Jun
07
2012
Two Things to Keep in Mind When Evangelicals Turn Catholic
As you may have heard, a few days ago Jason Stellman, a PCA pastor in Seattle area, announced on his blog that he was leaving the PCA because of questions surrounding sola Scriptura and sola fide. By all appearances Stellman, a graduate of Westminster Seminary (Escondido) and the author of a 2009 book arguing for a Two Kingdoms theology, is leaving Protestantism for Rome. This move has generated even more interest because Stellman recently pressed charges against Peter Leithart in the Pacific Northwest Presbytery for deviating from the Westminster Standards with the latter’s Federal Vision theology. Not surprisingly, Leithart has weighed in on Stellman’s announcement, with Stellman explaining his actions in the Leithart prosecution here and saying more about his decision to leave the PCA here. If you’re interested, Doug Wilson and Carl Trueman have also had something to say about the whole mess.
What should be said about such an ordeal? I’ll leave it to others to dissect the ins and outs of Leithart’s trial and Stellman’s prosecution. I’m not qualified to do so. I’ll also leave it to others, for the time being at least, to mount a defense of sola Scriptura and sola fide. Without knowing Jason, I’m not going to judge his motives or how he’s handled the process. It looks to me as if Jason kept his ordination vows by making his reservations known to the presbytery and resigning his position. He appears to be a man of honesty and integrity, even with mistaken theological conclusions.
Instead of weighing in on any of that, I simply want to remind of us two points that we can easily forget when a somewhat high profile evangelical converts (or seems about to convert) to Rome.
1. Let’s remember that the traffic across the Tiber is not one way, not by a long shot. Because we live on the Protestant side of the river many people notice when one of our guys becomes Catholic. That’s natural when we may know the person’s books or have heard him at a conference or recognize him from the academy. But when a prominent Catholic becomes Protestant, we are unlikely to know about. How many evangelicals can name one prominent Catholic writer, speaker, or theologian alive and popular at the moment? I bet most evangelicals can’t think of more than two or three, like Scott Hahn and the Pope Benedict XVI, but Scott Hahn we know only because he used to be Protestant and the Pope is rather an unlikely convert. If there are Jason Stellman’s or Christian Smiths making the pilgrimage to Colorado Springs (or Grand Rapids, or Dallas, or Orland), few of us would know anything about it.
More importantly, we should remember that almost any Protestant church of any size in this country will be well populated with ex-Catholics. I know we have many in our congregation. They often come because their Catholicism was an empty tradition or they never knew the gospel or they never really heard the Bible taught. I’m not indicting every Catholic or claiming to explain every Catholic conversion to evangelicalism, I’m simply reminding us that the flow across the Tiber has benefited evangelicals more than it has Catholics.
Chris Castaldo, a former Catholic himself, understands the reality well:
According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey Changes in Americans’ Religious Affiliation there are currently 15 million former Catholics in America attending Protestant Churches, two-thirds of whom do so as evangelicals. Inactive or “lapsed” Catholics are 27.5 million strong in the US according to the Pew Forum. They constitute roughly 10 percent of the U.S. population, making them the second-largest religious demographic in America behind Roman Catholics at 77.7 million and ahead of the Southern Baptist Convention (at 16 million plus).
All that to say, let’s not think the Catholic church is emptying our evangelical churches. Quite the contrary.
2. Let’s be cautious about tracing a straight line of historical determinism which can explain someone’s change of mind. Why steps occurred and what thinking got in place which led Jason Stellman to reject sola Scriptura and sola fide? Only Jason and the Lord know for sure, and maybe only the Lord. Was Two Kingdoms theology the gateway drug? Confessionalism? A high view of sacraments? An appreciation for history and liturgy? It could be all or none of the above. And even it were all of the above that would not necessarily indict anything on that list. Granted, there are some common themes that surface among converts to Rome (e.g., tradition, beauty, authority), but it’s best to stick with the stated reasons for jumping the good ship Protestant and refrain from the temptation to psychoanalyze.
The human head and heart are complex. Even when patterns and missteps are noted in hindsight, we should be wary of creating tidy sequences of first this, then this, then that. As David Powlison points out in his masterful essay “The Ambiguously Cured Soul,” this historical determinism is what mars so much of today’s counseling. We think Judy hates women because her mom was mean, but the same mean mother could have just as likely “produced” a Judy that craves the approval of women, or becomes addicted to bad men, or dedicates her life to making sure women have the affection she never knew. In the same way, it’s tempting to think we know which doctrinal emphases might lead someone to Rome (or worse). But as a general rule such warnings are worth little. Someone might first get attracted to Rome because of a robust view of church tradition, or because he read G.K. Chesterton, or because he saw A Man for All Seasons, or because he loves the music from The Mission, or because he once went on a tour of Italy out of his deep love for lasagna.
If our theology is unbiblical or imbalanced let’s talk about that. But if our theological interests overlap with those typically associated with Catholicism, don’t send out the doctrinal fire trucks just yet. There is no straight line from Wheaton to Rome, no one wrong turn at Orland Park that gets you on the fast track to the Vatican. I’m not sure what else Stellman might have gotten wrong on his way to leaving Protestantism, but I do know that he’s sadly getting sola Scriptura and sola fide wrong. And that’s what should concern evangelicals.
72 Comments
I must say that I belong to the “homeschool” community. Right now, it is definitely dominated by our Protestant bretheren. I know from personal experience that this movement to homeschool is a calling of faith! Our Catholic families in our very small Catholic parish – maybe a total parish of 400 families, has several families who homeschool, and the families that homeschool, like mine, have 4+ children. We, homeschool families, Protestant and Catholic alike, are the future of this nation. We are bringing into light more children, and brighter children than our selfish counterparts. It is NOW that we must unite, based upon our similarities, against the onslaught of the dying-off liberal left. Our children will be this nation’s, and perhaps this World’s leaders. Let us take this chance as Christians to find our our similarities and unite (even if we can’t come into total Communion – which I hope we ultimately can) and through Ecumenical goals push the benefit of Christian faith forward! Demographics show that atheists’ live birth rate is down – no wonder considering the push for at-will abortion and sterilization. WE ARE THE FUTURE OF THIS NATION AND THE WORLD. Let us unite in compromise, and then let us discuss those differences that cause the rift.
Those who leave the Catholic Church may do so because of it’s rigidity to the Gospel. Those who leave the Protestant Church may do so because it has become too liberal. I realize that it is over simplifying things but that is how I few it. Jesus placed a tremendous load on Peter’s shoulders: Whatever he bound on earth would be bound in Heaven etc. Call it infallibility. Call it leadership. Catholic tradition is rigid. There have been many grave errors, some foolish (a flat versus round earth) and some serious (inquisition). The reformation tried and succeeded in re-forming the church Christ founded. In some cases, I think it has gone too far. As unconditional as God is with his love and forgiveness, He does demand a certain amount of loyalty.
So some Catholics depart in disagreement with certain aspects of teachings. And some Protestants/Evangelical turn to the Catholic Church for just the opposite. They want everything in black and white. True, there is tradition. There is condemnation of certain lifestyles, not that they are addressed on Sunday, but as a matter of policy. In the Protestant faiths, ordination of openly gay folks is somewhat common. For some, that may have been too much since that lifestyle (not the individual) is condemned briefly in both the old and new testaments. For others, maybe it is the nonchalant attitude toward divorce or abortion. Who is to say? For what ever the reason, people leave one denomination for another. Maybe, some, after reading and studying the bible, turn to the Catholic church believing it to be the true Church, the church place in Peter’s capable hands. Possibly they want to belong to a church where there is absolute proof of Apostolic Succession. For those leaving the Catholic Church, it may be they have a more liberal view of what a church should be and what Jesus taught.
I wrestle with thoughts along those lines each and every night. Each day, I read about the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. I condemn them. I view and on occasion comment on a news story and refer to the Koran as a fanciful hijacking of the Bible. I have even gone so far as to allude to their prophet being close to the anti-Christ. Each night I pray for forgiveness. This wrestling is non-stop, day and night. It is infuriating. I grew up Catholic in the 1950′s and 60′s. It is not comfortable trying to shake off certain Catholic beliefs. I quit trying years ago. I started attending the Episcopal Church in 1973, found it very comfortable, traditional, and Catholic. Today, I find it too liberal. I find myself being very judgmental of people and organizations during the day. Call it being a conservative. At night, in the darkness, I beg forgiveness and become more tolerant of others and their beliefs and lifestyles. Who am I to judge? Call it being liberal.
Switching churches, not a common belief, is not easy to define. It is possible that the Holy Spirit guides these people, for the purpose of their individual salvation.
This article, and the comments have been very entertaining and enlightening. I fear I will lose even more sleep. But I will continue to pray and believe.
Members of Opus Dei and the Latin Mass crowd are not becoming born agains; Catholic conversions to Protestant (numerous) are in nearly every case the uncatechized. The worrisome aspect for Evangelicals must be the quality of the converts to Catholicism. See the “Called to Communion” blog is written by a dozen Westminster grads for a case in point. John Henry Newman was a great loss for the Protestant cause in the 19th Century and beyond. It is my prayer and prediction that these continued conversions (particularly the reversion of Evangelicals who were baptized Catholics) will power a great revival in the Catholic Church.
It is true that Evangelicals are very good at attracting nominal Catholics, or Catholics whose knowledge and understanding of their faith was poor. My own father, a Baptist minister, built a congregation from scratch in a heavily Catholic area by attracting nominal or ignorant Catholics. The interesting thing, though, is that converts to the Catholic Church usually don’t have the same character. Like the PCUSA pastor cited above, they are typically serious Evangelicals, already conversant in Scripture, theology and church history. That has long been the case, from John Henry Newman right through to Francis Beckwith. It is extremely rare for a knowledgeable, practicing Catholic to convert to Evangelicalism; and one almost never encounters a Catholic priest, bishop, deacon or theologian who converts. The flaws in Evangelical theology are too great, beginning with Sola Scriptura.
Joel,
I may be pathetic and you may think my life has been meaningless but I know I am loved by God, and always have been. Can you say the same? I don’t question your doctrine but I must question your faith. You faith appears to be in Sola Fide and not in oor gracious loving God. Your words betray you.
Bill, Barry and others,
Thank you for your kind words. They belie a different relationship.
The biggest factor in transitioning to the Catholic Church was the reading of the early fathers of the first 200-300 years, then Karl Rahner and even a few schismatic Catholics. I do have over 2000 mostly Protestant theological volumes so I am not totally ignorant of Reformed theology. I followed R.C. Sproul and others for years and still read their material.
Sure our country was founded on Calvinist theology and revivals have come from those with less than perfect theology but socially the Catholics have done more for this country than any other religious group for the past 150 years. Doctrine doesn’t change people’s lives. The grace of God does. He will use whoever is available. It is a matter of the heart.
[...] Kevin deYoung [...]
i think part of the reason there is such difference between those who convert from Catholicism to Protestant and vice versa is that the protestants who turn Catholic are looking for a vibrant active faith while those Catholics who turn protestant are looking for an easy faith that is anti-biblical for Jesus Christ took his followers to count the cost, take up their cross(burden), and follow him. many evangelicals are looking for a rapture that they claim is found in scripture by taking verses out of the historical context placing in the presumed context of the rapture. they use this made up doctrine of the rapture to sit back and not care about leaving an inheritance for future generations. oh John there is a reason that Catholics have done more for this country in the last 150 years than evangelicals is that is about the time the rapture doctrine first appeared on the scene.
In the Bible Jesus sanctioned the Catholic Church in Mathew: Ch.16 Vs.13-19, and Jesus sanctioned all Protestant Churches in Mark: Ch.9 Vs.38-41 and Luke: Ch.9 Vs.49&50, and the person who wrote this article should be ashamed for attempting to divide GOD’s people just because they worship in different denominations. As far as the falsehood that Catholics are not taught scripture, if one attends Mass everyday for 3 consecutive years, they will be taught the entire Bible through the readings during the Mass, and the Sermons by the Priests explain what the readings mean. I am a Catholic, and may not know the scriptures as well as some, but I can assure you I know them better than most. What makes me sad is that most Protestant Churches don’t have what GOD the Father cursed His first hand picked King of Israel, Saul, for violating, and that is traditional ceremonial rites. Also as a Catholic, I can attest that no man is infallible, even when given the power to hold or release another of his sins, as Jesus gave to Peter, and is handed down to the leaders of the people of Jesus’s Church.
NOT belonging to either catholic or protestant i hope you are both smart enough to realise the fase teachings of both and be open enough to take the truth as a friend instead of clinging to ‘tradition’ at the expense of your soul.
Yeshua Ben Joseph….”Jesus the Christ of God” prayed that His Disciples be ONE.
Hmmm…..Long ago the Catholic Church split between Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy and the Church of England and I believe it is about to split again between the American Church and Rome. Martin Luther saw the problem…..”SIN.” He set out to correct it….it resulted in man establishing ANOTHER Church of Jesus Christ…..”The Protestant Reformation.” This “pattern” has been going on the last 2,000 years and it hasn’t ended. Someone some where is establishing a “NEW” Church of Jesus Christ” as I type. Today we have over 500 denominations of Christianity not counting alternate forms of “cult” Christianity. The Campbellites tried to break this “pattern” back in the 19th Century by claiming “Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ” and it resulted in two “non-denominational” branches….The Church of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Mormon. (Incidentally, the Church of Christ and the Mormons have a bunch of their own schisms too!) The Gospel of Jesus Christ sure has been through a lot changes under the banner of Theological differences.
Does this sound like an answer to Jesus’ prayer? I ask this question because I was born and raised Roman Catholic. I left the Church for eight years and worshipped in the Church of Christ. They convinced me they were the ONLY true Church of Christ. I believed them until I noticed the same hypocrisy there that I saw in the Catholic Church. I suspect this hypocrisy is a characteristic of ALL religions because ALL religions are made by men and ALL men are sinners. Ironically, I returned to the Roman Catholic Church AFTER reading the writings of Martin Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam and I accept the Apostolic Authority of the Church ON THE PROTECTION OF THE GOSPEL. However, there are many doctrines I do not accept because they are un-Biblical like mandatory celibacy in the clergy. The Church even recognized the un-Biblical nature of the Doctrine of Limbo and it has been officially nullified by Benedict XVI. You may ask why I don’t leave again because I disagree with so much of Canon Law and Catholic Doctrine. The anwer is because of Martin Luther. He desired not to REFORM the Church but to correct it. Contrary to what many Protestants believe about the Catholic Church, including the the author of this article I am responding to, THEY DO teach the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the trappings of Tradition and Sacraments that tend to cause confusion leading the skeptic to conclude that the Catholic Church is not the Church established by Christ Himself. It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that Saves a person, NOT the many doctrines and traditions all Churches have. I would also like to point out that the Protestant Reformation came long after the New Testament was assembled by the early Catholic Church. There would be no New Testament for the Protestants to follow if this were not true.
It is also interesting to note that the Catholic Bible is complete in both Old and New Testaments. However, the Protestant versions of the Bible have removed the Books of Maccabees from the Old Testament. I suspect this was a reflection of the anti-Semitism present in the Reformation movement. The Roman Catholic Church became very anti-Semitic itself in the Middle Ages as indicated by the horror of the Spanish Inquisition. As with the nullification of the Doctrine of Limbo started by John Paul II and completed by Benedict XVI , John Paul II also officially purged anti-Semitism from the Church with his visit to the Knesset in Jerusalem, Israel when he asked forgiveness for this SIN for the whole Church. A reminder…Jesus did not say the Church would be Holy and without blemish…He said… “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Was He talking ONE Church or 500?
I suggest that Christianity has failed in its’ duty to spread the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We opine over the illusions of Islam and New Age movement that entraps so many people from knowing the Truth but we have ourselves to blame for that because we know Satan is a “toothless lion” so blaming him is a “cop out.” The Church should be VERY worried and REPENT because Jesus said “many of the elect in the Church will stray from the Truth in the end times.” It is happening with the new “Chrislam” movement….a hybrid of Christianity and Islam….. AND sadly…one of the most dangerous factors dividing the Church today is a surge in anti-Semitism rsulting in a Church that believes “Israel” IS the Church (Replacement Theology) and the True Church that is “grafted to the Fig Tree” through the Blood of Christ. The “Fig Tree” is Jacob…whose name was changed to Israel by God Himself. John 14:6 states that ALL men must be saved through Christ and in fact they are. The confusion is caused by those who do not understand Covenant Theology. The New Testament does not nullify God’s Covenants with Israel…it FULFILLS THEM. It is a New Testament in the Blood of Christ…NOT A REPLACEMENT COVENANT. God promised He would restore Israel and bring them “home” after the Diaspora caused by disobedience. He did NOT say the Jews will become Christians! Such arrogance because Jesus IS the Jewish Messiah! You say Jews rejected Him and still do. They do? News to me. According to the Bible they are waiting for Him to come and restore the Kingdom to Earth. We Christians too are waiting for His Second Coming to restore the Kingdom of God to Earth. First time for Jews….Second time for Christians? YES….that’s what the Bible teaches.
It is hatred of the Jew that causes so many to not see this Truth and miss the most important SIGN Jesus gave concerning when He would return and restore the planet to the Kingdom of God. His Disciples asked Him when He would restore the Kingdom. He didn’t say when ALL people accept the Gospel (including Jews) and peace comes to Earth. (Believe it or not..some Christian cults teach this apostasy! The Gospel is for the individual to prepare for the restored Kingdom…..NOT restore the planet. That’s Aquarius astrology illusion or New Age “enlightenment” illusion.) Jesus answered His Disciple’s question with this statement….. …”When you see the ‘Fig Tree’ sprout leaves, you know that summer is near.”. Folks….He wasn’t talking “Fig Newtons!” Study the Old Testament…”The Fig Tree” is ISRAEL. Jesus’ Prophecy was fulfilled on May 14, 1948…..the restoration of the Nation of Israel after 2500 years. The “blossoms” appeared on the “Fig Tree” on June 11, 1967 when East Jerusalem was restored to Israel after the “Six Day War” with Egypt. The “fruit” is here and “ripening” as a result of the Yom Kippur war of 1973. The Iranian nuclear threat is not just for Israel …it is the final SIGN of the transition for the whole world. Anti-Semites and Replacement Theology Christians (oxymoron!) have no clue what is going on. I pray they repent soon because I am BIBLICALLY convinced we are the generation Jesus spoke of that will NOT experience physical death and will witness the RETURN of Jesus Christ EXACTLY the same way He left 2,000 years ago (Acts 1:10-11) and the restoration of God’s Kingdom to Earth under the Reign of Jesus Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords BECAUSE the Bible IS the INERRANT Word of God and FINAL AUTHORITY. (It’s the Lord’s Prayer folks….”Thy Kingdom Come Thy Will Be Done On Earth As It Is In Heaven.”)
BTW….Islam sure know what’s going on and their plan is to STOP the restoration of God’s Kingdom (revealed in the Bible) and establish Sharia Law over the whole world under the dictatorship of the 12th Imam Al Mahdi. (For those who believe the Islamic belief IS God’s restored Kingdom under their god Allah…I suggest you read Joel Richardson’s “The Islamic Antichrist”)
I am a retired Biology teacher and I am very familiar with the “battle” between Science and Religion especially over Darwinism and I have noticed that the factors involved in the “battle” are almost the same as in the “battle” between Catholicism and Protestantism. Both are driven more by emotion, prejudice and blind faith than by true facts. Ironically, I believe this emotional error common to both Science and Religion is based the common illusion that God is SEPARATE from His Creation and that He interacts with His Creation through the “supernatural.” God’s Laws are PERFECT and therefore He does not need to operate outside of His own PERFECT Laws I submit that the “supernatural” is the “un-discovered natural” and the new breakthroughs in Quantum Mechanics and String/Bubble/Brane Theory is rapidly verifying this Truth as the discovery of Quantum Entanglement has so eloquently revealed. Quantum Entanglement is easily demonstrated and it is not “fantasy” or “supernatural” and it WILL be the basis of the next generation CPU input and output ports. (Computer companies don’t spend billions of dollars on research on “fantasy”…follow the money if you seek truth!)
Science, prior to the “Age of Enlightenment” of the late 19th and 20th Centuries, embraced Biblical Wisdom and in fact Science training required Biblical knowledge. Unfortunately Science has left Biblical Wisdom behind and as a result they view a Creation and Life that has “no cause”…. a violation of the Scientific principle of “Cause and Effect.” Science recognizes that Louis Pasteur’s proof that Spontaneous Generation is invalid and that this resulting Law of Biogenesis cannot be broken. (ALL life MUST come from pre-existing life.) Ironically, because Science is biased by Religion’s view of a SEPARATE God, they claim that spontaneous generation first occurred at the bio-molecular level and then eventually an entire living cell. (Miller/Urey amino acid experiment is used as evidence in this argument, however, the Laws of Thermodynamics prevents a “jump” to the nucleic acid “information molecules” (DNA and RNA) via the molecular collision mechanism because of chemical reaction energy barriers. Biochemical synthesis and pathways require enzyme catalyzed reactions to bridge the energy barriers and enzymes are functional proteins which are polymers of amino acids. The problem is you need the enzymes to break the energy barriers but the information needed for those enzymes is recorded in the DNA and the mechanism of transcription and translation that synthesizes those enzymes requires RNA . You will notice we are confronted with the same paradox as in “What came first, the chicken or the egg?”
The answers to the above questions are easily answered when you realize God is NOT SEPARATE from His Creation and His Laws and the sad part is Jesus Christ revealed this Truth 2,000 years ago but instead of recognizing God, they made ANOTHER man made Religion out of Him. Pasteur added to this Truth in 1859 but again, we did not “get it.” The ANSWER is God and His Creation and His Gift of Life always existed and always will…no beginning and no end, BOTH the Bible and Cosmology reveals this Truth. This no doubt verifies that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and FINAL Authority on man’s place in the Cosmos. “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” NEITHER!!!!!!
Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking in his new book recently stated that the Laws of Physics are so constituted that God is NOT required for Creation. Obviously, he is making the same assumption about God being SEPARATE from Creation that Religion does. He also is stating that the Laws are the “Cause” of the “Effect” of Creation. Funny he should put it that way because the Bible says God is “The Word” (John 1) which is “language” and mathematics is the “purest form of language” there is so Hawking has actually inadvertently proved the Existence of God!
One of the biggest obstacles involved in the “battle” between Science and Religion is Darwinism and that “man evolved from apes.” Well…I hate to break it to you…Religion has this part RIGHT but for the WRONG reasons and Science has it totally WRONG for Scientific reasons. Man did NOT evolve from apes because there simply was not enough time from the Simian base to Homo sapiens based on the nature of DNA mutation, the ONLY source of “new” natural genetic codes.
(over 99% of mutations are lethal and less than 1% of those that are not lethal occur in germ tissue. (only ones passed on for Natural Selection to act on) In addition gradual speciation as a result of Natural Selection tends to disperse the genome to values lower than 95% common genome found in apes and humans. It was IMPOSSIBLE for the 5% genome that makes us human to have occurred through Darwin Natural Selection in the time available. Darwinism, however, is most definitely how the wonderful diversity of plant and animal life formed on this planet.
The “key” to understanding how the first man Adam was Created is found in the Book of Genesis and since Science rejects Biblical Wisdom today…they miss this awesome Truth. The Bible states that “God Created Man in His Image”…and the clue to the mechanism He used is found in the plural nature of the passage…” Let Us Create Man in OUR Image.” (Gen 1:26) Christianity resolves the plural problem by creating the Doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is NOT Three God’s In ONE…it is 3 manifestations of the ONE TRUE GOD. The Book of Genesis was originally written in ancient Hebrew and the Word for God in the passage in Hebrew is Elohim which did not mean more than ONE God…it means exactly what it says.. “Let US Create.” The Scripture is written this way because it tells the Truth who God is. Jesus revealed this God in the Flesh because He was the Incarnation of our God. He made it VERY clear that God dwells within us and works through us and within and through His entire Creation. (Those who accept Me accept the Father and we will come into him and live in him. (John 14:23)
So…man did NOT evolve from apes and God works through His Creation and His perfect Laws and not by “magic” as required by man’s fundamental interpretation of Genesis. How did God do it? Science reveals the answer but neither Science or Religion “gets it.” God Created man in His Image Through his Created Children via RECOMBINANT DNA Hybridization of Simian stock. This is the ONLY explanation that is compatible with the Bible that makes Biblical sense and eliminates the need for “blind faith” in “fantasy.” We are God’s Children and the Children of the Cosmos are our “brothers and sisters”…our Cosmic Family.
The exciting Truth is that fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy tells us that Earth will soon be restored to the Kingdom of God when Jesus, the hybrid Starman (50% human through Mother Mary and 50% Divine through God’s intervention) returns to Earth (exactly the same way He left..Acts 1:10-11) to establish His NEW WORLD ORDER under His Reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords from His ancestor King David’s Throne in Jerusalem, Israel. The fulfilled Fig Tree Prophecy tells us THIS IS SO.
In the Glory of God…..
David Brown-Oswego, NY w2tsa@aol.com
[...] East Lansing, Michigan, right across the street from Michigan State University, since 2004. Kevin blogs at the Gospel Coalition and this article is reprinted with his [...]
I would disagree with your point number 1. I have been an evangelical Christian all my life and only remember one other conversion to Catholic faith being known widely [Elizabeth Elliot's brother]. I remember many stories about Catholics becoming protestants.
But I suppose the experience and knowledge of rank and file Christians is much different than that of professionals.
@Michael Snow
Please name some of these “many” Catholics becoming Protestants.
I’m amazed at the number of “Catholic Apologists” overwhelming this board. To my evangelical brothers and sisters, be warned this is a growing trend, and I think the vapidness in many evangelical churches creates fertile ground for new converts, looking for more “liturgy” As for the more “educated” reformed folks converting, I have a theory it’s more about being “right”. In many testimonies there’s an underlying search for the “true church”, and the RCC makes a compelling case. My hope is that these folks dont discontinue their quest and act as “reformers” of some sort in the near future.
As for the attacks on the 40,000 denominations of protestant churches, I say, “Please.” if you use the same logic to come up with that number, then there are over 750 Catholic denominations. Please stop with that meme. The other attack on Sola Scriptura meaning “anything” based on one’s private interpretation, try using that excuse on a cop who pulls you over for running a stop sign. Also, where is the RCC’s “official” interpretation of the Bible? You won’t find it. The three-legged stool (Magisterium, Scripture, Tradition) is really a one-legged stool(Magisterium) whenever there is perceived conflict. Also, the RCC did not official recognized the Bible until AFTER the Reformation (Trent). I’ll stop there….
Ummm… actually, no. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that was founded and given all authority by Jesus Christ, after setting the canon of the Bible in 325, CONTINUALLY “affirmed” it as such for the next 1,400 years. It never had to “officially” recognize the Bible as no one ever suggested there could be any other “version”. Until Martin Luther was not able to reconcile HIS personal “theology” with some of the old testament; specifically those that dealt with “purgatory” and praying for the dead. ML himself wanted to exclude James and Revelation from the New Testament as well but that, of course, would have been even more trouble. Your spurious “one legged stool” example falls flat (pun intended) when seen in the light of the fact that the Magisterium operates under the direct influences of scripture and tradition and cannot be separated from them. Give me one line, just one, from the CCC that is not a beautiful, clear, black and white rule for life here on earth. RCIA groups are forming today… Come home. God bless.
Perhaps the reason for so many conversions to Rome is the inadequate understanding of Catholicism among protestants. Some the of the comments above reflect the dearth of understanding of Catholicism. “the RCC did not official recognized the Bible until AFTER the Reformation (Trent).” Where’s that from? A Chick tract I suspect.Once the evangelical protestant finds out what the Church says for itself and not some caricature, the heart and mind become open to conversion and the protestant absorbs the truth like a sponge.
I think Jason Stellman answered the Chris Castaldo quote quite well in a blogpost written in April of last year:
“The number of people who have left the Catholic Church is huge.” So begins Thomas Reese in his article for the National Catholic Reporter titled “The Hidden Exodus: Catholics Becoming Protestants.” According to a Pew Research Center report, one out of every ten Americans is an ex-Catholic, meaning that if all the ex-Catholics in this country formed their own church, it would constitute the third largest denomination in the United States.
By all accounts, that is a staggering statistic.
What I found interesting about Reese’s article is his assessment of the kinds of Catholics that are choosing to leave the Church. The common view among serious Catholics, at least in my experience, is that when people switch teams, Protestantism receives the worst of Rome’s members while it is usually the best and the brightest Protestants who defect in the other direction. Reese disagrees, saying, “We are losing the best, not the worst.”
The difficulty comes in, however, when one understands what Reese means by “the best.” The Pew study suggests that while the vast majority of Catholics who convert to Protestantism become much more involved in their new churches than they were before, their reasons for leaving include “their needs not being met,” “their finding a church they like more,” and “their enjoying the style of worship of their new faith.” In fact, Reese goes out of his way to point out that “doctrine is not that important to those who become Protestant.”
So let me get this straight: those who are leaving the Catholic Church for greener Protestant pastures are doing so not for any theological reasons, but primarily because they have found churches that they like better, but whose doctrine they don’t really care about? And these are Rome’s “best”?
I almost don’t know where to begin, but I’ll just shoot off some rapid-fire responses and let you all weigh in with your thoughts: (1) Dear ex-Catholics, please do not come to Exile Presbyterian Church, because it is not the kind of place religious consumers tend to like; (2) If you do like it, it’s probably just a coincidence, as in, biblically-ordered worship just happens to coincide with your personal tastes at the moment, but when your tastes change, we won’t; (3) I kind of have to commiserate with the Catholics on this one. The church I pastor has lost our share of members due to the allure of seeker-friendly and consumer-driven churches (I just got a mailer from a church down the road that’s having a helicopter Easter-egg drop this Sunday. I’m almost tempted to send my kids there.); (4) Finally, the kind of people who will leave Saint So-and-So’s Parish for Mars Hill will eventually leave Mars Hill for Saddleback, and then Saddleback for Willow Creek. Whatever you hook ‘em with won’t hold ‘em for long, so you’d better sweeten the bait to keep them interested (or better yet, put them in a position of leadership so they feel indispensible).”
Michael, An Ecumenical Council (not a magiterium) recognized(NOT created) our current NT canon in 397AD (I know there’s disagreement during this time as to “who was in charge (pope or local bishop/elders)” so we don’t need to go there.) which had been widely accepted for a long time prior. It was not until Trent, in RESPONSE to the Reformation that the Catholic Church officially recognized their complete canon, including the 14 books of the Apocrypha. I don’t even know what a Chick Tract is…..I know many ex-Catholics in my congregation who can run rings around most people on the CCC, Church History and the Reformation, so some of these theories don’t hold up.
I left the RCC about 30 years ago, mainly because I had become convince of the priesthood of all believers, which I found precluded the hierarchical polity of the Roman Church. I also was convinced that trans-substantiation and other aspects of the Mass (accept this sacrifice from our hands) was not Biblical. I was not rebaptised, and I have been concerned about the misconceptions and prejudices protestants have about works-righteousness and the RCC. I have since been tempted to “go home” for no other reason than the Presbyterian churches I have joined also seem to have a very hierarchical polity in practice, and often don’t understand the sacrament of the Lord’s supper to be anything other than a memorial, a view I also don’t see as Biblical. I almost feel like a Ron Paul supporter saying there has to be something different, both parties are headed in the same direction. The “something different” I think is a church sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit. I’m not talking continuationist, though I find that many, as soon as I mention the Spirit, assume I am, just the Spirit-sensitive sensibilities of reformers like Calvin.
Interesting. There are gateway drugs in the Protestant theology?
You really think so? Do you tell us that some Protestant doctrines must be accepted without question? Because those who think too much about this or that, are in danger of becoming Catholic?
This is new. Protestant scholars usually accuse the Catholic Church just take that attitude.
[...] In Strange Twist, Presbyterian Pastor Who Was Leading Charges Against Fellow Pastor For Promoting a … Share this:FacebookTwitterEmailTumblrDiggPinterestRedditStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was tagged catholic, convert, evangelical, pastor, presbyterian. Bookmark the permalink. [...]
Reading the many Catholic views here is rather interesting because of the level of deception or ignorance in their responses. They seem to insist that those leaving the RCC were shallow nominal Catholics that never understood the depth of actual Romanist doctrine.
Well, I left Romanism many years ago and never turned back. I was raised in a serious RCC family. My mother had spent time in the convent. My brother attended RCC seminary, studying for the priesthood and left as an avowed atheist. My sister took two runs at the convent, only to leave disillusioned both times. My other sister was raped by a thoroughly serious Roman Catholic layman in our parish.
I went to RCC school for 12 years, was taught the Baltimore Catechism, knew my Catholic doctrine, went to church every Sunday, served diligently as an altar boy, wore the medals of saints for the various reasons taught by the RCC, partook of the sacraments, and was taught to pray the rosary faithfully at night, etc, etc.
Through the influence of the priests and the insanity of the nuns in high school I became disillusioned with the hypocrisy of the RCC and started drifting.
However, God is gracious and I began reading the Bible on my own. It didn’t take long to figure out that much of what I imbibed in the RCC wasn’t found anywhere in Scripture and was often contradicted by it. (This, of course, is why the RCC forbade its members to read the Bible or translate it in the common language.) When I was honestly struggling with questions, I approached our local priest about them and was castigated as someone that wasn’t willing to stand for the faith. But what was that faith?
As a Catholic, I was raised with stories of the Saints, to whom I was to pray, only to be told by priests and nuns after Vatican II that many of these accounts were either untrue or exaggerated. (So much for an infallible church.) As a child I was given a pamphlet entitled “Our Lady of Fatima’s Peace Plan”. Once again, it was filled with ideas that had no Scriptural basis. To this day, I defy any Papist to defend the doctrines taught therein from Scripture. (BTW – If it matters to the RCC apologists, it contained the Imprimatur from the Archbishop of Indianapolis, 1950.)
Of all the supposed serious Protestants that swim to Rome, not one of them has ever written a biblically credible defense of Mary as the “Queen of Heaven”, the command to convert the world to the “Immaculate Heart of Mary”, the idea that Mary gives us grace at the hour of our death, or the absurd notion that the Son of God “cannot refuse” the dictates of His mother (all of these are found in the above mentioned pamphlet).
So, Jason Stellman, Scott Hahn and anyone else can go to Rome. But they do so only by whitewashing those teachings of Romanism that obscure the gospel and denigrate the work of Jesus Christ.
But when RCC apologists imply that the only ex-Catholics are those that are ignorant of the doctrines taught therein, they are either misinformed in what they say or are outright lying.
By the grace of God, I have found a home in a Reformed church – warts and all. I have had my life turned around by the love of Jesus Christ and the Spirit of God through the holy and infallible Scriptures and am convinced that living by God’s word is possible without a pope because Jesus lives.
I have read the attacks by the Romanists against Protestants and, by grace alone, I am secure enough in Christ to know that I needn’t tremble over their slings and arrows. In Christ alone I have been set free from the bondage of sin, forgiven, and released to serve the living God. Therefore, I don’t need the historicity or security of the papacy to bolster my courage or direct my steps.
I suppose that those who are convinced of Romanism will simply disregard my thoughts as those of a disgruntled malcontent. So be it. Jesus Christ is still my Lord, His word is my infallible standard, and the Church of which He alone is the head (which comes in many shapes) is my family as well as the family of all those that take refuge in Him alone.