Evangelical Exodus: Evangelical Seminarians and Their Paths to Rome

The Gospel coalition ^ | August | K. SCOTT OLIPHINT

[Svartalfiar]

If the Bible is the word of God, then it is not merely self-authenticating, as it is backed not only by itself, but also by the Triune God.

To insist it is not self-authenticating is to deny it is the word of God.

That's exactly the point. To believe in the Bible, you must believe in the God as defined in the Bible. It's like using a word to define itself - sure, you defined the word but you didn't explain what the word means any better.

[Svartalfiar]

A couple of authors quote John Henry Newman approvingly, “to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant”

Well, obviously. The whole point of Protestantism and their sola scriptura is that you ignore Tradition and history. Every individual makes up their own religion reading the Bible, and those of similar understandings tend to form communities (churches). And if you don't like how your current pastor interprets the Bible, well, start your own reformation from them. Again.

On a side note, who put together the Bible? (Oh, wait, they just took the Catholic Bible and ignore six or seven books in it.) Which Protestant church is the authority on which scriptures make up the Protestant Bible, and which stories are just ramblings of other contemporary people? Does every Protestant even have the same Bible? Cause if so, that would certainly seem to point to the idea that there is some earthly authority (can't be one of the Protestant churches, remember they're outside of Scripture!) on what the Bible is. But if there's several different Bibles, at least then their logic is consistent (individual interpretation), but their base (what actually is the Bible) is undefined, as any person can make up whatever for their own "true" bible..


The third aspect of these “conversions” is both most obvious as well as most troubling—the utter insufficiency of the theology taught at SES. This insufficiency, it seems to me, explains each and every “conversion” experience in this book. Though all authors would agree with this insufficiency, their analyses and critiques of it are themselves insufficient, since it motivated their conversion to Rome.

Well that's not hypocritical at all... The priests convert to Catholicism because they feel it has the full gamut of theology that evangicism is lacking, and the author thinks their argument is lacking because they chose Catholicism? Would he have made the same argument if these priest said the exact same words, but picked the author's church instead? No, he would have said it's a great argument and they're 100% correct... The author sounds just like a Democrat.

[Svartalfiar]

In addition, in Catholic theology it is taught that that one cannot know writings are of God except by faith in her which tells you, and thus "when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration." (Catholic Encyclopedia > Infallibility) Whereby it is supposed that while one cannot discern the Bible as being of God, yet it is supposed that one can discern the Catholic church as being of God.

And yet Protestants do the same thing. It's really a pointless argument, since everything about faith is, by definition, faith-based. It isn't logic or rational, it's simply a belief.

Catholics: believe in Church/Scripture because Church/Scripture says so.
Protestants: believe in Scripture because Scripture says so.

[kosciusko51]

So how do you authenticate the Bible as God’s words?

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

You have to gather a bunch of queers in funny hats, who claim to derive their authority from the Bible, to authenticate the Bible and what it teaches.

[daniel1212]

And yet Protestants do the same thing. It's really a pointless argument, since everything about faith is, by definition, faith-based. It isn't logic or rational, it's simply a belief. Catholics: believe in Church/Scripture because Church/Scripture says so. Protestants: believe in Scripture because Scripture says so.

Not so, it is "believe in Church because reliable historical writings provide warrant for it being of God, though you cannot discern what Scripture consists of unless you trust in her who is infallible in such matters, and thus a conclusion that Scripture does not show the Catholic church to be the one true church is rejected, since the church is as God who cannot (salvifically) err )in faith and morals)." And which means that whatever else "The Church" decrees is the word of God must be accepted as being so.

And as regards Protestant (a term so broad it must be qualified) counterparts who engage in apologetics, it is "believe in Scripture because its unique wisdom, prophetic record, conflative and complementary nature, and power to fundamentally change lives provide warrant for it being of God, though God's drawing and regeneration and help are needed to understand it more deeply.

The main difference is that in the latter realm one may indeed discern what writings are of God like as they may discern what men are of God. And which is how the NT church began, as an authoritative body wholly God-inspired writings were established without an infallible magisterium, and overall it was common people who discerned men of God whom the magisterium rejected, including John the baptist and the Christ. (Mk. 11:27-33; 12:37)

However, in the Catholic case people are to submit to the magisterium in order to know what writings are of God, and while the latter authority should affirm what is of God, yet we see in Scripture that they can be wrong. And nowhere in Scripture is ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office seen or promised, while the claims of apostolic preaching itself was subject to testing by Scripture by noble lovers of Truth. (Acts 17:11)

[boatbums]

Yes, thank you for posting the WHOLE of the final paragraph review of a book which was written FOUR years ago. I can see why it was omitted from the original post.

As I read those who moved from evangelicalism to Catholicism, I couldn’t help but think of my own experience. As one who moved from Catholicism to evangelicalism, I have to agree with the authors’ assessment of the insufficiency of evangelicalism. But the proper movement is not to Rome, but back to Scripture. The best and biblical option in the face of these “conversions” is embedded in the beauty of Reformed theology. A proper understanding of the self-authentication of Scripture, of union with Christ (from which both justification and sanctification necessarily flow), of the church as God’s chosen vehicle of the means of grace (the Word, sacraments, and prayer) for all who are in Christ, brings a biblically rich and glorious response to anyone who would contemplate “swimming the Tiber” (p. 23). The most natural transition for evangelicals is not to Rome, but to the glorious truths that flowed from the Reformation, where alone can be found the self-authenticating Christ of Scripture.

As one who also moved from Catholicism to Evangelical Christianity, I did so specifically because of Scripture. I can only assume those who have gone the other way either don't realize yet that Rome forces them to give up on their assurance of salvation (they call it a "sin of presumption") or they didn't really reach that understanding in their faith. No telling WHICH denomination they came from.

[boatbums]

The Word of God is Jesus. The Bible reveals God’s word and God’s nature. The Bible consists of 73 God-breathed books

Yes, Jesus IS the Word, but the Holy Scriptures are called the word of God. It is the only offensive weapon in our spiritual armor, the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And you besmirch the true word of God by including those seven apocryphal books as "God-breathed" which NEVER claimed to be the word of God, contain many errors and were NOT viewed by anyone in the early church as Divinely-inspired. If you're honest you will admit it wasn't until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century that the Catholic church officially deemed them (erroneously) as inspired and equally canonical - and we all know WHY they did that.

[mrobisr]

“I did so specifically because of Scripture.”

Every ex-roman I have ever conversed with and it has been several over the years I have asked what made you see the light of Jesus?

Every single one said they read the Holy Word of God and realized that the roman church was completely opposite of the gospel of Christ.

[boatbums]

Same with me. I have YET to meet a born again Christian who used to be a Catholic ever say they left because "being a Catholic was too hard", "I wanted to be able to sin all I want and still get my ticket punched for heaven", "there were too many rules to follow", "I wanted to remarry after I divorced", "I liked not having to go to church every Sunday" or all the other various and sundry reasons the RCs accused, presume or pretend are our reasons.

What's really weird - and I cannot understand even though I have asked many times - is why they cannot just accept that we are Christians who have not forsaken Jesus Christ. Most of us will attest that we are more devoted to the Lord and live holier lives now than we had been as Catholics. I do not begrudge someone else's faith. It's between them and God - not any skin off my nose either way. But I will not stand by and stay quiet when my faith is questioned. I pray that all come to the knowledge of the truth and they rejoice in God their Savior. Having the assurance of salvation based upon the promises of Almighty God is how He wants us to live because only then can we truly give our hearts and souls to Christ out of genuine love and gratitude.

[Mom MD]

Amen

[aMorePerfectUnion]

If they admit you are correct, they’ve admitted Catholicism is unnecessary... and that invalidates their sense of reality and life experience.

[daniel1212]

What's really weird - and I cannot understand even though I have asked many times - is why they cannot just accept that we are Christians who have not forsaken Jesus Christ. Most of us will attest that we are more devoted to the Lord and live holier lives now than we had been as Catholics.

Because for some, their church is as God, their highest object of allegiance and source of security and for which they work, and thus all who will not bow in submission to her are enemies who need to bow to her. And thus they cannot cease from posting propaganda no matter how much she is exposed as unscriptural- or because she is.

[metmom]

Same with me. I have YET to meet a born again Christian who used to be a Catholic ever say they left because "being a Catholic was too hard", "I wanted to be able to sin all I want and still get my ticket punched for heaven", "there were too many rules to follow", "I wanted to remarry after I divorced", "I liked not having to go to church every Sunday" or all the other various and sundry reasons the RCs accused, presume or pretend are our reasons.

Which is ludicrous in light of what Catholicism practices.

Want to get divorced? Easy peasy. Just call it an annulment, and voila, (allegedly) guilt and sin free divorce, all sanctioned and blessed by the *church*.

Homosexuals want to molest kids with impunity?

Fine. Just become a priest.

And considering how easy it is to get your sins forgiven. Just go to confession and take a trip or two around the rosary if you've been really bad, and you're good to go.

Nothing so hard about being a Catholic.

[metmom]

It’s the same thing I’ve heard from every former Catholic I’ve ever talked to about it.

[Mark17]

Same with me. I have YET to meet a born again Christian who used to be a Catholic ever say they left because "being a Catholic was too hard", "I wanted to be able to sin all I want and still get my ticket punched for heaven"

I left the Catholic Church, because I met some other Air Force guys, who were totally clean livers. That was the first thing I noticed about these guys. I think 3 were officers. Two aircraft maintenance officers, and the other was a USAF hot shot F-4D Phantom fighter pilot. I am not sure if he ever dropped bombs on the bad guys in Vietnam. The rest of us, were dog faced pony soldier enlisted guys.
As a catholic, I was not like them. I was a grotesque sinner. If I had died as a catholic, I would have gone straight to Hell.
I didn’t like that much, cuz I wanted to be saved. 😁 So, I got saved, got assurance of salvation, and started living a much cleaner life. Am I perfect and sinless? Sadly, no. I wish I was, but I struggle, along with all my Christian friends. Will I give up my assurance of salvation, swim the Tiber, and go back the the Roman hamster wheel of guilt? Absolutely no way on God’s green earth, will that EVER happen. No way. If some don’t like that, all I can say is, that’s the way the mop flops pop. 😁🤗👍🤪

[Cronos]

The last time I had a debate with a snake-handling non-Christian evangelical-baptist-presbyterian, which began exactly like, the conclusion the non-Christian evangelico-baptist-presbyterian had was that Calvinism was actually a Catholic doctrine as long as you moderate it. I suspect this is the dumb trap these non-Christian western philosophies outside orthodox fall into.

[Cronos]

The Catholic Church believed that man and God both had a sort of spiritual freedom. Calvinism took away the freedom from man, but left it to God. Scientific materialism binds the Creator Himself; it chains up God as the Apocalypse chained the devil. It leaves nothing free in the universe.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

I was warned earlier via PM that you were just a troll.

So, uh, hello troll. Nice try troll. Won’t bite troll.

[MHGinTN]

No worries, let the faux evangelical homosexuals scurry into the waiting embrace of Catholicism for their ‘livelihood’. If they were unable to see the differences they PERHAPS weren’t Christians anyway.