Evangelical Exodus: Evangelical Seminarians and Their Paths to Rome

Evangelical Exodus is a compilation of the “conversions” to Roman Catholicism of nine evangelicals, all of whom were connected to Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES). The essays are irenic in their various explanations of these “conversions.” There is no vitriol or substantial invective against SES. All of the authors respect their former seminary and the teaching they received there.

When I first heard of this book, my interest was piqued, in part, because of my own background. I was raised in the Roman Catholic church, and then was converted in the context of dispensational evangelicalism. Because of this background, I was curious how someone could justify moving from evangelicalism to Rome. I detected three significant aspects to this movement from SES to Rome.

First, there is a unifying theme in each of these essays that almost every author recounts. It is explained in the introduction this way:

You may be thinking: How is it possible that such an august group of Catholic converts can arise from one small Evangelical seminary in one geographical region of the United States over only a few short years? One of the reasons, and certainly a very important one, was the type of theological formation that drew many of them to SES. As is well known in the Evangelical world, SES founder Norman Geisler is a self-described Evangelical Thomist, a follower of Saint Thomas Aquinas . . . perhaps the most important Catholic thinker of the second millennium. What Geisler found in Saint Thomas was a theologian whose view on God, faith and reason, natural theology, epistemology, metaphysics and anthropology were congenial to his Evangelical faith. (pp. 13–14)

The emphasis on Thomistic studies at SES led these students and faculty to pursue Thomas beyond the selective bounds of the SES curriculum. “What [these students] discovered is that one cannot easily isolate the ‘Evangelical-friendly Aquinas’ from the ‘Dominican friar Saint Thomas.’ There was no ‘historic Thomas’ with ‘Catholic barnacles.’ There was just Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic priest” (p. 14). The book is dedicated to “The Dumb Ox” himself.

This testimony is echoed in virtually every contributor in the book. One author says that “for all intents and purposes, Saint Thomas Aquinas was the seminary’s ‘patron saint.’ Another author admits that “the first thing that brought me to Catholicism was the Thomism at SES” (p. 167). The notion that one could take only a part of Thomas’s teaching and leave the rest was suspicious to these evangelicals (p. 114; see also pp. 139, 156–57, 194).

The second theme that was not as prominent in each author but nevertheless contributed to their “paradigm shift” (p. 19) from evangelicalism to Rome was an almost total lack of church history in the SES curriculum (pp. 27, 98). This lack explains the contrast that one author saw between the individualism of evangelicalism, and the community offered by Holy Mother Church (p. 66). Without an adequate knowledge of church history, one might think that these are the only two options available. For example, the appearance of bishops, presbyters and deacons in early church documents was interpreted by at least one author as a defense of apostolic succession (pp. 55–56). A couple of authors quote John Henry Newman approvingly, “to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” (pp. 80, 204). Another author notes that his interest in moving from Dispensationalism to a more “communal” view brought him to church history (p. 171). But his movement to a study of church history was viewed in the context of the church as an authority alongside Scripture.

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. Examples abound in the book (and this aspect could fill a book of its own), but we will have to be content with highlighting three of the most significant points.

The first insufficiency that these authors imbibed at SES is apologetic, or perhaps better, epistemological. The Thomism embedded in the SES curriculum spawns a rationalistic evidentialism for a Christian apologetic and as an epistemological base. So, as one author puts, it, “Reason was on prominent display. No questions of theology or morals were left untouched by the power of apologetics and rational demonstration” (p. 113). This is no minor problem. With this method “on prominent display,” for example, the Bible itself is subjected to an evidential epistemological foundation. For example, the founder of SES, Norman Geisler, argues that, though the Word of God is self-authenticating, the Bible is not: “For there must be some evidence or good reasons for believing that the Bible is the Word of God, as opposed to contrary views” (“Reviews,” Christian Apologetics Journal 11.2 [Fall 2013], 173). The evidential arguments used to “prove” the Bible to be the Word of God require that those arguments be the evidential foundation for biblical authority. Thus, biblical authority, by definition, is a derived authority. So also for Christian faith more generally. As one author, reflecting on his training at SES, says, “I had been trained to think that faith was bound up with inferences in such a way that the arguments were what secured faith” (p. 92). (It is worth noting that this particular author recognized that these arguments could only produce probable conclusions and were, thus, insufficient for Christian faith.)

In line with this, the Westminster Confession of Faith, in chapter one, section four, recognized that there are, at bottom, only two options when it comes to biblical authority.

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

Either authority is conferred by some person (e.g., evidences) or church (i.e., Roman Catholicism), or Scripture is authoritative “because it is the Word of God.” (For a recent helpful defense of this view, see John Piper, A Peculiar Glory: How the Christian Scriptures Reveal Their Complete Truthfulness [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016]). If one is trained to believe that authority comes from something outside of Scripture, it is a very short step from “evidential” authority to the authority of the church. In a switch from mere evidences, to churchly authority, Scripture is still dependent on something outside of itself so that one’s epistemology remains intact, but it is now “baptized” by the church. This “evidential” approach even leads one author to affirm the Roman teaching on the “Assumption of Mary” because “no body parts of Mary have ever been found” (p. 196)!

The second insufficiency of the training these authors received is in the notion of “Free Grace” that is prominent at SES (e.g., pp. 17, 140). The notion of “free grace” typically teaches that one can have Christ as Savior, but not as Lord. Thus, “to believe” in Christ has no necessary implications for Christian obedience. Specifically, “free grace” includes a couple of ideas, one that is conducive to Rome and one that, they think, Rome corrects. In agreement with Rome, these authors were taught that “God is not a divine rapist” (p. 53); conversion is not a monergistic work of God, but is synergistic. However, what Rome appears to these authors to correct is the separation between justification and sanctification that this notion of “free grace” requires. Many of these authors rightly saw this separation as unbiblical (p. 60). So, they conclude that Rome’s view of justification that includes both Paul and James—both faith and works—is the only biblical option (p. 62).

The third insufficiency of doctrine these authors were taught is dispensationalism. They don’t mention it as often as they might, but as I read their many reasons for converting to the Roman church, dispensationalism was between every line (see, for example, pp. 17, 39, 62, 66, 97–98, 102, 171, 250–51, 257). As one who was taught dispensationalism, I can testify that its effect is to so minimize the church such that it is practically irrelevant to one’s Christian life. The church’s “parenthetical” status in the dispensational plan of God, on its own terms, can never allow for vibrant Christian worship. These authors think they found such vibrancy in the mass and the sacraments.

There is so much more to say about this book. It concludes with appendices dealing with the canon of Scripture, the notion of Christian Orthodoxy, of sola scriptura and of sola fide. None of these appendices offer anything new to anyone familiar with discussions of these ideas. The book concludes by noting, surprisingly, that there are already enough converts to Rome from SES to fill two more books of this size (p. 209), so we likely haven’t heard the last from this group.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 😁🤗👍🤪

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.