Why Stay Protestant? by Matthew Schultz

https://medium.com/@MatthewSchultz/why-stay-protestant-435b5e1006a0

A very good overview of the issues that touches on other areas in life (social, arts, music, aesthetics, etc.) that apologists and theologians usually don't mention in this whole issue of Roman Catholicism vs. Protestantism.

Hardship, Loss of Job, Trouble, Etc. Do Not Equal = Truth

Those of you keeping up with Roman Catholic apologetics may have come across Dr. White's recent entry, Jason Stellman’s Unmitigated Disaster.

Mr. Stellman's entry documented his hardship since joining Rome, and then ends with his own version of Here I Stand, I can do no other.

Then throughout the few hundred comments, this sort of sentiment is repeated often:


"I don’t have any great words of wisdom that you don’t already know as well as anyone, that your reward will be great in heaven. I know that is often of little consolation when our temporal challenges (what you called “humanly speaking”) seem so overwhelming. But we receive our salvation “humanly speaking” as well; it is our humanness that is redeemed!"

"Jason Stellman, You are not alone. We all have to suffer friend. Count your blessings and look to heaven. You never know what God has in store for you next."

"However, we all need these times in our life to be tested, tried and prepared… It takes suffering to bring forth joy. It takes labor to have a baby, it takes time, effort and so much pain to win a race. It took the stations of the cross for us to have salvation… So just be sure this is all for your benefit (Rom 8,28), you will handle it and you’ll be stronger and wiser."

"You have my greatest respect, Jason. Since my husband and I converted several years ago we have heard from a number of fellow Protestant ministers who admit they feel called to Rome, but they don’t follow the call out of fear for their finances. I have almost given up hope for most of them and fear for their souls since they seem to be saying no to Christ in this way. I hope they will turn in time. But you did not count the cost. You saw Jesus in the blessed sacrament and followed Him. He is our life and hope. I know He will lead you into greener pastures."

And these comments go on and on.

A few years ago a friend of mine struggled for years to take care of his family and pay his bills. After years of struggling in the ministry, he finally landed a decent job as an assistant pastor in a non-denominational church. Then after a few years, the senior pastor retired, and named him as his successor. If I recall correctly, the job paid somewhere between $75,000 and $100,000. It included a nice house, health insurance, and a retirement package. This wasn't a mega church, but a small congregation in a nice area. And he lived happily ever after...

No, he didn't live happily ever after. Things were going smoothly until after studying a particular theological issue, he ended up preaching heresy from the pulpit. The church fired him, and the entire thing ravaged the small congregation. He did not go willingly, but rather convinced he was being persecuted for the truth. With the particular heresy he embraced, he found himself a new set of friends that gave him the same sort of sentiment documented above. He began writing for this heretical movement- even giving his testimony (for lack of a better word) of how he was booted unjustly from his church for embracing the "truth." He had a podcast. He had a blog (actually a few blogs). He was part of a radio network embracing this particular heresy, etc.

Suffering is a tricky thing. I have a friend of mine at church who has severe health problems, as does his wife. It's amazing they're still alive. He rarely mentions it. In fact, I have to pry it out of him at times to find out how he's doing. On the other hand, Stellman says: "To be honest, I don’t really know why I am posting this. I know for a fact that much of the information I am divulging will be received with glee from many in the Calvinistic world." I think it's fairly obvious why it was posted.

I don't consider myself gleeful about anything Mr. Stellman posted. I don't wish for my friend, the heretic he is- to be without income, unable to provide for his family, or excommunicated from the church. Neither do I wish those things for Mr. Stellman. But, my basic point is that struggle and hardship as the result of theological convictions do not equal truth. People have been persecuted for religious beliefs for hundreds of years- and some of these people were not even within the realm of Christian theism. I don't think my friend was thrown out of his church unjustly. Nor do I think Mr. Stellman's congregation excommunicated him unjustly.  Wherever my friend is now, with whatever struggle he's having- these are not because of the truth.

Roman Convert Needs a Job....

I recently listened to this conversion story, and the talk ended with this short statement (mp3).  Now in this economy, I certainly feel bad for anyone not employed, even those people I may have theological differences with.

 However:

1. I simply don't understand what the point of having a teaching magisterium is and a priesthood if  a guy simply wants to "do as a Catholic something similar to what I've done as a Protestant minister for so many years, namely, stand up in front of people with a Bible in my hands and just make complicated stuff understandable." Rome is supposed to make God and the Church understandable. Now, we've got people who want to interpret the interpreter.

2. As a Roman apologist, one needs to carry more than a Bible up front. One should probably bring as many infallible decrees one can find, a good edition of Canon law, the Catechism, and it wouldn't hurt to bring a lot of papal encyclicals. I'd say carry "Sacred Tradition" as well, but that's a bit like bringing Bigfoot along.

Losing Rome's converts

Magdi Allam, Muslim Convert, Leaves Catholic Church, Says It's Too Weak Against Islam

"Allam, who has called Islam an 'intrinsically violent ideology,' said his main reason for leaving the church was its perceived "religious relativism, in particular the legitimization of Islam as a true religion."

" the list of Reformed seminaries that insist there is a real problem with Reformed theologians converting to Roman Catholicism..... "

Here's a real gem from the CARM boards (I am not one of the participants below):

 Originally Posted by wk_mt2819 

The link I provided showing all of the splits within adherents to Calvin's teachings was never intended to be a link to the Reformed seminary that recognizes it is losing its students to the Catholic Church.

You have yet to supply the list of Reformed seminaries that insist there is a real problem with Reformed theologians converting to Roman Catholicism.....

We're waiting.




*********

 Originally Posted by Josiah 

Still waiting....

Here you go. I’m sure this isn’t “enough” for you. If you’d like a list of names of “never really saved to begin with” Reformed clergy/professors/theologians I can get those too.

Article discussing Gordon Conwell Reformed seminary grads heading to the CC: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=135

An article about the topic being discussed at Wheaton College: http://www.koinoniablog.net/2012/05/...the-tiber.html

From the Evangelical Theological Society: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PD...1-472_JETS.pdf

Article by Christian writer: http://www.religiondispatches.org/ar...o_catholicism/

Professor of Theology: http://globalchristiancenter.com/pra...tholicism.html

http://www.chriscastaldo.com/2012/04...olic-lectures/

Presbyterian blog where exodus of Presbyterian clergy to Catholicism is discussed and affirmed:http://www.weswhite.net/2012/06/jaso...eaves-the-pca/

Another Presbyterian blogger discussing Presbyterians heading to the CC: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2012...y-to-rome.html

Even our “friends” at “berean” recognizing the “problem”: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6596



*********

 Originally Posted by wk_mt2819 

Here you go. I’m sure this isn’t “enough” for you. If you’d like a list of names of “never really saved to begin with” Reformed clergy/professors/theologians I can get those too.

The challenge was for you to "supply the list of Reformed seminaries that insist there is a real problem with Reformed theologians converting to Roman Catholicism...". Let's see how you did

 Originally Posted by wk_mt2819 

Article discussing Gordon Conwell Reformed seminary grads heading to the CC: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=135

Gordon-Conwell is not a Reformed Seminary. It is the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary:

http://www.gordonconwell.edu/ 

Why did you add the word "Reformed" to the name of the school?

 Originally Posted by wk_mt2819 

An article about the topic being discussed at Wheaton College: http://www.koinoniablog.net/2012/05/...the-tiber.html

Wheaton College is not a seminary and is not "Reformed" by any stretch of the imagination.

 Originally Posted by wk_mt2819 

From the Evangelical Theological Society: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PD...1-472_JETS.pdf

Seriously? The ETS is about as liberal and far from being Reformed as you can get.

 Originally Posted by wk_mt2819 

Article by Christian writer: http://www.religiondispatches.org/ar...o_catholicism/

No evidence this writer identifies himself as Reformed. In fact if you read his bio he attended a Roman Catholic High School and graduated from the above mentioned Gordon-Conwell (Non-Reformed) Theological Seminary.

 Originally Posted by wk_mt2819 

Professor of Theology: http://globalchristiancenter.com/pra...tholicism.html

The article concerns evangelicals in general. "Evangelical" does not equal "Reformed" or "Calvinist".

 Originally Posted by wk_mt2819 

http://www.chriscastaldo.com/2012/04/27/evangelicals-becoming-catholic-lectures/

Interesting that you would quote an ex-Catholic who is related to Cardinal Alfonso Castaldo, the Archbishop of Naples. He is also a graduate of Gordon-Conwell, and also shows no evidence of being Reformed.

 Originally Posted by wk_mt2819 

Presbyterian blog where exodus of Presbyterian clergy to Catholicism is discussed and affirmed: http://www.weswhite.net/2012/06/jaso...eaves-the-pca/

A blog article with no association to any seminary whatsoever, that is discussing one individual who obviously did not hold to Reformed doctrine and theology.

 Originally Posted by wk_mt2819 

Another Presbyterian blogger discussing Presbyterians heading to the CC: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2012...y-to-rome.html

Again a blog article concerning ONE person. Did you catch the part where the person in question hid his change of convictions from the Presbytery for some time in clear violation of his ordination vows?

 Originally Posted by wk_mt2819 

Even our “friends” at “berean” recognizing the “problem”: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6596

The Berean Call was started by Dave Hunt who is about as far from Reformed as you can get. It would not be inaccurate to call Mr. Hunt "rabidly anti-Calvinist".


So let's add up your score:

Reformed Seminaries listed - 0

Better luck next time, but thanks for playing. You also might want to look into the differences between the terms "evangelical" and "reformed". There seems to be some confusion there.

Even My Computer Doesn't Trust the Blogs of Roman Catholic Converts

Warning: Something's Not Right Here!

abbaslittlegirl.blogspot.com contains content from followmebutton.com, a site known to distribute malware. Your computer might catch a virus if you visit this site.

Google has found malicious software may be installed onto your computer if you proceed. If you've visited this site in the past or you trust this site, it's possible that it has just recently been compromised by a hacker. You should not proceed, and perhaps try again tomorrow or go somewhere else.

Magic Moment Conversions and Called to Communion

Here's a recent Called to Communion excerpt:

"When I first began to study Calvin in earnest, I was puzzled by what seemed a glaring omission in his writings and sermons. He never counseled his readers and listeners to be “Born Again.” This struck me as odd because I knew our denomination (PCA) considered Calvin to be our true founder. I also knew that the evangelical doctrine of “New Birth” (regeneration), understood as the moment of personal, conscious conversion, was the linchpin, the central dogma of our congregation. As an Evangelical Presbyterian, I had grown up constantly hearing these exhortations to be “Born Again.” My pastors and teachers revered evangelistic luminaries like Billy Graham and Bill Bright right along with the great Lion of Geneva. It was simply inconceivable to me that the great John Calvin did not know how to be saved! Nevertheless, as I kept studying, a clear but shocking picture emerged. Calvin knew no conversionistic account of Christian initiation. His was a vastly more ecclesial, sacramental view of the Christian life – one begun in baptism, and nourished through the Eucharist. It was not conversion but the Eucharist, Calvin held, which “brings an undoubted assurance of eternal life.”[“Have you been Born Again? Catholic Reflections on a Protestant Doctrine, or How Calvin’s view of Salvation destroyed his Doctrine of the Church”]

I was not brought up Presbyterian, but similar to this CTC author, I was raised on the "magic moment conversion" paradigm.  I sat through years of altar calls and heard many versions of "with every eye closed and every head bowed, slip up your hand if you want to accept Christ... yes I see you.... yes I see you..." etc. I was raised with this sort of paradigm. It was a normal part of the church experience for me. If you were a Christian, you were expected to be able to point to the year, day, and hour in which you accepted Christ into your heart. Anything less than this was a bit suspicious. You had to have a magic moment in which you were born again.

Here's the ironic part. Despite at least three decades of opportunities, I never once lifted my hand when every head was bowed and every eye was closed (and by the way, every head and eye didn't obey this liturgical rule). Nor did I ever leave my seat, walk the isle, head towards the front to be prayed with. This at times was met with consternation by those presenting the salvation offer. I recall really giving the counselors at the Word of Life Bible camp in New York state quite a challenge. They had these invitations every night that never made any sort of dent on me. In fact, I enjoyed not providing them with any sort of certainty of my spiritual state.

It wasn't just the altar calls. By the time I got into my twenties, the idea of standing up and committing to something had grown. I recall going out to the big Intervarsity Urbana conference and one of the speakers got the entire stadium on their feet to commit to some form of Christian behavior. I was one of the only persons that didn't stand up (God bless my friend Bob who likewise sat there with me). The last church I went to previous to my paradigm shift to a Reformed perspective was a rocking Church of the Nazarene (what a band!). Each service ended with a 10 to 15 minute altar call. This church began its early ministry during the early 1970's having many hippies go forward at the end to get saved at every service. By the late 1980's, the amount of people going forward at the end of each service dwindled down to a few... every once in a while. The altar call then morphed into an invitation for anyone to go forward to get prayer for anything. I eventually started leaving the church service early right before the altar call began. This way, I beat the crowd out of the parking lot.

What's struck me as so odd about the CTC quote above is I had the exact opposite experience when I started learning Reformed theology and going to a Reformed church. The CTC author thinks he was raised in some sort of Reformed paradigm, and then experienced dissonance by reading Calvin. As far as I can tell, the CTC author was raised more like I was, and then read Calvin and was confronted with Reformed theology for the first time. While he may not have been subjected to the same number of altar calls I was, we certainly both share being brought up with the "magic moment" paradigm of becoming "born again".

One of the helpful aspects of going "Reformed" was that it made sense of my own conversion "experience." Reformed theology understands that not every one hears a voice from heaven and falls to the ground like the the apostle Paul. The idea of a dramatic "once I was blind, but now I see" magic moment isn't the rule. In fact, some people can't locate a specific date in which they realized their own sin, need of savior, and desired to live a life of gratitude to God for salvation. It just happens.

Now here's something that may come across a bit controversial. I realize that many people today weren't raised in Christian homes and have either had dramatic sudden conversion experiences or a slower conversion experience over time. I get that. Ask yourself this question: throughout history, by what means have most people been exposed to the Gospel message? I would argue that the answer to this question is...the family. That is, most people throughout history weren't clueless about the Christian faith, but were rather raised in some form of it. This isn't an exact science, but my guess is that the reason why there may be quite a number of other people throughout history that had the same sort of eventual conversion that I did was because of their family going to church.

The notion of raising a child in the community of faith is ingrained in a Reformed paradigm. In my own church, a child that eventually realizes their sin, need of savior, and desires to live a life of gratitude to God is typically a partial result of living in the covenant community and being exposed to the Gospel. A serious Reformed church will therefore have an emphasis on catechizing children. The Holy Spirit works in the church through the proclamation of the word.

Avoiding my desire to discuss Luther as the father of modern catechetics, this brings us back to where I began, with John Calvin, and why it appears to me the CTC author was never "Reformed" to begin with. In Calvin's The Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1545), Calvin writes,

“It has always been a practice and diligent care of the Church, that children be rightly brought up in Christian doctrine. To do this more conveniently, not only were schools formerly opened and individuals enjoined to teach their families properly, but also it was accepted public custom and practice to examine children in the Churches concerning the specific points which should be common and familiar to all Christians. That this be done in order, a formula was written out, called Catechism or Institute.”

-snip-

“After this, the devil, miserably rending the Church of God and bringing upon it his fearful destruction . . . subverted this sacred policy; nor did he leave surviving anything more than certain trivialities, which give rise only to superstitions, without any edifying fruit. Of this kind is that Confirmation, as they call it, made up of gesticulations [gestures, waving the arms] which are more than ridiculous and suited rather to monkeys, and rest on no foundation. What we now bring forward, therefore, is nothing else than the use of a practice formerly observed by Christians and the true worshippers of God, and never neglected until the Church was wholly corrupted.”

For Calvin, Catechisms united the Church through a common systematic testimony. Calvin states, “For in [Catechisms] there appears not only what someone or another once taught, but what were the rudiments with which both the learned and unlearned among us were from youth constantly instructed, all the faithful holding them as the solemn symbol of Christian communion.” Calvin believed that  catechizing children and others was essential to the health, maturity, and continued vitality of the church. Calvin didn't teach "magic moment" theology.  Children came to maturity and either became productive and mature members of the church or rejected it.

The Reformed churches wanted their children catechized so as to eventually make a profession of faith and be faithful to a particular visible church. Now this notion of a profession of faith is not the conversion experience. It is rather a public profession to join a particular visible church. This tradition is a strong part of the Reformed churches that came out of the Netherlands (my Presbyterian friends can inform me as to their practice in this area, but I would not be surprised to find out that this profession is also part of their tradition). Within the URC church I'm part of, infant baptism places a child in the covenant community (or a member of the broad visible church), profession of faith is a public confession to a particular church that one is a Christian, embraces the covenant promises, and will submit to church authority.

Now I certainly realize the author of the CTC article in question has a different intent with his article than what I'm talking about. He does though claim a Reformed heritage. I can't help but be very suspicious as to whether or not he really was raised... Reformed or as any sort of a Calvinist.  He concludes with the following: "As a very young child, I believed that salvation came through recitation of a mantra: the sinner’s prayer." This certainly isn't taught in my Reformed church, nor do I think this prayer finds its way into to Westminster Small Catechism. It is though taught in the tradition I was raised in: garden-variety-evangelical-fundamentalism. It appears to me that the Presbyterian church the CTC author was raised in  had been infected by "magic moment" theology. The reason why he was surprised to not find it in Calvin isn't the fault of Calvinism, but rather his understanding of Calvinism.

Simply because a church says "Presbyterian" or "Reformed" on the marque outside doesn't mean that in spirit they actually are. This was made quite apparent to me from my early visits to Reformed churches before joining the one I'm currently in. Imagine my surprise when I sat through a Reformed church service in which the minister quoted out of M. Scott Peck's Road Less Traveled rather than the Bible. As to Presbyterian churches, I have a number of good Pentecostal friends with a serious Arminian bent that are right at home in some version of a Presbyterian church. Recently a read about "Free Will Presbyterians."  The rule of thumb: the words "Presbyterian" and "Reformed" on a church sign do not necessarily mean Calvinism.

Implications of "an honest summary of the state of Christendom at the end of the 15th century"

I skimmed through this recent account of a Tiber swim: An OPC Pastor Enters the Catholic Church. I found this comment from the author deep in the comments section:

Karl Adam, in his book Roots of the Reformation , offers an honest summary of the state of Christendom at the end of the 15th century: "[A]mongst the common people, a fearful decline of true piety into religious materialism and morbid hysteria; amongst the clergy, both lower and higher, widespread worldliness and neglect of duty; and amongst the Shepherds of the Church, demonic ambition and sacrilegious perversion of holy things….."

The argument from some of Rome's defenders goes like this: certainly there were church abuses during the sixteenth century. But Luther went too far. This new Roman convert thinks that things may have turned out differently had Luther "kept his ecclesiastical cool in the midst of the desperate need for moral reform." If there was ever a statement ignorant of history, this would certainly be a prime example. It assumes that a corrupt institution would actually politely take any sort of correction from an obscure monk. The facts of history show quite otherwise: the Luther situation was riddled with subterfuge and obfuscation, this coming from Rome herself. Luther was given a bogus hearing in which he was ultimately told to simply recant, or else. This new convert went to a Reformed seminary in which details of this information are readily available in their library. The details of Luther's kangaroo court hearing were no doubt also presented in a class specific to Reformation Church History (CH 313). Unless the requirements are now different, in order to graduate from Mid-America Reformed Seminary this class was required.  In other words, this new Roman convert has no excuse for such an ignorant portrayal of Reformation church history. The legalities of sixteenth century Romanism were not simply "hey chill out, things for you will be okay." No, you could find yourself executed quite easily and also find that the means of getting you to the point of execution weren't always fair. That Luther was never put to death for heresy should be the miracle that qualifies him for saint status in Romanism.

This section quoted from from Roman Catholic historian Karl Adam raises an interesting issue. After describing the abuses present in the church, Adam states: "In this waste of clerical corruption it was impossible for the spirit of our Lord to penetrate into the people, take root there and bring true religion to flower." It appears that for Romanism, God promises to preserve the papacy, and "papacy" equals "Church." The Spirit, according to Karl Adam can be blocked by the papacy herself from reaching the people. Now think bout this: Even though the papacy was severely corrupt (as described by Adam), the gates of Hell didn't prevail against her. In other words, some Roman Catholics view the possibility of the gates of Hell prevailing over the papacy as similar say, to a square circle. It's presupposed beforehand that it's an impossibility for the papacy to ever be that corrupt that the gates of Hell prevail against her.  Their entire argument about the preserved-from-error-papacy is simply a faith claim in which history needs to be tweaked to fit this presupposition.

Now compare this to what the Roman convert states:

"...moral abuses (as scandalous as they are) do not equal doctrinal error. Christ promised to preserve his Church in the truth of the gospel. And so he has, does, and will. Such a profound promise is consistent with the fact that men are not always morally faithful to the graces God gives them. Despite the weakness, frailty and sinfulness found within the Church, there is the divine guarantee that God, by his Holy Spirit, working in the college of bishops in union with the pope, will preserve his Church from teaching and believing that which is false in regard to the gospel."

This convert is likewise functioning with the church = papacy paradigm. There's another presupposition here that needs to be scrutinized: "Christ promised to preserve his Church in the truth of the gospel. And so he has, does, and will." Here's what isn't stated: previous to Trent there was not any official dogmatic statement as to what exactly the Gospel "is", certainly in regard to justification:

“Existing side by side in pre-Reformation theology were several ways of interpreting the righteousness of God and the act of justification. They ranged from strongly moralistic views that seemed to equate justification with moral renewal to ultra-forensic views, which saw justification as a 'nude imputation' that seemed possible apart from Christ, by an arbitrary decree of God. Between these extremes were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism, it is not possible even there to speak of a single doctrine of justification.” [Jaroslov Pelikan, Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther’s Reformation [New York: Harper and Row, 1964], 51-52.

Pelikan says elsewhere:

"All the more tragic, therefore, was the Roman reaction on the front which was most important to the reformers, the message and teaching of the church. This had to be reformed according to the word of God; unless it was, no moral improvement would be able to alter the basic problem. Rome’s reactions were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone—a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers—Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition" [Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 51-52].

Once again, what's needed to be proven by Roman converts is simply assumed. It's assumed that the same "Gospel" decreed at Trent was the same "Gospel" previous to Trent.

The comments over at CTC will reach into the hundreds. For those of you that think you'll actually get somewhere in some sort of dialog with these new converts, you probably won't. Presuppositions are truths the heart believes without proof. If you don't first expose the unproven presuppositions, you're probably wasting your time.

Reformed Tiber Swimmers

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 07/01/2010

Here's yet another converts tale. A Reformed person swimming the Tiber has made a fallible decision to submit to a self-proclaimed infallible authority. He set out four possible authority options to submit to now that he's decided to leave his Reformed church. The one that appealed to him is the following:

Submit to a form of Christianity that does not subscribe to Sola Scriptura and which has a interpretive authority which can plausibly claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, so as to remove myself as the authority.

The submission to that authority still rests on private judgment, the very thing scorned throughout this conversion story (read it for yourself). Other infallible authorities make claims that their authority rests on plausibility. Who decides which infallible authority is plausible? Why it's none other than our potential convert. Rather than removing himself as the authority, he makes himself his own authority in choosing the correct infallible interpreter. He continues:

This makes the most sense. Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology takes into account the fact that people will disagree about the content of Divine revelation. Not that disagreement implies errancy or fallibility, but without a magisterium that is supernaturally protected from error, there is no way for me to be sure I am getting the interpretation that is the right one.

It may make sense in theory, but in practice our convert is still left with a Bible to interpret. Neither of these alleged authorities has done a good job in infallibly interpreting the content of divine revelation. A while back I mentioned how Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples stated "There is a lot of freedom with regard to the interpretation of Scripture." Tim affirmed that even the verses infallibly defined by the Roman Catholic Church "are left open to other interpretations as long as you don't deny that which has been infallibly interpreted." How many verses has Rome defined? Some say only a small handful of verses have an infallible interpretation, others deny the Church has defined the literal sense of any single passage. Roman Catholics aren't even united on a basic issue like the inerrancy of Scripture.

The problem for Roman Catholics is compounded even more, because the church also says that a doctrine can be defined, but the scriptural proofs used to support it utilized by the church's theologians might not actually support it. In other words, one can have certainty for a doctrine, but not have certainty in the scriptural proof texts for that doctrine. The infallibility is in the decree, not in the reasoning to that decree. The Catholic Encyclopedia states, ''the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached." Note the words of Roman Catholic theologian, Johann Mohler: "Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined." [Source: Johann Adam Mohler, Symbolism: Exposition of the doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolic Writings, trans James Burton Robertson (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1997), p.296].

As to a "a magisterium that is supernaturally protected from error" our Tiber swimmer needs to answer fundamental questions. Isn't this simply a presuppositional claim? On what basis does one determine a church is infallible? It is merely assumed. All sola ecclesia groups assume their authority. In regards to Romanism, when asked how the Roman Catholic Church can establish her authority, notice it's most often proved by the testimony of the Scriptures. That is, they will rarely admit to simply assuming it. Rather they quote a handful of Biblical proof-texts. This is a circular argument. Roman Catholics prove the authority of the Scriptures by the Church, and the authority of the Church by the Scriptures.

In regard to being sure he's got the right interpretation once he joins Romanism, once again he ignores the simple fact that it's his decision to trust in Romanism. He'll never be able to escape himself and his own fallible decisions. His certainty will always be a fallible certainty because he's fallible. He continues:

If I am able to toss out the 7th ecumenical council (as nearly all Protestants do) because it doesn't match my interpretation, where will the tossing out stop? If church councils themselves are to be judged by a 21st century layman, theologically untrained, and unordained Christian like me, what is the point then of church councils other than to provide some really good advise from some really great men from the history of our faith? If they were not being guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit in these councils, with the expectation that all believers should submit to their decisions, then what use are they other than to help me form my own interpretation to submit to? The ecclesiologies that claim to have living, breathing successors of the apostles which are Divinely gifted with the ability to define doctrine in certain situations are the only ecclesiologies that make sense.

I have nothing against the church meeting in council, but this type of argument assumes more than some of the early councils did. Did they think they were infallible? This is pure anachronism. The Fathers did not profess to be the standard of truth, either in or out of council.

This paradigm also suffers from ignoring the church of the Old Testament. God's people were able to discern God's voice and work, this without an infallible magisterium. They knew which books were Scripture (Romans 3:2) without the aid of any infallible authoritative conciliar declaration. Christ and the apostles held the Jews responsible for knowing and properly interpreting the Scriptures. Never once is it recorded in Scripture that the Jews complained that they didn't have an infallible magisterium. It was assumed by the New Testament writers that God's truth was clear.

As conversion stories go, this one was a typical example of someone who bought the claims of Roman Catholicism without applying the same scrutiny to Romanism. It's one thing to tear down sola scriptura, it's quite another to apply the same scrutiny to Romanism. If one is going to argue against the sole infallible authority of Scripture, they should at least work just as hard to apply the same standards of scrutiny to their new infallible authority. Let's try to point this Reformed Tiber swimmer back to the right shore. I'm fairly confident he'll be reading this, so he can begin with this Primer On Roman Catholic Epistemology. He can follow this up with a positive defense of sola scriptura.

Systematic Theology and Catholic Converts

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 9/16/07

I've been reading Van Til's An Introduction To Systematic Theology. Van Til notes systematic theology seeks to offer an ordered presentation of what the Bible teaches about God. He says "the study of systematic theology will help men to preach theologically. It will help to make men proclaim the whole counsel of God. Many ministers never touch the greater part of the wealth of the revelation of God to man contained in Scripture. But systematics helps ministers to preach the whole counsel of God, and thus to make God central in their work."

Here was the point that I found most interesting:

"It is but natural to expect that, if the church is strong because its ministry understands and preaches the whole counsel of God, then the church will be able to protect itself best against false teaching of every sort. Non-indoctrinated Christians will easily fall prey to the peddlers of Russellism, spiritualism and all of the other fifty-seven varieties of heresies with which our country abounds. One-text Christians simply have no weapons of defense against these people. They may be able to quote many Scripture texts which speak, for instance, of eternal punishment, but the Russellite will be able to quote texts which, by the sound of them and taken individually, seem to teach annihilation. The net result is, at best, a loss of spiritual power because of loss of conviction. Many times, such one-text Christians themselves fall prey to the seducers voice."

Of course, I had the converts to Roman Catholicism in mind, rather than Russellites. I wonder how many of these Catholic converts actually attended churches that proclaimed the whole council of God? A question I would ask is how many Catholic converts previously went to churches with strong systematic confessions of faith, like the Westminster Confession, and how often were they taught the confession, like in a Sunday School class, and how well did their minister cover all the doctrines in the confession of faith? I would expect some rather weak answers.

Van Til states, "We have already indicated that the best apologetic defense will invariably be made by him who knows the system of truth of Scripture best." I would modify this a bit and make it a negative: "the best converts to false gospels will invariably be made by those who know the system of the truth of Scripture least."

Addendum 9/20/11
I don't recall writing the above post, but I still find it to be true for a number of garden variety converts.  There have been times I've dealt with people who are quite biblically knowledgeable, yet a serious heresy is being entertained. As I've considered what would lead these people to embrace such deviant theological positions, Van Til's words certainly ring true: there was a lack of a strong systematic theology.

There will of course be those that were previously catechized (or even had theological training) who convert to this or that. In fact, now we have the CTC blog which props up people from my own tradition that have made their way across the Tiber. CTC appears to be primarily picking people that were more than simply pew sitters in Reformed churches. As I've read through (or listened to) Roman Catholic conversion stories though, more often than not, one can usually sense a lack of systematic theology.

When a Convert Leaves Romanism: Kimel vs. Kimel

Al Kimel, Former diocese of SC Episcopal priest who moved to Rome, to join Orthodox Church "Fr. Kimel is to be ordained into the Orthodox Church on Pentecost Sunday (i.e. today) by Bishop Jerome of the Russian Church Abroad, for the Western Rite."

Compare to:

When a Catholic leaves the Catholic Church by Alvin Kimel

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19).

I thought of this verse when I read Rod Dreher’s apologia for his conversion to Orthodoxy. I had heard about Dreher’s reception into the Orthodox Church shortly after it occurred, but I refrained from publicly commenting on it, hoping that he would himself refrain from publicly commenting on it. But he has announced his decision and declared his reasons for leaving the Catholic Church, and now Catholic blogdom is astir.

I wrote two articles back in May when Mr. Dreher announced that he was exploring Orthodoxy: “Ten Thousand Scandals Do Not Make One Doubt” and “Dare We Entrust Our Children to the Catholic Church?” In light of Dreher’s departure from the Catholic Church, I only have only one question: Was he in fact a Catholic? I do not have access to Dreher’s heart and soul, and I certainly do not condemn him for his decision. I regret that he has left the Catholic Church, and I grieve the sins of the Church that led him to renounce the divine authority of the Vicar of Christ. I pray that I may never be so tested.

My interest at this point is purely theoretical. How are we to understand a person who enters into the communion of the Catholic Church and then departs from that communion? John Henry Newman raises precisely this question in his Grammar of Assent:

A man is converted to the Catholic Church from his admiration of its religious system, and his disgust with Protestantism. That admiration remains; but, after a time, he leaves his new faith, perhaps returns to his old. The reason, if we may conjecture, may sometimes be this: he has never believed in the Church’s infallibility; in her doctrinal truth he has believed, but in her infallibility, no. He was asked, before he was received, whether he held all that the Church taught, he replied he did; but he understood the question to mean, whether he held those particular doctrines “which at that time the Church in matter of fact formally taught,” whereas it really meant “whatever the Church then or at any future time should teach.” Thus, he never had the indispensable and elementary faith of a Catholic , and was simply no subject for reception into the fold of the Church. This being the case, when the Immaculate Conception is defined, he feels that it is something more than he bargained for when he became a Catholic, and accordingly he gives up his religious profession. The world will say that he has lost his certitude of the divinity of the Catholic Faith, but he never had it.

To become Catholic, to be Catholic, is to surrender one’s private judgment to the magisterial teaching of the Church. It is to believe that what the Church teaches and will teach as belonging to the deposit of revelation is from God. One may investigate the rational grounds for de fide dogmas; but one may not doubt them nor inquire whether or not they may be true. As Newman remarks, a Catholic “cannot be both inside and outside of the Church at once.”

I wonder how many priests and RCIA instructors understand what Catholic assent is. I wonder how many converts to Catholicism have been instructed in the irrevocable, definitive, full assent to magisterial teaching that is being asked of them when they enter into the communion of the Catholic Church.

It took me a little while to find the old article from Kimel. I first got a 404 error here. But it's hard to disappear on the Internet. I found it here. Unless, I'm mistaken, the above is from Kimel. A number of pro-Romanist articles from Kimel have vanished, but are still available if one digs a bit:

Why Not Eastern Orthodoxy? by Fr. Al Kimel

My Road to Rome by Fr. Al Kimel

Ten thousand scandals do not make one doubt by Alvin Kimel

And I almost forgot, Kimel visited here a few years ago.

Conversion-story-palooza

Has anyone else noticed the Called to Communion posts that are part conversion story, part...some other subject? Yes, I saw the movie A Beautiful Mind, so I'm aware of finding patterns that may actually not be there. But, here's one and here's one. Then there's this one. Since these were recent CTC entries, these took about a minute to find. I have a feeling if I took another minute I could find a few more.  I guess it makes sense they wish to express being "called" to "communion."

I've decided on classifying them as the Roman Catholic "Eat, Pray, Love" motif: the poor misguided uninformed Protestant finally arrives at a deeper understanding, and then can point out the path to others (By the way, I did not see Eat, Pray, Love, but a close family member suffered through it and gave me the lowdown). Certainly this theme is much older than Eat, Pray, Love.

The story line for Eat, Pray, Love was as follows:

Liz Gilbert (Roberts) had everything a modern woman is supposed to dream of having - a husband, a house, a successful career - yet like so many others, she found herself lost, confused, and searching for what she really wanted in life. Newly divorced and at a crossroads, Gilbert steps out of her comfort zone, risking everything to change her life, embarking on a journey around the world that becomes a quest for self-discovery. In her travels, she discovers the true pleasure of nourishment by eating in Italy; the power of prayer in India, and, finally and unexpectedly, the inner peace and balance of true love in Bali.

Now lets Romanize it:

Jill Protestant had everything a modern Protestant is supposed to dream of having - a church, salvation, a Christian worldview (and even a few bumper stickers to prove it)- yet like so many others,  Jill found herself lost, confused, and searching for what she really wanted from Christianity. Going from church to church and at a crossroads, Jill steps out of her comfort zone, risking everything to change her life, embarking on a journey around Christianity that becomes a quest for self-discovery. In her travels, she discovers the true pleasure of nourishment by the Eucharist; the power of prayer to the saints , and, finally and unexpectedly, the inner peace and balance of true love of Mary.

Now the great thing is these stories don't need to be told just one time. Say you were the president of the Evangelical Theology Society. You could publish your version of Eat, Pray, Love and then you could republish it a few years later ("touching on several issues not touched on").

With the contemporary rise of Catholic apologetics, there has been a consistent trend to highlight the, “conversion story”. That is, Joe or Suzy was previously some sort of Protestant, but now they’ve “converted” to Roman Catholicism. Books, television broadcasts, radio programs, and internet web pages, all tell a similar glorious tale of journeying to Rome, and so should you. These are not conversion stories of the broken sinner bowing his knee to the merciful God, given by the Father to Christ and irresistibly drawn (like Paul’s recounting in Galatians 1; cf. Acts 9); rather, these are accounts of people accepting the alleged Roman Catholic “fullness of truth”, and a rejection of Protestant essentials like sola fide and sola scriptura. In other words, the emphasis is not on spiritual rebirth, but rather the acceptance and realization of a “higher knowledge”. The conversion is not to Christ, but to an infallible church.

See also: Roman Catholic Conversion Stories.  .

Roman Catholic Church "hemorrhaging members"

“The Catholic church is hemorrhaging members.”

Jesuit Fr. Thomas J. Reese, former editor in chief of America, is a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University in Washington.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=14269

Thanks to Steve Hays at Triablogue for pointing this out:

Other significant quotes from the Jesuit priest Thomas J. Reese:

“They also cited the church's teaching on the Bible (55 percent versus 16 percent) more frequently as a reason for leaving. Forty-six percent of these new evangelicals felt the Catholic church did not view the Bible literally enough. Thus, for those leaving to become evangelicals, spiritual sustenance, worship services and the Bible were key.”

“Contrary to what conservatives [Roman Catholic conservatives] say, ex-Catholics are not flocking to the evangelicals because they think the Catholic church is politically too liberal. They are leaving to get spiritual nourishment from worship services and the Bible.”

Three General Categories (The first two are from the article cited, the last one is a different direction, summary from a different trend.)

1. Roman Catholic to Liberal Mainline Protestants: It seems, generally speaking, that Roman Catholics who leave the RCC for mainline Protestant churches (Liberal both in doctrine and political and social issues) do so because of disagreement with political and social issues of the RCC.

2. Roman Catholics to Evangelical Protestant: But the reason for Roman Catholics becoming Evangelical has to do with thirst for spiritual reality in worship and Bible teaching. They seem drawn to the Bible and wanting to hear the word of the Lord.

The third is conversions the other way - Evangelical Protestants who are becoming Roman Catholic (not in the article, but a summary from the recent trend of the Scott Hahn/based on the Newman thesis/Mattatics/Francis Beckwith and "Called to Communion" (Taylor Marshall, Bryan Cross, etc.) former Reformed folks.

3. Evangelical Protestants to Roman Catholic: And the reasons for Evangelical Protestants becoming RC is, in general, according to them, it seems to me, is a desire for deeper historical ties to church history and the development of doctrine (theory of Newman) over the centuries, and desire for certainty in authority and interpretation; unity in one church; the apparent appeal of mystery in the Liturgy, the Mass and Eucharist [why anyone would find that appealing is strange to me]; and all the strange attraction to statues and prayers to Mary and the saints and things such as “Gothic architecture”[although I personally agree that stone architecture with arches is more beautiful than the plain modern Evangelical churches, they are quite expensive]; and the seeming appeal of intellectual knowledge in more Latin and philosophy.

It seems that the desire for spiritual reality (# 2 – “My sheep hear My voice and they follow Me” - John 10:27-30) is more important. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.”

“You must be born again”, Jesus said. If you are not born again, it doesn’t matter how much of the writings of John Henry Newman or Early Church Father’s * or Latin ** or philosophy *** you know.

* though I try to learn as much as I can now.
** I wish I knew it.
*** I want to understand it better, but under the Lordship of Christ. I Peter 3:15; Colossians 2:8