lack the context to make a definite judgment one way or the other.

But the key differences -- impartation versus imputation, and the instrumentality of faith – are mutually exclusive. One has got to be wrong, both may be wrong, but both cannot be right. Again, the issue seems ultimately to be one of the nature of church authority in making the final decision about something unclear in scripture.

Frankly, the NAPS is better value for money; and, believe it or not, patristic reading has persuaded me to stick with Geneva, rather than head to Rome.

So, between Open Theists and Catholics among the ranks, this may be the ETS's undoing.

How come the party always ends just as we arrive?