Posted on 09/18/2020 6:15:39 AM PDT by 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.
His infallible Church is in Heaven, and is comprised only of regenerated genuine believers whom The Father has made accepted in The Beloved Son. That is the (spiritual) Kingdom of God.
Om earth there is no single visible "Church" (proper noun) of which He is the Head, and through which He manifests Himself, to the exclusion of other groups assembled in His Name. But there are many thousands of local independent churches comprised of both genuine believers recognized as such by the God-head and in whom the Holy Spirit lives, as well as unregenerated "belivers" who profess loyalty to Christ Jesus, but who as yet have failed completely and put their trust in Him, and thus have not received the gift of salvation. This fallible impure collection of earthly tem[poral assemblies constitute the Kingdom of Heaven (spoken of only in the Gospel of Matthew).
There have been many humanistic attempts to institute a supra-church organization of administrators determined to gain ascendence over the local assemblies of churches and make them no longer independent nor autonomous for the purpos of concentrating political power, but they have all failed and become so depraved that they cannot please the God-head.
The only earthly assembly of believers through which Jesus Christ manifests His Headship and guidance in the Spirit is the local independent autonomous regularly meeting chapter of accountable individuals professing loyalty to, and sole ownership by, the Jesus of Nazareth the Christ of God; inducted into as a disciple by a profession of faith followed by voluntary whole-body immersion in water administered by an authorized agent of the God-head; a meeting characterized by congregating for the purposes of participation in the Remembrance Supper that rehearses the manner of Jesus' cross-death, and for learning how to keep Jesus' commandments watchfully secure by incorporating them in one's thought abd actions; and under the local government of a plurality of spiritually mature fellow-believers who have demonstrated that they have overcome the wicked one, Satan, in their deportment.
The only supra-church authority is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the only Head of His local assembled body of believers; not an intervening system of officials inserting themselves between God and the common non-clergy individuals.
I do not believe that anyone clinging to the Calvinistic teachings of double predestination can ever be saved as they reject God’s word
Regarding Jean Calvin the lawyer and the logic-based "ism" named for his theology, truly much of it is as legalistic as Romanism, each for different reasons. The only non-legalistic theology is that offered by assemblies that meet and conduct themselves according to the principles that the church assemblies followed as recorded in the New Testament Scriptures, each local assembly being responsible for its behavior to God alone, as trained by the Apostles who were themselves trained by God-Manifest-In-The-Flesh Jesus. That special delegated commission was not passed on to their followers, the ones who had not been in fellowship and appointed by the Only Infallible Pastor/Rabbi/Master.
Many thousands of such independent stand-alone assemblies have existed since their innovation at Jerusalem in the prototype assembly on the day of Pentecost of 33 Anno Domini. The Jerusalem church of disciples itself became patently fallible, impure, as have all its imitative successors. The same is true of all the disciplers following the original Apostles. Thus the visible churches have kept to Christ's standard only by accepting His Word alone as their uncontested Authority, and not resorting to the filtering of it through the Apostolic (fallible) Fathers and the other (fallible, some very much so) Patristics.
The Holy Scriptures alone are the perfect model, of which the Personification of them is The Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, upon Which and Whom we can rely trust for salvation, justification, progressive sanctification (=discipleship), and final glorification of the regenerated believer.
The conduct and resultant outcomes of the Romanist system definitely show that it cannot achieve what it has promised, but in fact historically has fallen far short in doing what it ought to do, and what the widespread truly Christian independent autonomous churches really have done in advancing God's estate on earth. Of late, the decline of Romanistic practices has been abysmal, including the wallowing in sinful activity at the highest reaches of its leadership, We need not say more.
All grace is free. that’s what makes it grace.
If it weren’t free, it wouldn’t be grace, but rather wages due for work performed.
This article proves nothing but that the author doesn’t even understand what grace is.
That's nothing!
In my outfit we had some sterilized gall bladders and one or two recently washed kidneys!
I wonder what % of Christianity rejects Rome's Sinless Mary: Ever Virgin creation?
And there are seven perfect examples of them in the first three chapters of Revelation.
Don’t fall for the purposed conflation of the Catholic ORG with the one true Church Jesus began that fateful Day of Pentecost when Peter preached under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. All the redeemed are part of the one true Church. The Catholic oRG? Not so much.
A whole bunch reject it. I certainly do. 👍🤗 Just my opinion, but I think it’s possible, that Mary, didn’t believe in Jesus, to the saving of the soul, till her kids did, like after the resurrection. Then, we only know about the half brothers of Jesus, James and Jude, since they wrote New Testament books, and James, not Peter, was the head of the Jerusalem church. We don’t even know if the rest of Jesus’ half brothers and sisters, and their father Joseph, ever came to saving faith in Jesus. I hope they did, but we simply don’t know for sure. 👍
The thing is - a person who holds to the pre-Trib rapture 19th century philosophy denies Christ and the rapturists call Christ a liar (as Jesus clearly said that the temple would be destroyed in the generation of those listening to Him)
The rapturists by doing that seem heading to hell.
Christ gave assurances in Matt 24:13 that tribulations WOULD COME to the Christians and the Jesus-movement-Jewish sect would be nearly crushed out before 67 AD, but to endure to the end
This also echoes in what Jesus Christ tells us to do - repent, believe, be baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit, eat of His spiritual body and endure to the end.
The Christ won us our salvation and through our belief in Him, enabled by the freely given grace of God, we reach sanctification through to grow in God’s love and through the final sanctification to be saved
This is exactly as we read in Matthew about how Jesus tells us to hold on to the end and through the grace of God we will be with Him in heaven
Don’t believe the fake rapture philosophy that denies Christ’s words
| Matt. 7:21 : “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven,[a] but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. | ]Jesus went around to all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and curing every disease and illness. | 16 [c]Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood[d] has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,[e] and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.[f] Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. | 20 But if it is by the finger of God that [I] drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. |
St. John describes the “Church age” in this passage (20:1–6). This age started with the birth of the Church at Christ’s Passion. Satan was then definitively defeated, but his public “chaining” occurred when the Temple in Jerusalem fell. From this point, Christ reigns with His saints over a worldwide spiritual Kingdom. The blessings of Daniel are being bestowed via the “strong covenant” he predicted (Dan. 9:27). The forces of evil are hampered by God’s restraining of Satan. The saints of the Church Triumphant in Heaven have undergone the first resurrection. By their prayers, they are active in the affairs of the earthbound Church Militant during the entire Millennium.
Dealing with enemies is what reigning entails. Christ does not wait to reign until after complete and total victory. That is how we, the Church Militant, are active in cooperating with the Church Triumphant. Christ “must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet” (1 Cor. 15:25). St. Paul assumed that the overcoming of Christ’s enemies was the main focus of ruling the Kingdom! The battle can be exhilarating when you already know who will win. We are sure Christ will be victor in the end, because He kept His appointment with the Sanhedrin: He judged them within the generation He had predicted.
Remember book of Revelations is a book filled with numbers as symbols - the “seven spirits” for instance - 7 is the number for completeness. Hence the 7 spirits = the one Holy Spirit of God.
Ditto for 1000 — that is 10 x 10 x 10 and in Hebrew repeating something thrice is for a superlative - hence the Holy, Holy, Holy and also the 6 6 6 = where 6 is 1 less than 7 so incompleteness
You say paradise on earth - still sticking earthly material aspects on to the spiritual.
the kingdom of God is in the here and now, present in and through the Church. Yet it is a mixed reality that will only be perfectly realized at the end of history. This current “mixed” state can be seen as the Church on earth which now grows in the field of the world with both weeds and wheat until the harvest when Christ says he will “tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned. But gather the wheat into my barn” (Matt 13:30).
e have been hearing about the Kingdom of Heaven parables in the Gospel of St. Matthew. Although there are parables with this same motif in the other Gospels, we see St. Matthew focusing on the Kingdom of Heaven because he is trying to prove to his audience, Jewish Christians (those who were either converting to Christianity or those who had already converted), that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Davidic and Solomonic Kingdom.
St. Matthew along with the other Gospel writers tells us in their accounts that the Kingdom of God is going to be much different than what they were actually expecting. Most Jews believed that the Messiah would return to reestablish the kingdom that David built, including the reestablishment of the Temple, which Solomon had built. Even in Acts of the Apostles 1:6, the Apostles ask Jesus the question, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” – they were speaking about the Davidic kingdom.
Yet, The Kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ in the form of the Church as the seed and beginning of this kingdom
Jesus invitation to enter his kingdom comes in the forms of parables, a characteristic feature of his teaching. Through his parables he invites people to the feast of the kingdom, but he also asks for a radical choice: to gain the kingdom, one must give everything. Words are not enough; deeds are required. The parables are like mirrors for man: will he be hard soil or good earth for the world? What use has he made of the talents he has received? Jesus and the presence of the kingdom in this world are secretly at the heart of the parables. One must enter the kingdom, that is, become a disciple of Christ, in order to “know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.” For those who stay, “outside,” everything remains enigmatic.
1 Cor 1 12 thanking God our Father for making us fit to share the light which saints inherit,[2] 13 for rescuing us from the power of darkness, and transferring us to the kingdom of his beloved Son.
And you wonder why no one is listening to you??
Rome has REALLY done a number on your brain!
John 6:28-29
Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
Look REALLY hard to see if there is any "final sanctification" ever mentioned by Jesus...
John 6:25-40
25 When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]”
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
Golly!
I guess yu guys CAN use the Bible to try to make a point if you wish!
Get thee behind me; Satan!
How DARE you try to get me to speculate about something when the Bible makes no mention of their whereabouts!
Yup, we may not know where they were, but at least we know Jesus had half brothers and sisters, unlike a certain religion, which will remain unnamed, which claims that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I used to belong to that certain religion. I don’t belong to it anymore. 😁🤗😆🤪
*mother of JESUS*.
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.