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.

[...] Kevin deYoung [...]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am writing as a devout Catholic, who happened to bump into this article, and am sharing my observations.

I find it unfortunate that there is such deep divide between Catholics (I find it peculiar it when people refer to the Church as "Rome") and Protestants. I can certainly grasp how it is that devout Catholics, based upon Church teaching, believe that it is difficult for Protestants to be "saved" - mainly because Protestants reject the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession), and therefore do not properly cleanse their souls for entry into Heaven (technically, the Church teaches the cleansed but impure soul goes to Purgatory for final cleansing before entering Heaven, but I digress), but I have a hard time grasping why Protestants believe Catholics cannot be saved (heck it surprises to think some Protestants don't believe Catholics are even Christian - trust me, I've been asked).

Bear with me here, while our respective doctrines differ greatly, what is it about the Catholic Church exactly that makes Catholics unsavable in the eyes of Protestants? We worship the Lord, God, and his Son, Jesus Christ. We follow (even though we disagree on the context) the Bible and its teachings. We celebrate the Oneness of the Trinity and seek to emulate Jesus Christ on Earth. We seek to confess our sins regularly for the purpose of cleansing our souls. Even if Protestants think we're doing it "wrong" - I guess we'll all find out someday :) - what is it that we don't do that prevents us from being saved? What is it that Catholics believe that "disqualify" us from the Saving Grace of God?

My question is serious and legitimate. I intend no ill will or intend any malice. I am genuinely curious, and perhaps an understanding of this simple question (albeit not likely a simple answer) will move us all toward Communion with Jesus Christ.

I'm curious to see if anyone here can name a prominent Catholic (author, priest, etc) who has converted to Protestantism. I realize there are a lot of ex Catholics now Protestant but everyone I've ever met never knew their faith to begin with.

"He appears to be a man of honesty and integrity, even with mistaken theological conclusions."

Or, alternatively, maybe he's a man of honesty and integrity who has come to correct theological conclusions.

Just sayin'.

Two other things to consider:

1. As a general rule the ex-Catholics that fill many Evangelical churches were not very Catholic to begin with. Most were nominally Catholic and had a conversion experience in an Evangelical context,they were pretty much unchurched before. Protestants who become Catholic are usually very well educated and practicing Christians. As some comments above can attest, many ex-Catholic Evangelicals become anti-Catholics. Very sad. Ex-Protestant Evangelicals,who were actually active in their former faith,are always appreciative of their background and respectful. That should tell you a bit about the character of those going this or that way.

2. "But if our theological interests overlap with those typically associated with Catholicism, don’t send out the doctrinal fire trucks just yet."
They don't just overlap, they originate from Catholicism. To deny that the supposed controversial doctrines of Catholicism (and Orthodoxy btw)were not controversial at all to the Church Fathers and those closest to the Apostolic age, is ignorant at best and plain calumny at worst.

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.

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.

Joel,
You perfectly demonstrate the very judgmentalism and lack of charity that denies true Christian values commonly seen in the hatred of Catholics. It's not enough to hate the Catholic church for you? Having been harangued by evangelicals for years in the south trying to save me by damning me, I came to understand there is no arguing with those who lack grace and forgiving hearts. I think that sums up my experience with evangelical protestants. I will pray for you and hope you learn that attacking and condemning people for a faith you don't understand is not the road to His love and forgiveness. I would direct you to scripture for confirmation regarding your plank. May the Lord touch your heart.

"How many evangelicals can name one prominent Catholic writer, speaker, or theologian alive and popular at the moment?"

There's a telling statement.

And who do the 15 million Catholics currently attending Protestant churches ask for on their deathbed if they have a chance?..... A priest.

Morning, Bruce.

I am saying that:

(1) I've engaged with Stellman enough to know that he knows the ins-and-outs of these doctrines.

(2) A brief letter (even briefer portions of that letter) is not ultimately the place to look to determine whether or not the writer of that letter has succumbed to popular mischaracterizations.

(3) Nevertheless, if we are indeed talking about that same letter, I am saying that, yes, he defines them accurately. He does not, in other words (and contrary to Doug Wilson), fail "to state accurately the position he is supposed to be abandoning."

In my previous comment above, I quoted directly from his letter that clearly states in syllogistic form what sola fide is. He's not saying nuda fide; he's saying, clearly, that works play a part in one's justification. Really, I'm not sure how Doug missed that.

Regarding sola scriptura, he knows Mathison's argument well, but in the end (apparently) he doesn't think it can be rescued from devolving into solo scriptura. So, he's presenting it in those terms.

Have I answered the question? You weren't asking me what my views on the subject were, right?

[...] Continue reading at thegospelcoalition.org [...]

@Mike Donahue.

I think you overstate matters in the RCC. Yes there are many leaving the Church. But there are many adults entering many Parishes during Easter, and many faithful Catholics families are having a lot of children. My own parish is quickly enlivening. Lots of formation classes, lots of acts of charity, a new evangelization is under way.

Those Catholics looking to get more out of Mass are discovering how this happens, by putting more love into the Mass and to stop looking selfishly to be only experientially fed.

The issue with the movement across the Tiber is that it seems increasingly that highly educated Protestants swim to Rome. And lukewarm, unformed, or dissenting swim in the other direction. By dissenting I mean mostly politically left.

What can one say about our 68-year old ex-Protestant that jumped around all kinds of denominations and was never moved by the Spirit of God to do anything meaningful with his Christian life. My guess is that he wasn't even listening for the voice of God, but now thinks he's OK now because he's baptized as a Catholic. What a pathetic testimony on biblical literacy!

I agree with both Ray (June 7 11:37 am) and Catholic then evangelical (June 8 1:02 am).
After 68 years as a Protestant, son of a minister, doctrines from ultra-dispensationaliam to Methodist, to Baptist to Presbyterianism to Lutheran, I of late have been baptized and confirmed into the Catholic Church. The nit-picking over doctrine has chased me away. I can now live in peace because they accept me as I am, a weak Catholic. They even accepted me before I was baptized which was not true of most Protestant churches. Unclean! Unclean! I speak mainly of those in leadership.
We are sinners all. By grace we are saved, not by works. I live by God's mercy not by subscribing to some doctrinal statement.

Some in WELS think I have joined the great harlot and some are thankful that I am baptized. Oh, well.
Being Catholic won't condemn me and being baptized won't save me. I am saved by God's grace and live by His mercy. I look forward to the resurrection.

When will Protestants take a stand such as that now taken by the Council of Bishops? Most Protestants are afraid to speak out and have abandoned their public responsibility by following the Two Kingdom theology.

I no longer go by a person's label but by the person's faith and lifestyle. They are my brother's and sister's. "By their works you will know them."

Oh yes, one more thing: perhaps I misunderstood Pastor DeYoung, but Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is not a convert to Catholicism. Joseph Ratzinger, born in 1927, now Pope Benedict XVI, was born into a Catholic family, raised Catholic, studied for the priesthood and ordained a priest in 1951. He studied philosophy and theology, and received his doctorate at the University of Munich 1953. He was a consultor at Vatican Council II for the Archbishop of Cologne, Joseph Cardinal Frings. See Ratzinger's book, Theological Highlights of Vatican II (Paulist Press, 2009). Pope Paul VI appointed him Archbishop of Munich and Freising in 1977. On 22 November 1981 he was nominated by John Paul II to be Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, President of the Biblical Commission and of the Pontifical International Theological Commission. He succeeded John Paul II in April 2005 to the office of the papacy. Readers interested in getting a glimpse of his life story should read Milestones 1927-1977 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1998).

Dear Friend in Christ,

Readers of your blog might be interested in an article by Jason Byassee published in the Christian Century (August 22, 2006) entitled, "Going Catholic: Six Journeys to Rome." The article gives a brief account of theologians who left their Protestant denominations for the Catholic Church. The list includes three Lutherans—Reinhard Hütter and Bruce Marshall, theologians at Methodist seminaries (Duke and Southern Methodist), and Mickey Mattox, a Luther scholar at Marquette; two Anglicans—Rusty Reno of Creighton (who is now the Editor of First Things) and Douglas Farrow of McGill University; and a Mennonite—Gerald Schlabach of St. Thomas University. Two more examples worthy of mention: one is Michael Hanby, an Episcopalian, formerly at Baylor University and now at the John Paul II Institute for Studies in Marriage and Family, came into full communion with the Catholic Church in 2006. See his article, "A New Reformation," in Communio, International Catholic Review, online: http://www.communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/hanby36-3.pdf; and two, Edward Norman, an Anglican, Canon Chancellor of York Minster in UK, well known ecclesiastical historian, a former Reith lecturer, came into full communion with the Catholic Church in 2004.

Perhaps it was a chance encounter with two authors, of note, C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, who asked enough real questions for someone to say, "Rome is home".

@Christopher Lake - and thank you for your kind comments. Your explanation does somewhat answer my questions, but I think there's more. Of course, I hope no one takes my questions (or even the "tone" of my comments - I know I can sound condescending - I've been told that all my life but it is not intended - I wish I cure that, but the only I figure I can is by being quiet, and that's not realistic....or fun :) Again I digress.) I certainly do not doubt the numerous well-intentioned Protestants with pure hearts - I truly don't doubt it. I cannnot imagine my wife's Baptist but most -pious Grandmother anywhere but Heaven, but the only mass she ever attended was our wedding mass, and that probably caused heart palpitations. I never ventured to have that great heart-to-heart about Catholicism with Grandmother during the few years I knew her before she passed - she was very hard of hearing, but I do know that she thought we (my wife and I) succumbed to the lure of a cult. I want to know WHY? Oh, I've heard it - you WORSHIP Mary. LOL. Oh, Protestants ask everyone to pray for themselves and each other, why is it taboo to ask the Virgin Mary, herself, or St. Thomas or any other saint to pray for us (or others) to the Lord God? We DO NOT worship Mary! We revere her to the highest. Yes, she is in Heaven, body and soul with her Son, but she is not a goddess!

Much consternation comes from the idea of transubstantiation - that we actually eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ! We are NOT cannibals. We believe the host - made of wheat - and the wine - fermented from grapes - are transformed by the priest into the true Body and Blood of Christ himself. No, it doesn't taste like chicken! We believe in a living God who performs miracles daily. We believe in the God of Noah and Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon and Joseph!

I invite all those who think I'm nuts to come to Mass next Sunday. Any parish - there's one near you for sure. Come. Don't sweat the details. Don't worry about the prayers. Don't worry about the songs (by the way, we DO sing "Amazing Grace"!!!!). Come. Listen. Experience the Last Supper. The readings from the Old Testament. The readings from the New Testament. The reading from the Gospels, and then listen to a sermon (we call it a homily, but trust me there are many priests who must have trained at Divinity School). If you feel compelled to have further discussion, email me. I'd be happy to chat in more detail. Email me at jasonatricardolaw@gmail.com. No pressure. No games. No insults.

Today, these conversations have sparked a flame that has been an ember for far too long. Come back. Trust me, you won't be disappointed. And yes I said "come back" because at some point, your ancestors were likely Catholics...you just may need to go back further than some :)

Having come from a Catholic family background, I can definitely say that there is a gapping, widening hole in the RCC. All the bells and smells have left people empty. Like my friend at work who came up to me one day and said "I'm Catholic, but I here you're born again, what's that all about? I think I want to be born again." Or the guy I met the other day who got kicked out of Catholic seminary because he had too many health problems. I asked him if he was still Catholic, he said "yeah, I still believe, but I don't go to church." When I shared the good news of salvation by faith in Christ alone with him he was appreciative and told me he would be thinking about it. There are people leaving the RCC in droves, a few over-educated wistful pastors heading back to "the mother church" (aka the whore of Babylon) should be no cause for alarm.

maybe i should have said that the counter-reformation as a conspiracy.

i do not believe in transubstantiation but calling it idolatrous is being like those Jews who rejected Jesus Christ there in John because he told them they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. My Catholic brothers take Christ at his word while my denomination see it as feasting on the Holy Scriptures where we are given more grace that is deeper than what was given before. i think the biggest reason many protestants reject Catholics as being saved is they see the counter-reformation as against the reformers like in counter-clockwise or counter-productive instead of counter-move like in chess where the Catholic worked to strengthen itself. i have read "The Confessions of St. Augustine" and enjoyed and would like to learn more about the early church fathers for many of them the accepted Christ as Lord when it would be easier and safer to just declare Caesar as lord. they had to face gladiator games, lions, and if lucky crucifixion. one problem i see is that many protestants promote very cheap grace for all you have to look at America and see many at as practical deist saying the believe prayer can make a difference and than never lifting a finger to help God move. they wanted anyone for president but romney and obama, and the only thing they did to help was vote instead of getting out there and helping campaign for the candidate they like.

Mark

'According to Romans 4:5, faith alone is “not works”. The point of faith alone is “grace alone”. “To the one who does NOT work but trusts Him who justifies the ungodly, it is counted as righteousness.”

What Paul is combatting here is the 'work' that is undertaken to gain eternal life. He is combatting any version of 'law-works', that is the belief that ones salvation/justification is through self-effort. At this point the place of 'works' as the fruit/consequence/evidence/materialisation/objectification/substantiation of faith is not his issue (polemically and pastorally).

For James, of course, it was and thus we are told that a man is justified by works. Incidentally, I am not supporting here an RC view of justification. I am simply saying that faith that trusts, works.

JasonFSU-- thank you for your spirit of Christian charity to our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ. As a baptized (but badly catechized) Catholic, *and* a former Protestant of several years who returned to the Catholic Church in 2010, I can attest to the fact that serious, theologically conservative Protestants are God-exalting, Bible-loving people. Many of them lead lives which are radically obedient to God. Their standards of holiness often put those of many of us Catholics to shame. (Paradoxically, in that way, serious Protestants would make great Catholic Saints!) They are highly serious about wanting to understand and apply the teachings of the Bible in their lives. I never want to give anyone the impression that I am not appreciative, and indeed, very thankful, for my Protestant past.

To partially answer your question from above, some conservative Protestants believe that the Catholic Church does not teach the true, Biblical Gospel, because these particular Protestants understand that Gospel to be "justification by God's grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone." Catholics very much believe in grace alone and Christ alone, but we cannot affirm "justification by faith alone." The Bible clearly denies "faith alone" in many passages-- most clearly in James 2:14-24, where it is specifically stated that man is *not justified by faith alone*.

As a former Protestant, I know well that there is a common Protestant interpretation of this passage in James which holds that the author is merely writing about "proving" (showing evidence of) one's genuine, justifying faith to *other people*, and that the passage is not actually about being justified before God. However, this interpretation of the passage seems to come not so much from the passage itself (the actual words), and more from the Protestant (mis)understanding that in numerous places in St. Paul's letters, he is teaching "justification by faith alone." While Paul does write, in certain places, about the Christian being justified apart from works, if one carefully examines the *surrounding* verses, Paul is referring the works of the Mosaic ceremonial law, such as circumcision. He is *not* saying that works play no role in our being justified before God.

I should state here that most theologically conservative Protestants *do* affirm that good works are very important in the Christian life-- but they deny that those works play any role in our justification before God. However, as mentioned above, this is specifically denied in James 2:14-24. Our Lord Himself affirms that works play a serious role in one's either being with God in Heaven, or *not*, as in the parable of the sheep and the goats.

To clarify, regarding my above comment: I'm very aware that most Protestants don't believe that there *are* any "inherent problems" with "Sola Scriptura" and "sola fide." Rather, the (usual) Protestant contention is that the problems begin when these two "Sola's" are abandoned.

However, and I say this as a former, highly committed Protestant-- in the final analysis, even the nuanced "Sola Scriptura" of the Reformers ultimately collapses into individualism in the end. This necessarily happens, due to the Protestant belief in the primacy of the individual, Spirit-illuminated conscience (even when Protestant consciences disagree, as with, say, Presbyterians and Baptists) in interpreting Scripture.

Historic Reformed confessions, Biblical commentaries, and the pastoral leaders in one's Protestant community all play a role in the Reformed understanding of Sola Scriptura, but ultimately, Sola Scriptura collapses into individualism, as long as the individual ultimately still "submits" to his/her understanding of what Scripture teaches on the issues that he/she deems to be the "essential" ones. I have lived this. When I came to a Calvinist understanding of the Scriptures, I ultimately left my Arminian Baptist church community and joined a Calvinistic Baptist one. My submission to my Protestant leaders in a given church continued only insofar as *they* agreed with *my* interpretation of the Scriptures-- again, on what I deemed to be the "essential" issues, from my reading of the Scriptures. When their interpretations clashed strongly enough with mine, I left and joined a new community and "submitted" to those leaders. This is largely the story of Protestant denominationalism itself.

From the earliest days of the Reformation, Protestants disagreed among themselves, even as to the "essential" isssues, even when working from a base of Sola Scriptura. Luther declared Zwingli to be an enemy of God, due to his differing view on the Eucharist, Calvin stated that those who would not baptize their babies were raving mad dogs, and so on. From the testimony of history, from the 1500s until today, Protestantism cannot resolve its own *internal* divisions-- and thus, it can never fulfill Christ's high priestly prayer that believers would be one, as He and the Father are one, so that the world would see and know that Christ was sent by the Father.

Doug; I appreciate your kind words. Considering the negative comments I have endured over the years from non-Catholics (grew up in Northeast Catholic cocoon of sorts, and realized how misconstrued our faith was after moving to the South some 20 years ago - it truly is amazing how many people think being a Catholic is NOT being a Christian!), I have come to believe that many anti-Catholic opinions are based on grave misunderstandings. I am sure there are many roots to such ignorance, but the "hatred" is quite frankly surreal in our modern day of knowledge and enlightenment.

I often sit in Mass and wonder "If my non-Catholic brethren would come and experience this, what could they object to?" I have been to many Protestant (not to mention Jewish and Muslim) services, and none has ever held the power and passion of the Mass - the celebration of the Last Supper EVERY SINGLE TIME, enduring His sacrifice and love, followed by accepting Him through the Eucharist. I appreciate the passion for many non-Catholics' faith in our Lord, but I pray that they receive the fullness of that faith by coming home to Mother Church.

For committed Protestants who think that Scott Hahn and Jason Stellman are two of only a very few conservative Protestant ministers who have come to see the inherent problems with "Sola Scriptura" and "sola fide," the Catholic television program, "The Journey Home," might be helpful. Since its beginning in 1997, this weekly program on the Eternal Word Television Network (I give these details simply for those who wish to investigate) has featured many, many serious, conservative, Bible-loving Protestant ministers (and laypeople) who have become Catholic. Their testimonies can be heard, in full, at the EWTN website.

For most of the time that I was a Reformed Baptist, I was unaware that *any* serious, thoughful Protestants had ever become Catholic, let alone Protestant ministers. Of course, the fact of certain theologically serious, conservative ministers becoming Catholic does not, in and of itself, prove the truth of Catholicism. It is good, though, in many ways, for Protestants to at least be aware of this reality.

(I do not mean to imply with this comment that Jason Stellman is necessarily becoming Catholic. He has not said that he is, and I don't wish to put words in his mouth.)

JasonFSU Thank you for your comments.. you are more gracious than I am. If only the simple word "communion" could be taken to heart by non-Catholics. It is truly beyond me how any professed Christian could have any knowledge of the Catholic Church and not come running to embrace it. How could ANY institution survive 2,000 years if it were NOT being guided by the Holy Spirit? Answer: It could not. The early Catholics (yes, Catholic... see St. Ignatius about 100ad) gave themselves up to die willingly because they believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. How can anyone read John 6 and not understand the gift He has given us?
"Faith alone", "Predestination"... absolutely non-senseical.

Sigh. Another Bible quote taken out of context by our protestant brothers... Born again with the waters of Baptism. You realize, no one had a problem with his teaching from the book, that is, the collection of letters assembled, discerned over and created by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, for about 1,200 years. Today we have the Church, founded by Jesus Christ, continuing to be a light to the world, and 40,000 "Christian" denominations all trying to re-create the wheel. Come home. Be healed by the Sacraments He gave us. Read the early Church Fathers. Harden not your hearts.

Here's the main problem with "the" doctrine of "Sola Scriptura": it means whatever you want it to mean. It is mere open-ended function, an F(x) where one plugs in x whatever is the newest and most clever theory around to describe and explain it.

SS is still around because, like the word "spirituality," it means whatever one wants it to mean, whatever preserves what one is most familiar with or find trustworthy, and, as a result, motivates one's desire to defend it with one theoretical tweak here, another theoretical tweak there.

Contemporary Protestantism is the rationalistic effort to argue that the "Five Solas" are not vacuous after presupposing that they are not.

Joel, I find your post interesting, and I would like to inquire deeper, with good faith questions:

1. You seem to believe Catholics are "lost" because they haven't repented and been born again. Is that a fair assessment?

2. Do you reject Catholics as "born again" because of infant baptism? If so, are you aware that devout Catholics reaffirm their baptism, usually during adolescence, through the sacrament of Confirmation? Confirmation is the adult Catholic accepting Jesus Christ as his savior. Knowing that Confirmation is a reaffirmation of baptism and reaffirmation of his love of Jesus Christ, would that qualify for being "born again?" If not, why? (Again, my question is not intended to be antagonistic, but genuine.)

3. Did you know that "repentance" is a cornerstone of Catholic doctrine - we repent through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (known as "confession" - our repentance of sins)? Considering that you recognize the necessity of "repentance," why wouldn't the Sacrament of Reconciliation qualify as repentance? I certainly understand that Protestants strongly believe that sins are forgiven by God when directly brought by the sincerely penitent, and that Protestants reject the Catholic doctrine that sins are forgiven through the intercession of a priest, but beyond that, is there some reason that bearing one's sins to God through the Sacrament of Reconciliation is not repentance?

Again, I intent to stoke no flames, except the flames of knowledge and understanding. I believe a legitimate dialogue of questions like these, followed by understanding could result in the Communion of all Christians with Jesus Christ. That is my hope, anyway.

Having been raised a Reformed Protestant, but born-again in 1984, the back and forth of Catholic and Protestant would be laughable were not souls at stake. Sure, the Protestants / Evangelicals are closer to the truth, but it really depends upon whether the pastor is truly born-again and Spirit-filled, which would seem to be few considering the popularity of the Joel Osteen's, Rick Warren's and experientialism of millions of deceived Pentecostals. Lapsed Catholics are my personal favorites because they believe the basics and when they finally understand their lost condition, they are ready for the New Birth, just like the Thief On The Cross. So while you all are wasting precious time, building your Laodicean mega-churches, and forgetting that "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9) we'll just press on with the Lord's loving call to the lost everywhere with the simple message of John 3:7: MARVEL NOT THAT I SAID UNTO THEE, YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN.

I was raised Catholic and was devout. But when I heard about becoming Born Again, I looked into it more and was totally convinced and convicted that becoming a Born Again Christian following the love and guidance of Jesus and the Scriptures was right. Now, 40 years later I believe it was still right. However, I have found out that many of the evangelical pastors are wolves in sheep's clothing. I also find very little of the Lord's love in evangelical churches either. There seems to be more concern for doctrine alone than being a loving and knowledgeable disciple of the Lord Jesus. I have been burned and betrayed so many times by different pastors that I now attend church but make no effort whatsoever to talk to or reach out to church leadership. My wife feels the same way as the4 attacks against me were obvious to her and affected her as well. Yet, I continue in earnest prayer and reading of the Scriptures and get what fellowship and do as much Gospel outreach as I am able. I have an expression that I think I have coined, "Catholics make the best Protestants." So few of the evangelicals I meet who grew up in Protestant churches have my trust anymore, I am sorry to have to say.

Michael: "I ask because no one else seems to be addressing this issue."

Not no one, Michael. One might have to broaden one's blog-neighborhood daily reading to find it, though.

What if faith alone should really be grace alone? What if God giving us the ability to have faith was, indeed, grace? Salvation, justification, baptism, forgiveness of sins, all grace. What if the Catholic church was right in saying it's all just God's grace?

What if Sola Scriptura wasn't taught in Scripture? What if the pillar and foundation of truth for Christians was the Church that Jesus founded? (1 Tim. 3:15). How can one take the position that the only authority Christians have is Scripture, when the fully operational Church existed for 380 years before the books of the Bible were codified? That's an awfully difficult position to defend.

Brothers and sisters in Christ, don't let the behavior of Catholic sinners prevent you from coming home to the Bride of Christ, the visible Church he founded in 33 AD and whose beliefs are still valid. Chock full of sinners, yes, from Peter on down, but also the rock that will not be overcome by the gates of hell. Scripture says so. Do you have faith enough to believe Scripture?

Thanks Chris for the interaction. You may of course be correct that Jason Stellman does in fact accurately understand the correct meaning of sola Scriptura and sola fide, and is rejecting that. I am simply saying that in his blog he explains these solas incorrectly. I am not calling into question either his intellect nor his sincerety, only his apparent understanding (at least as stated in his blog). Would you mind if I ask you a question---- are you saying that you agree that Stellman is accurate in his understanding of these two solas as he explains them in his blog post? It seems that you are saying yes, but I don't want to misconstrue.

Kevin,

Just a quick note on the process against Dr. Leithart in that presbytery. It's incorrect to say that Mr. Stellman pressed charges. The presbytery had investigated his views and found him in accord with our Standards. The decision was complained against and the General Assembly's Standing Judicial Commission sustained the complaint and ordered the presbytery to have a trial if Dr. Leithart decided not to move to another denomination voluntarily. Since he did not do so, the presbytery instituted process and appointed Mr. Stellman as the prosecutor. It's a quirk of PCA polity, but there is a difference. It would be more correct to say that "Stellman was the prosecutor in Peter Leithart's trial..."

I was going to name Francis Beckwith, but A.G. beat me to it. I believe that Beckwith went from Catholic to Protestant and back to Catholic.

Understood, Bruce.

Here's the thing—we are talking about a (former) pastor of confessionally Reformed church—a champion of the solas if there ever were one. Of course, folks who succumb to "popular mischaracterizations and distortions of these truths” may just not be studied enough (and thus no intellectual inferiority is implied). But, again, we're talking about a former high-church confessional Presbyterian, one who has written in much greater detail on these subjects than the brief paragraphs offered in the resignation letter.

Here's the other thing: in that letter, he is quite clearly saying that works play a role in one's justification ("God’s people are justified by a faith that works through love"), and his brief definition of sola fide is spot on what the confessions teach ("sinners are justified by a once-for-all declaration of acquittal on God’s part, based upon the imputation of Christ’s righteousness received by faith alone"). He also clearly thinks sola scriptura inescapably devolves into solo scriptura. These are not the thoughts of someone who has succumbed to popular mischaracterizations.

He's either not studied enough, or he's intellectually unable to grasp these truths, or he knows exactly what he's rejecting. I've been around long enough to say it's the last one.

"How many evangelicals can name one prominent Catholic writer, speaker, or theologian alive and popular at the moment?"

1. Peter Kreeft
2. Frank Beckwith
3. N.T. Wright (Oops... He's actually Anglican, so he is only half-way across the bridge... :)

Recently, I sat down at length with a friend who converted to Eastern Orthodox, following his wife and children. He boldly proclaimed the shortcomings of sola scriptura and sola fide and the need for the authority of the church. It was interesting because we had both recently left the same Presbyterian church that our families had attended for 20 years. Our family left and began attending another Presbyterian church that we believed was more faithful in teaching the whole of scripture, including an emphasis on the necessity for holiness that you have had much to say and write about in the last year or so. The Reformed Presbyterian church that we left had been fed for years on an unhealthy diet of justification with little real emphasis on sanctification, while minimizing, neglecting and even contradicting the law of God. The primary preaching had turned into a sort of mystical religion at that church. As I sat there listening to my friend belittle sola scriptura and Calvin in particular, I remember thinking that my friend's journey had followed the next logical step into something more mystical, more honest in the sense that the form of the his new religion matched its teaching. This I think is a critical point. When a church stops teaching what it says it believes and moves to something that is inconsistent with its own written standards (i.e., the Confessional ones), it should expect its people to leave. My friend stepped out in the same direction that the mystical preaching had been taking him. I think he just wanted to be honest about it.

The modern Reformed church needs to hear the message that you have been preaching this past year, including the bold preaching about holiness and sanctification and now the messages about the doctrines of the faith. I have circulated sermon and blog post links to many, and it appears to be making an impact.

I very much appreciate that, when you have differences with others in the church, you do not just go up into the ramparts and fire flaming arrows at the opposition. I pray that you will continue to be well-received in the modern Reformed and new Calvinist churches, as you continue steadfastly in truth and humility.

There are today many evangelicals who have redefined "faith alone" as including works. Since the faith which believes the gospel is the same faith which makes an effort to get more "sanctified", the words "faith alone" are no magical cure.

According to Romans 4:5, faith alone is “not works”. The point of faith alone is “grace alone”. “To the one who does NOT work but trusts Him who justifies the ungodly, it is counted as righteousness.”

According to Romans 9:11, we cannot say grace alone without saying “for the elect alone”. “Though they were not yet born and had done nothing good or bad-in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of His call.”

Most evangelicals ignore this connection between “not because of works” and election. In coalitions they often attempt to discuss the gospel without talking about election, and then mostly all they can do is say “not because of works but because of faith alone”.

Even if you believe that Christ died for every sinner, many who call themselves “Reformed" will tell you that God effectually called you to believe that falsehood. In some non-coalition setting, they will explain a more "precise" view of things which you might want to add on to what you already believe without needing to repent of a false gospel.

Before you believed in a faith alone gospel, and now you still believe in a faith alone gospel but now you know that the faith came from God.

Faith is hearing produced by God by means of the gospel. The power is in the true gospel, not in a false gospel. I Corinthians 1: 18, “for the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, IT is the power of God.”


It is not enough to talk about election as simply that which make certain that some sinners have faith alone. If the object of the faith alone is a false Christ who died for everybody and who makes faith some kind of condition, then this "faith alone" is not in the true Christ but is instead in "faith alone".

“Faith alone” is not the condition of justification, but to see that, we need a message which tells us about God’s election.

Election is God’s idea. This idea goes along with the idea of not works. Romans 9:11: “In order that God’s election might continue, not because of works.”

Romans 11: 5, “So too at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. But if it by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise grace would be no more grace.”

Why didn't the Apostle Paul just say: “by faith and not by works”? Why did he bring in this idea of a remnant? Paul writes about election in order to explain what he means by faith. Paul does not regard "faith alone" as a substitute for works.

God imputes the righteousness revealed in the gospel to a person justified by the gospel. The “it” which is imputed by God to Abraham is the obedient bloody death of Christ Jesus for the elect alone. The merit and value of this death, the righteousness of God obtained by Christ, that is what God imputes to the elect alone. God does not impute faith.

Isntnanrejection of sola fidenanrejection of the gospel? I ask because no one else seems to be addressing this issue.

And by the way Chris, if I might add something, I did not mean to suggest for a moment any kind of intellectual inferiority on the part of Jason Stellman or others. I do appreciate your point. My point is simply that these terms are commonly misunderstood, not just by those who "reject" them, but by those who "embrace" them. I am not sure if you are familiar with James Payton's work -- "Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings." Among other generally helpful chapters, he has two on what the Reformers meant by Sola Scriptura and what the Reformers meant by Sola Fide. On both counts many evangelicals today have an erroneous or distorted understanding of these grand concepts. I am sure you must be aware as well of the fine work "The Shape of Sola Scriptura" by your former associate at Ligonier, Keith Matthison, where he establishes the contrast between the popular misunderstandings and the classic and Reformational understanding.

Kevin, regarding the issues of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, in reading Jason Stellman's own descriptions of these principles on his blog it appears to me that he doesn't have a clear and accuate understanding of either one. It seems then that what he is rejecting are popular mischaracterizations and distortions of these truths. This may be surprising, but I find it to be all too common. Of course this is not to say that he would not also reject these truths as properly and historically defined, and still embrace Roman Catholic theology. Nevetheless,I think it is important for us to see that usually it is a distortion of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide that is denied.

Chris, please look at Jason Stellman's own descriptions of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. What he is saying is simply not what these principles mean. What he is rejecting is really properly termed Nuda Scriptura and Nuda Fide ---- indeed "popular mischaracterizations and distortions of these truths." And the fact of the matter is, if you listen to their own explanations, most who reject Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are really understanding these terms in an un-Biblical and un-historical way that the Reformer's themselves would not affirm. Maybe they would also reject these principles accurately understood as well, but I find it not a little strange that don't seem to do that. Perhaps one reason is that to do so would be to fly full in the face of the Bible and history, and it would be an unsustainable position. I am not sure about that, but the fact remains that Jason Stellman and others repeatedly misconstrue these terms. See Doug Wilson's very helpful comments in the link that Kevin gave:

http://www.dougwils.com/Auburn-Avenue-Stuff/a-decent-sandwich-in-new-york.html

Thank you, Pastor Kevin. Although I had not heard of Jason Stellman before reading about his departure from the PCA at Reformation 21, the news has troubled me. Your analysis and conclusions were helpful.

May the perpetual prayer of Mary guide us all.- ah, just kidding.

I just read the link to Leithart's take on the Stellman move to Rome. The premises of Leithart’s argument appear to be that (1) "Confessionalists" are people who trust in Confessions as the extra-biblical authority for their lives, and (2) people who trust in one extra-biblical authority will trust in a second when the first one fails them on some major issue. Based on these premises, Leithart concludes that the Confession likely failed Confessionalist Stellman on some issue of life or godliness, so he looked to another extra-biblical authority - the Roman Catholic Church.

Must we accept the premise that confessional people or congregations trust in their particular confessions as extra-biblical authorities for their lives? For at least two key reasons, I believe the first premise fails, as it would concern those who hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith as a constitutional standard.

The Westminster Confession of Faith provides in Chapter 1, paragraph 6,”The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” In matters of religious controversy (such as the one in which Leithart was embroiled for a number of years), paragraph 10 in Chapter 1 of the Confession provides that it is the Holy Spirit speaking through the scriptures (not the Confession or any other extra-biblical authority) that is “The supreme judge” by which the controversy is to be determined.

As with any argument, when the major premise fails, the conclusion is suspect and unproven. Leithart needs to look elsewhere for Jason Stellman’s point of departure from Protestant orthodoxy.

Let's add a #3 to the list, Kevin: The benefit of the doubt. Many converts out of evangelicalism, Stellman included (and contrary to Bruce's suggestion above), know exactly what it is they're rejecting.

Not judging one way or the other about the veracity of those conclusions, just saying that it's tiresome to hear the oft-repeated elitist response to any deconversion: What's rejected "are popular mischaracterizations and distortions of these truths."

Just because someone disagrees with our opinion doesn't make them intellectually inferior.

Funny, sola Scriptura and sola fide are actually what ARE "wrong" here. The misguided, personal interpretation of all protestants is faulty. Mr. Sellman has come into the TRUTH. The ONE Truth. Satan divides. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has generated 40,000ish fallen (protestant) churches each with their own interpretation of the Bible (missing a few books) and the teachings of Jesus. Come home, your hearts are restless...

"I’m simply reminding us that the flow across the Tiber has benefited evangelicals more than it has Catholics."

God is good!

[...] 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. [...]

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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....

@Michael Snow

Please name some of these "many" Catholics becoming Protestants.

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)."

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.

[...] 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 [...]