EWTN - The Journey Home - November 10, 2014 - Dale Ahlquist, convert from being a Baptist

EWTN ^ | 11.10.14

[Coleus]

Mon. Nov. 10 at 8:00 PM ET Tue. Nov. 11 at 1:00 AM ET Fri. Nov. 14 at 1:00 PM ET DALE AHLQUIST

Dale Ahlquist, President of the American Chesterton Society and former Baptist, joins Marcus to talk about his journey home to the Catholic Church.

[FourtySeven]

“Isn’t [Justificstion by cooperating with God’s grace] semi-pelagian?”

I don’t believe so but I guess it depends on how one defines “semi-pelagian”.

“Or do you see it as “synergism?””

I believe that’s the correct term for salvation via cooperation with God’s grace but I could be wrong.

[Elsie]

Devout Catholics don’t jump ship.

Message to the Catholic church in Laodicea:

Revelation 3:16-18

'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. 'Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.

[Elsie]

A day will come when the batteries are dead.

[Elsie]

I don’t believe so but I guess it depends on how one defines “semi-pelagian”.

Skipper and Kowalski piloting a big rig??

[FourtySeven]

I don’t know why but that made me laugh. Thanks for the chuckle.

[Elsie]

Smile and wave, boys! Just smile and wave.

[metmom]

It’s a Catch 22 because they ask for a well known, well respected theologian, but the fact that they left Catholicism for Jesus, automatically disqualifies them because of course no Catholic theologian worth his salt would ever leave the Catholic church.

Therefore the ones that did leave were not *real* Catholics, poorly catechized, were CINO’s or whatever.

So Catholic set up a standard that they make impossible for ANYONE to meet. Ever.

And when you bring up someone like Luther, they find reasons by the score why he doesn’t count.

[boatbums]

Please post a conversion story from a well-know Catholic theologian who came to the conclusion that Catholicism was wrong and protestantism was right. Don’t need to read stories from former Catholic priests that couldn’t follow the faith for whatever reason so they now they go around attempting to justify why they left instead of saying the truth and the truth which is they became worldly and wanted out. So give me a that story of a well-known Catholic theologian who said the Catholic Church was wrong and protestantism was right. If you can’t don’t bother answering back.

Moving goalposts...common tactic of the not-all-that-interested-in-what-I-originally-asked Catholic polemicists. Here was your comment to which I first responded:

Not saying there are not many fallen away Catholics that are now protestants. But tell me how many former Catholic theologians, well-grounded in the Christian faith, decided Catholism was in error so they jumped to protestantism. I guess there might be one out there but I’ve never heard of any. Now there are plenty of former Catholics that were never strong Catholics to start with that become protestant. Hardly any were devout that attended Mass on a regular basis. That hardly ever happens. There’s literally hundreds of thousands of astute former protestants that knew the Bible from cover to cover that become Catholic. And none of them do it on the spur of the moment. It is always a well-rounded decision they came to after years of studying the Christian faith and praying a lot. Many former protestant pastors have converted, not too many former Catholic priests, unless he wanted to get married and couldn’t in the Catholic faith. That’s usually why a Catholic priest leaves the faith, and that’s not too many.

I gave you a link to a book that gave the testimonies of 50 former RC priests who left Catholicism for Protestantism. Now you will only accept "well known" Catholic theologians. I have the suspicion that no matter who I give as examples to your challenge, you will find an excuse to reject their conversion. Am I right?

Just in case you might really be sincere, why don't you consider all the Catholic theologians who made up the group of the original Reformers? Men like Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Müntzer, Simons, Bucer, Zwingli, Berquin, Knox, Trubar, Vasa and others? If it's more modern examples you want, there are many. But, I think the real reason why Catholic "apologists" ask this loaded question in the first place is that they are trying to convince themselves that all the really "smart" people are Roman Catholics and if they aren't, then they can't be all that "smart".

An interesting article on this is found at http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=protestant+converts+from+catholicism:

To the question of:

If we were to compare the big names I would dare to bet that of converts one way or the other, FAR MORE itellectuals (big names) go towards Rome than the other way around. (Hmmmm...sure sounds like a few FRoman freepers)

1. The top universities are filled with atheists, skeptics, agnostics, secular pluralists and all manner of anti-Trinitarian "Christians." The trend of "intellectuals" has been away from Christianity in general, so why would you appeal to such a thing? To be intellectual indicates little, if anything, necessarily positive about a person's spiritual state or about where the evidence leads.

2. Converts to Catholicism are notorious for dismissing the intellectual leaders of their denominations and acting as if such people are either irrelevant or downright heterodox. These converts behave as if they are the gate-keepers of true Catholic belief. The appeal to intellectualism is just a convenient abstraction.

3. Consider the nature of intellectuals in general. They often arrive at their status as "intellectual" by appealing to, pleasing and working within the fundamentally insular institutions which currently set and guard the standards of intellectual discourse and orthodoxy. But whether these standards properly represent truth is up for debate. And the "intellectual" life can be just as much about scholarship as it is about the cult of celebrity, worship of the ego and self-selection bias; indeed, the former often serves the latter. Intellectuals can hold certain positions or change beliefs for any set of reasons, none of which necessarily have to do with proper evaluations of evidence. The whole approach here seems to be nothing more than a refined appeal to consensus.

Follow up question:

Please, I beg you, show me the equivalent of Called to Communion for the Protestants. I mean Protestants that were conservative Priests and men with degrees in theology from conservative Catholic seminaries, that then converted to the "protestant church" because of reasons of conscience.

This assumes a Protestant equivalent to Called to Communion is something to which we should aspire. But why would we want to engage in the cult of celebrity which defines the modern Roman Catholic apologetics industry? We should care about pointing people to Christ, not to conversion stories, even if these stories are overlaid with all the finery of sophistication and erudition.

And what would such a thing represent in general anyway? How many learned scholars and priests did Christ convert from the "intellectual" class of his day, scholars and priests who heard him preach, sometimes directly to them, knew his miracles and wrestled with his beliefs in light of their thorough knowledge of both the Scriptures and Jewish tradition? The response was clear and tragic--the intelligentsia lead the cries to crucify the Son of God. Whatever implicit standard you're offering here discredits the success of Christ's earthly ministry.

The true and better equivalent of Called to Communion, if we are to seek such a thing, is the uncelebrated faithfulness of countless Protestants who read the church fathers, benefit from their writings, and continue to faithfully serve the Gospel, instead of forsaking it for the fleeting egoism of being the center of a Catholic conversion narrative.

But perhaps you'd find this witness more convincing if these Protestants set up multiple blogging communities celebrating, not Christ, but their continued and steadfast adherence to Reformed doctrine.

Norman Geisler put it into perspective:

So, while we are losing a few intellectual egg-heads out the top of evangelicalism to Rome, we are gaining tens of thousands of converts out the bottom from Catholicism. The trade-off highly favors evangelicalism. So, invite a Catholic to your Bible study or church. There is a good possibility that they will get saved! They have a least been pre-evangelized by Roman Catholicism to believe in God, miracles, Christ, His death and resurrection. Once they find that works are not a necessary condition for salvation (Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:3-6) but that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone, they will make great evangelical Christians. They will realize that we can’t work for grace but that we do work from grace. Of course, there are some of us, many of us, who are rejecting Rome because of its ungodly doctrines.

[boatbums]

ping to the above

[CynicalBear]

>>Note the portion in bold because it's key to understanding the Catholic understanding here.<<

Man doesn't get the credit under any circumstances "Catholic understanding" not withstanding.

>>How is one "justified by Christ" is the key question to answer here.<<

It's God's free gift because Christ paid the price.

>>When one cooperates with God (Jesus) to transform ones life from sin to righteousness one becomes justified<<

"One" doesn't cooperate but can only submit to the working of the Holy Spirit within. It is the Holy Spirit who transforms.

>>A love for God and His ways over our ways (which is sin).<<

It's not "our love for God". It's God's love within us.

Romans 5:5 and the hope doth not make ashamed, because the love of God hath been poured forth in our hearts through the Holy Spirit that hath been given to us.

>>I don't see how this could be argued but I guess there always is a way.<<

No argument but certainly a clarification. The underlying premise of Catholic belief always shows credit to man. Without God's love working through us man is destitute and incapable of loving Him. Without the Holy Spirit working through us our deeds are as filthy rags no matter how good they seem to man.

[CynicalBear]

>>Devout Catholics don’t jump ship.<<

Devout Muslims don't jump ship.

Devout Mormons don't jump ship.

Devout Satanists don't jump ship.

So what's your point.

[CynicalBear]

>>Maybe Tim Staples needs to correct his website.<<

Tim Staples was a Baptist who obviously needed someone else to think for him so just regurgitates what the Catholic Church teaches.

[CynicalBear]

Once again, well don boatbums.

>>The response was clear and tragic--the intelligentsia lead the cries to crucify the Son of God.<<

Heavy on the tragic as it will be for those "intellectuals" who fall for the lies of the Catholic Church.

[daniel1212]

An interesting article on this is found at http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search?q=protestant+converts+from+catholicism:

Norman Geisler put it into perspective: So, while we are losing a few intellectual egg-heads out the top of evangelicalism to Rome, we are gaining tens of thousands of converts out the bottom from Catholicism. The trade-off highly favors evangelicalism.

Well said and good link. And if a church claims to be the NT church then it disowns it by resting upon the premise that the lettered and magisterium must know best.

The church began in dissent from such, and the Holy Spirit says that the common people heard the Lord gladly. (Mk. 12:37) And the attitude of the elite toward such was akin to those of Rome:

The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:46-49)

[daniel1212]

That was certainly a comprehensive report...Thanks...

Stand by for the bias assertion if anything impugns Rome.

[Springfield Reformer]

Amen. Excellent observations all. And “appeal to consensus” is exactly correct. For al the huffing and puffing, it comes down to “the herd must be right.”

[NKP_Vet]

Luther was a theologian in his own mind. A degree in Theology does not make one a theologian, but that degree, and years of studying in the faith. Luther was barely a wet-behind-the ear college professor, barely out of the seminary when he started blabbing away about what was he thought was wrong with the Catholic Church. Sounds like your typical liberal college professor that thinks he knows more than anyone else. As a Catholic priest, Luther did not have the authority to open his mouth about what he considered wrong with the faith. Who in the hell did he did think he was? It is a miracle he didn’t lose his head and that is exactly happened to a lot of heretics in his time.

Martin Luther also wanted to rip out the books of James (which he called an epistle of straw), Hebrews, 2 Peter, and Revelations. He was convinced by his colleagues to not do that. But, he added words to scripture to manipulate the bible to meet his pre-conceived notions.

Of course Luther really did not like St. James since James refuted Martin Luther’s claim of justification by “faith alone”. The only place in the Bible where those words come together in in the book of James where St. James says that “justification is not by faith alone” (James 2:24).

Martin Luther, in his abject arrogance, added the word “alone” to the passage in Romans 3:28 in his German translation.

Luther, in fact, was confronted at the time on why he had added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28. His response is VERY revealing. To the criticism of adding the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 Martin Luther replied:

“You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone,’ say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’ and say: ‘Papist and asses are one and the same thing.’ I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that. It is true those letters are not in it, which letters the jackasses look at, as a cow stares at a new gate...It shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the Popish donkeys were to get mad and beside themselves, they will not get it out.”
(quoted in John Stoddard, “Rebuilding a Lost Faith”, (Rockford, IL: Tan Books), 136-137)

[NKP_Vet]

If so many Catholics are converting to protestantism, why is the protestant faith shrinking in numbers in the United States and Catholicism growing. And before you say it’s because all the illegals are Catholic, how many times have I read on this forum that these same hispanics are leaving the faith for protestantism.

[vladimir998]

“I guess you FR Catholics will be jumping on Mexico for a while; eh?”

When necessary we have.

“And leave us poor PROTESTants alone!”

You’re not poor and this is our home too.

[redleghunter]

LOL. Yes. As a good Field Artillerymen, I always can go “manual” when the computer dies. I have ample supplies of paper bound Bibles stashed away for emergencies.

Always one in the car, ruck sack at work. Even one in the cargo pocket when deployed.