Evangelical Exodus: Evangelical Seminarians and Their Paths to Rome

The Gospel coalition ^ | August | K. SCOTT OLIPHINT

[Cronos]

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.

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.

[MHGinTN]

2 Thess 2:3: perhaps ‘apostasia’ has a double meaning? A falling away and a sudden departure.

[imardmd1]

Thomas Aquinas, like all of the First Adam's descendants, was also fallible. The error in "Thomism" is turning to Aquinas in humanistic pride, thinking that Man's ability to reason escaped The Fall. That mistaken concept led to the greatest error of all, of lending the Magisterium a higher credibility than the Holy Scriptures as interpreted by their Writer, The Holy Ghost.

The matter has been addressed, and one of those recent authors on it is Francis Schaeffer, whose little volume "Escape From Reason" deals with this and with Aquinas summarily.

The fact is that the unregenerated "scholar" does not, and cannot understand nor apply the lessons of the Bible. This is clearly and unarguably stated by Paul in his letter meant to provide answers to the divisions within the Corinthian assembly, but applying to all such cass:

1 Corinthians 2:12-16 (AV)(interpretations superscripted, main points bolded for emphasis):

¹² Now we^{Paul and co-workers} have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know^perceive the things that are freely given to us of God. 
¹³ Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 
¹⁴ But the natural^psukikos man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 
¹⁵ But he that is spiritual^pneumatikos judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 
¹⁶ For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. 

This is not to say that the truly regenerated newly reborn person is instantly fit to debate with the seasoned souish minion of the god of this world, for he/she is yet to be instructed in and practicing this new life in the Spirit. The immediate next verses that Paul wrote say so:

1 Corinthians 3:1-3 (AV):

¹ And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual^ones, but as unto carnal^{sarkikos, unregenerate}, even as unto babes-in-Christ^{newly regenerate}.  ² I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 
³ For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk^behave as ^unregeneratemen? 

Here we have two classes of people, those who only profess belief in The Christ but are unregenerate, and another who are truly reborn, but so early in practice of their holiness that they have not yet conquered their unspiritual habits.

What this all tells me is that Aquinas' position of mankind still having an unfallen--hence infallible--reasoning capability makes understanding of the Written Scriptures a human's sole responsibility apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and hence a work necessary for the human to receive the eternal life described in the writings. It is also the basis on which the Magisterium claims authority over and above the Holy Writings, and for the "lay" people to trust in its interpretyations even against what the Scriptures plainly say.

But this approach makes salvation depend on the merits of a human's good deeds, and not the free, unmerited gift of God. And that is why Thomism must be rejected, for it inherently embodies a false gospel, a false spirit, and a false Jesus preaching it.

Essentially, the saving faith comes by hearing and ingesting the Seed, the preached Word of God, which upon germination bears the Spirit-born fruit of a new spiritual human who casts all his/her trust on the Jesus of the Bible, and on His Shed Blood alone to make the person acceptable to The Father, no longer dead to God.

I do not believe that anyone clinging to the Catholic or other Arminian teachings can ever be saved by them.

[imardmd1]

66

[MHGinTN]

When huma pride is pricked by the satan, the human desires that some of his work must be accepted by The God, to obtain eternal life. A very poorly understood term in our modern times is eternal death, a spiritual state of continuous being without ANY good thing.

[Gamecock]

What I’m seeing here is the problem with defining the term evangelical. The term is so squishy these days it can mean anything from Lakewood Church and Joel Osteen all the way over to the most hard-core Calvinists.

SES seems to embrace the squish..

[mrobisr]

“He wants us to live because only then can we truly give our hearts and souls to Christ out of genuine love and gratitude.”

Amen, excellent post!

[mrobisr]

“and thus all who will not bow in submission to her are enemies who need to bow to her.”

Sounds very familiar, just like the Antichrist described in Revelation.

[mrobisr]

“The Bible consists of 73 God-breathed books”

Do those 7 books belong in the Old or New Covenant?

If they are Old Covenant theology how exactly does that pertain to a New Covenant Christian?

If they are New Covenant books please explain this...
How are they New Covenant when they are clearly before Jesus Christ was manifested in the flesh at Bethlehem?

What theological significance such as salvation, heaven, or hell do they bring to the New Covenant that wasn’t clearly explained in our current New Testament?

I have asked this question several times before and never get and answer, so are you just a mouth piece or can you answer it?

Please help me to understand why you rcc’s hang on to those 7 books like they contain the ultimate secrets to eternal life or eternal hell.

[daniel1212]

“and thus all who will not bow in submission to her are enemies who need to bow to her.” Sounds very familiar, just like the Antichrist described in Revelation.

Well there is that "indelible spiritual mark," "the seal of the Lord," "the sacramental character," which "no sin can erase" (CCC 1272- 1274) the character of Christ imprinted on the soul via baptism ex opere operato [by the act itself] which nothing can remove. This is why Catholics overall are so Godly in character versus evangelicals  .

And the ritual of baptism is considered to be so powerful by Rome that in cases of necessity baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever if they fulfill the essential conditions, which are that the baptizer "pours water upon the one to be baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Moreover, "he must thereby intend really to baptize the person, or technically, he must intend to perform what the Church performs when administering this sacrament." (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm)

Of course, Scripturally it is not the act itself of baptism (which in Scripture was by immersion) that effects regeneration, but the heart-purifying faith behind such obedience, (Acts 10:43;15:7-10)though since those who obey are those who believe, this regeneration is promised to those who will believe/obey (Acts 2:38) like as "thy sins be forgiven thee" was synonymous with healing/walking in the case of the palsied man, and which meant Christ had power to forgive sins. (Mark 2:8-11)

Moreover, Cyprian writes that “they who are baptized in the Church are presented to the bishops of the Church, and by our prayer and imposition of hands, they receive the Holy Ghost and are perfected with the seal of the Lord.” And elsewhere told his catechumens, “the Holy Ghost is about to seal your souls: you are to be enrolled in the army of the Great King." The Orthodox thus believe in laying on of hands (chrismation/unction) at the time of baptism, while Rome normatively makes this a separate later event above the age of discretion (now generally about 7) and which normally only a bishop can perform.

However, spiritually dead bishops cannot confer any spiritual power, and the separation of bishops (episkopos) from the office of elders (presbuteros) is a later unscriptural division, while Scripturally this "receiving" of the Holy Spirit in power evidently occurred at conversion (Acts 2:38; 10:43-47) or at conversion thru the laying on of hands thru a devout disciple, not an elder, (Acts 9:10,17; cf. Acts 22:12) or thru the apostles so doing. (Acts 8:14-18)

I know I have been born of the Spirit with its profound basic changes in heart and life - which certainly did not happen when I was baptized as kid or confirmed asa RC - but i cannot say I have had this second profound experience yet, though I pray. See Martin lloyd Jones here on this if you wantin https://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrianwarnock/2006/03/lloyd-jones-on-baptism-with-holy/

[boatbums]

Excellent questions! Be sure to ping me if you ever get any answers.

[mrobisr]

“but i cannot say I have had this second profound experience yet, though I pray.”

Great read, thanks. I can say I have had that experience and it was so overwhelming that to describe it sounds nuts, but it is what it is. I pray that you can experience it too!

[mrobisr]

“Be sure to ping me if you ever get any answers.”

I absolutely will, but considering how many times I have asked and didn’t even get a guess please don’t hold your breath.

I have a feeling that not a one of them knows why they cling to or believe in those 7 books or why they were added centuries later.

[Cronos]

There is no definition of evangelical. It can literally mean anything - from the non-Trinitarians to even Coptic evangelicals.

[Cronos]

I hope you won’t bite - I once 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]

MHGinTN “ evangelical homosexuals” - so you think a lot of evangelicals are homosexuals??

[Cronos]

And to be precise - the bulk of Christianity rejects your 19th century pre-Trib rapture faux belief.

[Cronos]

2 Thessalonians 2:3 - let's look at 2 Thessalonians as a whole shall we, instead of the rapturists policy of excerpting

[1] And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him: [2] That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. [3] Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, [4] Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. [5] Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

Here St Paul is writing to the Thessalonians just before 64 AD

Rapturists have deceptive double vision at work here - rapturists like you MHG place the one event (the rapture) at the very start and apply all the rest of hte pssage to the second advent. Yet if that is true, why does not St. Paul make it clear that his readers would not be present to see this antichrist "proclaiming himself to be God"?

St. Paul is writing to encourage a group of Christians who were afraid they had been "left behind"! -- so then why does he not explicitly speak of the "blessed hope of the rapture" to comfort the worried Thessalonians? Nowhere in this passage is there even a mention of the rapture

The reason St. Paul does NOT mention the rapture as occuring before the appearance of the antichrist and before the second coming is simple: it never occured into his mind that anyone would believe Christ would rapture His Church before the final escahaton.

The ENTIRE passage is that the Church would be around to witness the man of lawlessness revealed

What is the Greek word used for temple in this verse? naos -- it is NEVER ONCE used by St. Paul to designate the Jerusalem 2nd temple of the Jews -- Paul ALWAYS uses the New Testament word for the Temple - hieron (1 Cor 9:13).

WHENEVER Paul uses the word naos he is referring to New Covenant temples.

Paul KNEW that Christ had prophesied the destruction of the 2nd temple within their generation

But they KNEW that the NEW temple was God's spiritual temple - in the new Jerusalem, the Church

[Cronos]

of course, Aquinas was fallible. However Christ left an infallible community - the Church.

I do not believe that anyone clinging to the Calvinistic teachings of double predestination can ever be saved as they reject God’s word

[Gamecock]

I've me some folks that describe themselves as Evangelical Catholics.*

*Big "C"