10. No Place Like Rome? Why Are Evangelicals Joining the Catholic Church?
A number of noted evangelicals have recently converted to the Roman Catholic Church. Why is this happening? The reasons fall into two categories.
The first is exemplified by Thomas Howard, who perceived an “incompleteness” about evangelicalism and a lack of stress upon history, liturgy, the sacraments, and aesthetics. The second category is represented by former Presbyterian minister and current Catholic apologist Scott Hahn, whose conversion involved many of the historic theological differences that characterize the nearly five hundred years of division between Protestants and Roman Catholics.
ESSAY 10
NO PLACE LIKE ROME?
Why Are Evangelicals Joining the Catholic Church?
Kim Riddlebarger
There are undoubtedly as many reasons evangelicals become Roman Catholics as there are individuals who convert to Roman Catholicism. Those who have left their Protestant and evangelical heritage for the Roman church do so for a variety of reasons. Many who have converted describe intense personal struggles and painful crises of conscience associated with every step of their journey. It is not an easy pilgrimage from Wheaton to Rome. And each evangelical who converts to Roman Catholicism, it seems, has a compelling story to tell and a list of diverse reasons underlying the experience. There are, however, several common factors identified by recent converts that help answer the question, Why are evangelicals joining the Roman Catholic Church?
After developing some necessaiy background information and then identifying general theological trends that set the context for answering this key question, I will attempt to identify and evaluate the primary reasons given by several recent converts to justify their conversion. Two primary categories of reasons are given. The first centers on a perceived incompleteness or insufficiency of evangelicalism, which is often related to a misconception that basic evangelical beliefs and Roman Catholic dogma are not necessarily at odds. However, the reasons given by converts falling into this category are often connected to the second category, which is composed of theological objections to Protestantism that are in many cases characteristic of the 450-year-old division between Protestants and Catholics.
Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian minister (PCA) who is now a professor at the College of Steubenville, a Roman Catholic school in Steubenville, Ohio, converted from historic Protestantism to Roman Catholicism. Hahn is an outspoken apologist and articulate advocate for Tridentine Catholicism. He is convinced that what we are presently seeing in terms of the numbers of evangelicals making their way to Rome is but the tip of an emerging iceberg. Citing the perceived similarities between this burgeoning movement and the beginnings of the Oxford Movement more than 150 years ago, Hahn notes that, unlike the Oxford Movement, which culminated in the conversion of the highly respected and brilliant Anglican John Henry Newman, this new movement does not center so much on a single prestigious convert as it does in a number of well-known evangelical Protestants, all of whom have recently joined the Roman church. He argues that since this new movement is more diversified it is perhaps more significant.1 There are no accurate figures available quantifying the number of evangelicals who have converted to Roman Catholicism, but it appears that there are a number of significant and noted individuals involved. Cataloging a veritable Who’s Who of fellow converts, Hahn points out that noted former Protestants such as Peter Kreeft, Richard John Neuhaus, Malcom Muggeridge, William Farmer, Thomas Howard, as well as Hahn’s friend and fellow Presbyterian pastor turned Catholic apologist, Gerry Matatics, have all recently converted to Catholicism. Hahn contends that the quality and reputation of the individuals involved demonstrates that this trend is something more substantial than any other such movement.2
Before proceeding further, it is important to point out that I am sympathetic to some of the reasons these men have given for their conversion to Roman Catholicism. I too was raised in evangelical fundamentalism, and I too struggled during my own conversion to orthodox Calvinism and historic Protestantism from a nonconfessional, nonliturgical, and Arminian theology, typical of much of fundamentalism. It was a painful and difficult journey. I have asked many of the same questions and spent many sleepless nights wrestling with God, as have many who have made the journey to Rome. I certainly empathize with their struggle, and I have more respect for someone who follows the road to truth as they see it than I do for those who never think to question the reasons underlying their particular doctrinal positions. But I also need to point out that the answers I have found in the Scriptures are diametrically opposed to the arguments raised by those who have converted to Catholicism. I unashamedly side with the Protestant Reformers generally, and with confessional Calvinism specifically, on all of the issues central to this debate.
It must also be candidly admitted, as David Wells, James Davidson Hunter, Carl F. H. Henry, Harold Lindsell, and Michael Horton have all recently pointed out,3 that evangelicalism as a movement has reached an important crossroads, if not an outright theological crisis. At such an important and critical moment of definition for evangelicals, undoubtedly there will be those who have had enough of secularism under the guise of “evangelical” religion and who will jump ship for reasons of expediency or because of reasons of conscience. The converts listed by Scott Hahn are best viewed as indicative of the latter. Indeed, one can argue that much of what lies at the root of this turmoil can be located in the fact that as evangelicalism becomes increasingly secularized and continues to move away from its biblical and historic roots, in some cases abandoning outright its Protestant heritage and theological convictions, there will be many who sense that the only lasting solution to such an ideological vacuum is to turn to one of Western civilization’s most visible and stalwart pillars against such secularization, the Roman Catholic Church. As evangelicalism as a movement begins to show signs of stress fracture and possible impending collapse, we should not be surprised that men of conscience would become Roman Catholics even for what many of us do not deem sufficient or proper reasons. In the midst of such upheaval, if evangelical leaders do not give those within their sphere of influence sufficient reasons to remain Protestants, and in many cases openly forsake their own Protestant heritage, why should we be surprised if many who are tired of our double-mindedness and lack of theological integrity now find Roman Catholicism to be a viable option? I can surely empathize with many of these converts, even if I cannot agree with their reasons. But I am still one of those Protestants who feels a twinge of sorrow when I hear of someone leaving an evangelical church to join the Catholic Church.
Despite the contentions of Scott Hahn and others that the objections that can be raised against Protestantism are sufficient to convince any honest inquirer that Roman Catholicism is the true expression of the Christian religion, not only have many of the issues been hotly debated since the time of the Protestant Reformation, but Protestants have effectively answered the arguments that Catholic polemicists raise against historic Protestantism. In many cases, former Protestants simply do not like the answers they receive. For others, the theological arguments ultimately do not matter anyway—Roman Catholicism fills some need or offers something that is beyond argument and debate. In some cases, weak or nonexistent answers from evangelical leaders expected to know better are treated as “the official Protestant position.” What may appear to be formidable arguments for Roman Catholicism on the surface, do not fare as well when it is pointed out that the Protestant foil in the argument is often a straw man, who is easy to knock down but who does not represent either the authentic or the best of historic Protestantism. It is also easy to take the garish extremes of theologically illiterate televangelists and reactionary fundamentalists as representative of true Protestant conviction,4 even though televangelists and fimdamentalists have at times blatantly misrepresented the intentions and doctrines of the Roman church.5 Further complicating matters, Karl Keating, noted Catholic lay apologist, laments that not only have Roman views been misrepresented by evangelical opponents, but Catholic laity are themselves often insufficiently catechized and actually contribute to this doctrinal confusion since they are frequently unable to articulate their faith accurately.6 And unfortunately, in the resulting confusion, the spirit of argument has dropped below the belt chi many occasions.
Not only are these issues not new, neither is the ethos underlying this new movement. A few, such as Hahn, express their conversion primarily in intellectual terms. These converts find the Roman arguments against key Protestant doctrines such as sola fide or sola scriptura to be compelling. They tend to be the most militant of the converts. Others who have converted to Roman Catholicism, it seems, possess a form of idealism bordering on Romanticism, which at times reflects the Victorian sentiment of the earlier Oxford Movement that often serves as a model and source of inspiration for these former Protestants. Many recent converts see the Roman Catholic Church as the sole source of the fulfillment of subjective longings that transcend a mere intellectual conversion to Roman Catholic theology. Such people find the beauty of the liturgy, the sense of history, the focus on the sacraments, and the stress on transcendence and mystery found in Romanism to be important reasons for leaving evangelicalism.
In an uncertain and irrational age, when the best biblical and theological arguments may not necessarily carry the day, the promise of an infallible church, a worldwide community of the faithful complete with magnificent cathedrals and beautiful liturgy, specialized religious orders, and effective and compassionate social concerns, just might. Though many evangelicals dismiss this important, if subjective, aspect of conversion to Catholicism, as simply a desire for “smells and bells,” that opinion ignores important issues worthy of discussion. Subjective reasons are still reasons nonetheless and need to be evaluated accordingly. It is here, then, with concerns that evangelicalism is not a complete or sufficient expression of Christianity, that we will begin to evaluate the arguments given by those evangelicals who have converted to Catholicism.
THE ROMANTIC MOTIVATION
The one book that perhaps captures this romantic idealism and the subjective aspects of the attraction to Catholicism more thoughtfully than any other is Thomas Howard’s Evangelical Is Not Enough.1 Howard, a noted evangelical author and brother of Elisabeth Elliot, has perhaps correctly diagnosed that a major weakness of evangelicalism and fundamentalism is a lack of the sense of God’s transcendence in Christian experience. Evangelical Is Not Enough is more, however, than a testimonial about one man’s spiritual journey. It is a powerful apologetic against a uniquely American form of Protestantism, fundamentalism—a form of Christianity that Howard contends has virtually abandoned any emphasis upon community, history, liturgy, creeds, sacraments, and beauty. These contentions are not completely without merit. They are, ironically, important themes in much of historic Protestantism, though unimportant to many fundamentalists.
Howard begins the book by describing his journey away from his fundamentalist and evangelical roots: “My pilgrimage has led me to ancient forms of Christian worship and discipline that find little place in ordinary Reformational piety and vision.”8 Since the evangelicalism (actually the fundamentalist variety) of Howard’s upbringing was dominated by para-church organizations, interdenominational activities, and nondenomination-al churches, “we cited texts from the New Testament and nothing else. We never said, ‘the church teaches so and so.’”9 There was little sense of any historical identity that Christianity as an ancient faith has with its past. So Howard concludes, “The flavor of Evangelicalism is very different from that of the traditional church.”10 Thus, much of Evangelical Is Not Enough is a narrative of the author’s search for a sense of the history and symbolism of the ancient church.
This revived quest to recover our Christian roots is one of the most important reasons evangelicals are suddenly finding themselves attracted to Catholicism. Since much of American life in general is rather ahistorical, fundamentalism and evangelicalism (to the degree to which these traditions are influenced by popular culture) often reflect a strange sense that Christianity really began with our own conversion or with that of our leaders. In those circles where there is some sense of historical identity, it is not uncommon to hear evangelicals and fundamentalists speak as if New Testament Christianity were somehow recovered via the efforts of some nineteenth-century evangelist. So when evangelicals begin to investigate their own Christian roots, they may find to their chagrin that the historic Christian faith is at many points quite different from fundamentalist and evangelical practice and teaching.
Christian history is important. Protestants contend, however, that the Reformation was an important correction of many of the teachings and practices of the medieval Roman church, which in many cases had buried the apostolic faith under such an accretion of superstition and unbiblical practice that the gospel was virtually obscured from the life of the church. Since we Protestants must first of all strive to be biblical, we nevertheless should also have a strong sense of historical identity that dates in one degree or another forward from the New Testament era—through Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas—up to the Reformation. Furthermore, we should have no trouble tracing our own Protestant heritage from the Reformation to the present day. Protestants have always identified with the Augustinian and Anselmic theological tradition. In a profound sense, it can be argued that the Reformation was an extension and amplification of that ancient tradition. The Reformers themselves were thoroughly conversant with the church Fathers and medieval doctors. Their children, the Protestant scholastics of both the Lutheran and Reformed variety, clearly availed themselves of the Thomistic theological methodology they inherited.
However, it is here, perhaps, that we see one of the most important places where historic Protestants and many of their evangelical and fundamentalist descendants will part ways. The Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed traditions have a much stronger historical sense than do their American fundamentalist stepchildren, who tend not to be as confessionally or historically bound. But the key issue here is that the church should always be in the process of reform according to the Word of God. Yes, new is not always better, and yes, historically speaking, the ancient church looks and sounds different from much of American evangelicalism. But the question is really one of what the true church should look like according to the Word of God, and not what the actual church looks like in a fallen world. Not all the historical practices of the ancient church are supported by Scripture. And not all of the historical practices of the church are even supported by all the Christian tradition. Even a cursory reading of the ante-Nicene and post-Ni-cene church Fathers reveals a divergence of opinion in many areas. Ultimately, this boils down to the relationship between the authority of tradition and the authority of Scripture, and also the relationship of the church to that authority, a point discussed below.
On the issue of authority, Thomas Howard points out that as a fundamentalist he was taught to distrust the “Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox emphasis on the church as the guardian and teacher of Scripture”11 because of the Protestant notion of sola scriptura. According to Howard, the “stress on the Bible alone calls for a complicated vocabulaiy of ‘inerrancy’ and ‘verbal inspiration’ that has never marked Catholic and Orthodox theology,” because, in the Roman and Eastern traditions, believers “would look to the magisterium of the church, or to Holy Tradition, to keep the ancient faith intact. ”12
Here, then, is another reason many evangelicals are being drawn to Roman Catholicism. Many evangelicals have rejected the concept of sola scriptura in principle, either through the acceptance of the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox conception of a “sacred tradition” as an equal authority with Scripture, or because of the charismatic movement, wherein many evangelicals are becoming increasingly open to the concept of God speaking to them direedy (immediately) through “prophets” or popular “gurus,” apart from the written Word of God. Thomas Howard argues that “sacred” tradition and “official” teachings of the church are of equal authority with Scripture. Many evangelicals appear to be comfortable with the concept of the bible plus something else as constituting authority for faith and practice.
Because Howard sees inerrancy as a complicated concept and therefore problematic, he now accepts the Roman magisterium as a source of infallible interpretation of the Bible, as though simply affirming such infallibility made it so. If the problem with the inerrancy of Scripture, according to Howard, is its complicated nature, what about the perennial problem of explaining just how it is that the Roman church champions doctrines that are not taught anywhere in Scripture and are often in direct contradiction to it (i.e., the Immaculate Conception of Mary, her bodily assumption into heaven, and her supposed role as our co-redemptrix)? What should we do if at least one stream of Christian tradition has always taught sola scriptural?13 Why is that tradition not infallible?
One of Thomas Howard’s primary concerns in Evangelical Is Not Enough is with Christian symbols and their use. After sneaking a peek into a neighborhood church as a youth, Howard recalls the accoutrements that adorned the church: stained glass, candlesticks, and an altar. He remembers, “I was filled with awe, and even something like rapture, at how beautiful, how august, everything was.”14 It was clearly a defining moment for Thomas Howard. Over the years Howard’s interest in symbols came to fruition in his belief that the incarnation of our Lord forever reversed the idea that the secular could be separated from the spiritual, since in the Incarnation, “The Eternal Word became flesh. God became man. The spiritual became physical.”15 As Howard laments, “the Evangelicalism of my childhood church taught me true doctrine about the Incarnation. It taught me about Creation and about Eden and about the Fall. But somehow it never, at least in its piety, put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.”16 According to Howard, this puts the evangelical in a serious predicament. “By avoiding the dangers of magic and idolatry on the one hand, Evangelicalism runs itself very near the shoals of Manichaeanism on the other—the view that is that pits the spiritual against the physical.”17 This is, as Howard sees it, because evangelicals sought to locate religion solely in the heart, rather than in the whole realm of life, including symbols. This tendency to avoid symbols can “most readily be observed at a glance in [evangelicalism’s] church buildings.” The messages that evangelicals send by denying the validity of such symbols gives a “Manichaean hue to the faith.”18
Thomas Howard is not the only one who feels this way. Franky Schaeffer, son of the late Presbyterian apologist Francis, and who has also recently departed from his own fundamentalist heritage for Eastern Orthodoxy, similarly laments the aesthetics of much of evangelicalism. Never known for letting his brethren off easily nor tactfully, Franky describes what this absence of transcendence has done to many an American “worship center,” as symbols and beauty are lost as aspects of worship.
Most contemporary American church buildings are symbolically ugly, accurately reflecting the taste of pastor and people alike. . . . The profound ugliness of these churches is not the result of budget priorities. These buildings are expensive; studied ugliness does not come cheap. Many of these church buildings seem to express the same sense of aesthetics as that of the living-room/kitchen set from the old “Dick Van Dyke Show.” They constitute an assault on the senses: a nightmare of red velvet and prefab ceiling “tile,” StainWare carpet in pastel shades from hell and the Easter Bunny, a Mt. Everest of canned sweet corn and lime Jell-O.19
Schaeffer’s comments, though acrid in tone, raise an important issue. Transcendence and beauty have been lost in much of evangelicalism. Therefore someone who comes from such a sterile environment, without sufficient understanding of why it is that Protestants have been careful to avail themselves only of those symbols found explicitly in, or directly supported by Scripture, and who then enters a magnificent cathedral for the first time, can easily be overwhelmed by the sheer awe of how certain types of architecture, religious symbols, and beauty can indeed communicate a sense of transcendence. It was such an experience that apparently changed Thomas Howard’s life and planted the seed that germinated years later in his conversion to Catholicism.
But what exactly is it that moves a Protestant like Thomas Howard away from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism? When Howard wrote Evangelical Is Not Enough he was an Episcopalian, but soon after he completed the book he joined the Roman Catholic Church. This raises an important question in my mind. If all that Thomas Howard was really seeking was a stronger sense of community, a deeper appreciation of Christian history, a liturgical form of worship, a central role for the ecumenical creeds, a significant role for sacraments, and an appreciation of beauty, why did he leave the Anglican Communion, which identifies with all of these elements in greater measure than any other Protestant tradition? Much of what Howard writes is a personal testimony about his quest for transcendence, but there are significant theological issues that surface as well—issues that amount to a self-conscious rejection of historic Protestantism. When asked by Christianity Today to identify the principal reasons for deciding to convert to Catholicism, Howard gave overtly theological reasons justifying his conversion.
The question of the unity between Christ and his church is the fundamental one. A close corollary to that, if not virtually synonymous with it, is the question of authority, which immediately turns into the question of the magisterium—the teaching authority of the Catholic church. There is no magisterium in Protestantism. Also important for me was the sacramental understanding of the nature of reality, the nature of God, the world, revelation, the gospel, and the Incarnation.20
Despite the focus upon aesthetical issues in Evangelical Is Not Enough, when he was pressed by Christianity Today to give the rationale for joining the Roman church, Howard clearly rejected Protestantism as a system of doctrine, and pledged allegiance to the Council of Trent’s declaration on the doctrine of justification, an overtly anti-Protestant document.21 Ultimately, there is much more involved in converting to Roman Catholicism than merely a search for a sense of history, beauty, and symbol.
It is my contention that one cannot simultaneously be an evangelical (in the historical sense of the term) and a Roman Catholic. This is historically the position of most Protestant and Roman theologians. Recently, however, there has been a marked tendency on both sides to downplay the real differences between these traditions in order to foster mutual understanding and encourage joint ministry opportunities in the face of secularism, which now threatens both. No doubt, this trend is motivated by the biblical concern for Christians from differing historical and denominational backgrounds to work together in an age of uncertainty and unbelief. Though we must always be willing in principle to seek unity with our Christian brothers and sisters (and yes, many of them are Roman Catholics!), we must ask ourselves if real unity is best attained by pretending that substantial doctrinal differences do not exist or by redefining our doctrines so as to forge common ground at the expense of giving up critical doctrinal distinetives that have historically characterized our own traditions. Is it not better to acknowledge the real theological differences between evangelicals and Catholics and then, if possible, declare a “trace,” agreeing to work together on matters of mutual concern despite our differences? Many, it seems, are opting for the former alternative.
Acknowledging the novelty of the concept, evangelical leaders such as Chuck Colson have begun to commend the terminology, “Evangelical Catholic.”22 One Roman Catholic writer, Keith A. Fournier, whose work Evangelical Catholics (1990) has been warmly endorsed by Colson, attempts to demonstrate that the word evangelical is actually an adjective rather than a noun. Fournier argues that the meaning of evangelical is best understood in terms of form rather than content. Being “evangelistic” and having a definite personal conversion experience is what constitutes being an evangelical. Fournier contends that the older understanding of “evangelical” as a synonym for “Protestant” was too confining: “It is time for a radical redefinition of the word.”23 Since Fournier professes to believe and practice the “Evangel,” as does any true evangelical, he concludes, “So in the truest sense of the term, I am an evangelical Christian. And since I am also Catholic, I am an evangelical Catholic Christian—without contradiction in terms, logic, theology, or history.”24
Evangelical Catholics is irenic, profitable reading and tries to avoid “a false nondenominationalism which denies distinetives of doctrine or practice,”25 but there is an underlying agenda as well. Undoubtedly committed to the “great commission”26 and personal conversion to Jesus Christ cm the one hand,27 Fournier rejects the Protestant conception of sola scriptura and affirms the Roman dogmas of the Eucharist, the magisterium, and the papacy as Christian essentials on the other.28 Attempting to demonstrate how it is possible to synthesize aspects of these two traditions, he adds, “I invite you on a journey that will lead us home,” i.e., to Roman Catholicism.29 If we subject the word evangelical to such redefinition and contend that the term is somehow compatible with Tridentine Roman Catholicism, we inevitably make it that much easier for evangelicals to convert to Catholicism. Potential converts no longer have to leave anything behind. They simply add Roman doctrines to previously held evangelical beliefs.
Critical to this discussion is the definition of the word evangelical. Is evangelical only an adjective? What does it mean to be an evangelical? Thomas Howard’s journey to Rome serves as an effective illustration of this tension. This can be clearly seen by the fact that the title of Howard’s book, Evangelical Is Not Enough, indicates that there is much more in view than a series of personal aesthetic preferences or a desire for a certain “form” of Christian expression. For Howard, being an evangelical is not OK; it is not enough! Evangelicalism is incomplete. And apparently, like Keith Fournier, Howard sees little problem in attempting to embrace the Roman church while referring to himself as evangelical. If being an evangelical consists in a particular style of Christian piety or in the notion that one who professes to “be born again” is an evangelical or even in the idea that evangelistic zeal is what makes one an evangelical (i.e., as an adjective), rather than by defining evangelical in terms of a commitment to a specific doctrinal understanding of the Christian faith that necessarily embraces Protestant distinctives at odds with Catholic dogma (i.e., as a noun), then someone like Thomas Howard can change forms of Christian expression and practice without really changing much of the basic content of his faith. As Howard understands it, one makes their evangelical heritage complete by becoming a Roman Catholic. If one can be an evangelical without affirming doctrines seen as essential to historic Protestantism (i.e., sola fide, sola scriptura, and the doctrine of forensic justification, defined exclusively in terms of an imputed righteousness rather than an infused righteousness), then certainly one can be a professed evangelical and join the Roman Catholic Church for reasons of aesthetics or liturgical preference.
Protestants reject this notion, however, seeing the mixing of contradictory doctrines more in terms of an unworkable Hegelian synthesis than as a logical outworking of the biblical faith. Historically defined, “evangelical” was a virtual synonym for “Protestant,” and, by definition, being an evangelical included adherence to all Protestant distinctives. I for one am quite unwilling to let Keith Fournier “radically” redefine the term for me!
There are several points, then, that Protestants will find troubling about Howard’s book. Admittedly, Howard’s own fundamentalist upbringing was somewhat different from that of many historic Protestants, since his own fundamentalist version of Protestantism stands firmly within the pietist (a reactionary movement against sterile Protestantism) and Wesleyan traditions, which placed much more emphasis upon such things as private devotions and inward piety than do other children of the Reformation. Thus, an important concern is that as Howard describes the spiritual climate of his fundamentalist upbringing he is indeed accurately describing a pietistic form of spirituality, which does not characterize all of historic Protestant piety.
Family altar and Bible reading, hymn sings, and so forth are indeed typical evangelical practices. Protestants have historically believed in the importance of Bible reading, prayer, and catechism in the home and have encouraged their practice. However, with the stress in historic Protestantism on the doctrine of calling, there was also significant emphasis placed on Christ’s lordship over all areas of life, including work, leisure, family, and so on. All of life was spiritual in a sense, since all of life was to be lived to the glory of God. Historic Protestant piety was often more broadly conceived than that of pietism. Thus, as Howard describes his experience of these fundamentalist devotional activities, it appears they took on a rigid form of “spiritual exercise” characteristic of much of pietism. Ironically Howard has, in effect, exchanged the fundamentalist piety of Ira Sankey hymnody and Keswick conferences stressing victorious Christian living for something akin to the spiritual exercises of Ignatius Loyola. When Christian piety takes on such a rigid and privatized expression, as is the case in those forms of American evangelicalism influenced by pietism, it is natural to begin seeking some historical precedent for such practices. And Rome offers a much more refined, historical, and comprehensive variety of such exercises than does the pietism of fundamentalism. In some senses it is a natural and logical progression from pietism to Roman Catholicism.
Another concern is that Howard begins Evangelical Is Not Enough by telling the reader how much Roman Catholics and evangelicals have in common. This is a theme throughout Fournier’s work as well. Howard then catalogues a number of “catholic,” or universal, doctrines that all Christian traditions have in common, especially the Virgin Birth, the second coming of Christ, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and belief in an inspired Scripture. What Howard fails to mention is any doctrine that is uniquely Protestant, except for the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, of which he is vaguely critical. Howard contends that “the supreme hallmark of Evangelicalism [is] its extremely tender conscience.” Being an evangelical, then, is to be understood primarily in terms of a distinct moral lifestyle rather than in an affirmation of a distinct set of theological beliefs. This is further demonstrated by Howard’s apparent confusion about how Protestants have historically understood the gospel. He contends that “the purity of the heart the gospel asks of us”30 is characteristic of evangelicalism. Yet he fails to understand that purity of heart is not something that the gospel asks of us. Instead, total purity of heart in thought, word, and deed is something that the law of God demands of us! In the gospel a complete forgiveness for all our impurity of heart, as well as the perfect righteousness of Christ to cover our lack of purity, is freely offered to all of us who know that our hearts, even as Christians, are still quite impure. It is only confusion, redefinition, or compromise about these basic points of Protestant conviction that allows one to identify both as an evangelical and as a Roman Catholic simultaneously. Actually, many evangelicals are also confused on this matter, so why should we be surprised if many of those in our churches find it easy to head for Rome or Antioch.31
It is important to make a distinction between “form” and “content.” If one already holds to similar doctrinal content (i.e., the semi-Pelagianism of Wesleyan pietism and historic Tridentine Catholicism—since it is argued by both that salvation is a synergistic process in which God contributes grace and man contributes the energy of an act of the will), it is then much easier to change forms of Christian practice (from pietism to Roman Catholicism) for reasons of preference (i.e., aesthetics). Thomas Howard is now a Roman Catholic, and yet still considers himself evangelical because, on this issue, he apparently never embraced the historic Protestant doctrine. Keith Fournier is able to call himself an Evangelical Catholic because he has redefined what it means to be an evangelical. In both cases, neither is a Protestant, and so it is impossible to see how either can be an evangelical in any historic sense of the term. Therefore, evangelicals must be careful to maintain both the biblical meaning of the Evangel itself (wherein all saving activity is assigned to God alone), as well as their own historical identity, which is necessarily Protestant.
THE THEOLOGICAL MOTIVATION
The second main category of those who have converted to Roman Catholicism is primarily theological. Here, we will find those who have become convinced that Protestantism is an erroneous rebellion and that the Roman Church is and always was the true church. The tone of converts in this category is much more strident since the issues are much clearer and more sharply defined because they are unashamedly doctrinal and historical. Scott Hahn, who describes himself as a “Luther in reverse,”32 is representative of such converts. Another such convert, Gerry Matatics, Hahn’s friend and a former Presbyterian minister, speaks in jest of these issues, describing his own conversion in Pauline-like terms.
I too was circumcised (by the new birth) on the eighth day, of the People of Protestantism, of the tribe of Evangelicalism, a Calvinist of Calvinists: in regard to the law, a theonomist: as for zeal, persecuting the (Roman) Church: as to reconstructionist righteousness and Van Tillian virtue flawless (Phil 3:5-6 [New Ironic Version]).33
Hahn and Matatics are well-educated, conscientious, skilled debaters and perhaps are known to many readers as a result of their willingness to dialogue on these issues with evangelical leaders. Ironically, they have not only contributed a great deal to the Roman cause by effectively debating the issues from the Roman perspective, but they remind evangelicals that, ultimately, Roman Catholicism and evangelicalism are mutually exclusive doctrinal systems that are the logical outworking of basic theological starting points. For the Protestant, the starting point is the Word of God. For the Roman Catholic, it is the Word of God and sacred tradition. As a Protestant, I would contend that in practice, however, Rome views sacred tradition as its ultimate authority, since in those areas where so-called “sacred” tradition and Scripture are in conflict, the Roman church resolves any tension by opting for sacred tradition over Scripture. Clear biblical doctrines are redefined and unbiblical doctrines and practices are justified solely on the basis of this “sacred” and supposedly infallible tradition. The issues raised by Hahn and Matatics will make this point clear.
Scott Hahn describes himself as having been militantly anti-Catholic and committed to Reformed orthodoxy during his seminary days.34 But several issues raised major doubts in his mind about Protestantism. The first was Hahn’s wife Kimberley’s conviction that birth control was not supported by Scripture. This led Hahn to read a Roman Catholic writer, John Kippley, who argued that marriage was not a contract but a covenant. As a result of working through Kippley’s understanding of the covenant, Hahn began moving away from the traditional Reformed understanding of covenant theology seen in federal/legal terms toward a more familial model based on kinship.35 As Hahn puts it,
Luther and Calvin explained [the covenant] exclusively in terms of courtroom language. But I was beginning to see that, far more than simply being a judge, God was our Father. Far more than simply being criminals, we were runaways. Far more [than] being made in a courtroom, [the covenant] was fashioned by God in a family room.36
These changes in views regarding the covenant led to a second issue: the doctrine of sola fide. If the doctrine of the covenant cannot be understood in legal terms, justification cannot be based on the imputation of the guilt of a sinner’s sin to Christ and Christ’s righteousness to the believer. This means that justification cannot be based upon faith alone. Instead, justification must be based on faith and works, the historic position of Tridentine Catholicism.37 Hahn was working through these related issues in seminary when he encountered the work of Norman Shepherd, who had just been removed from Westminster Theological Seminary for teaching what Hahn describes as “the same view of justification that I was expounding.”38 Hahn declares, “I discovered that nowhere did Saint Paul ever teach that we were justified by faith alone. Sola fide was unscriptural!”39 This led Hahn to conclude,
Luther and Calvin often said that this was the article on which the church stood or fell. That was why, for them, the Catholic church fell and Protestantism rose up from the ashes. Sola fide was the material principle of the Reformation, and I was coming to the conviction that Saint Paul never taught it. . . . This was a traumatic transformation for me to say that on this point I now thought Luther was fundamentally wrong. For seven years, Luther had been my main source of inspiration and powerful proclamation of the word. And this doctrine had been the rationale behind the whole Protestant Reformation.40
The next theological domino to fall was sola scriptura. While Hahn was teaching a course on the gospel of John (during which time he became convinced of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist),41 a student asked Hahn to demonstrate where the Bible itself taught sola scriptura. Feeling as though he was unable to satisfactorily answer the question, Hahn lamented, “‘Lord what’s happening? Where does Scripture teach sola scriptura?’ There were two pillars on which Protestants based their revolt against Rome—one had already fallen, the other was shaking. I was scared.”42
Hahn and his friend Gerry Matatics then arranged a meeting with John Gerstner, a distinguished dean of Reformed theologians. After discussing the relevant issues with Gerstner, the one issue that seemed to convince Hahn of the truth of the Roman conception of Scripture plus tradition came during the discussion of the closure of the canon of Scripture. Hahn asked Gerstner, “How can we be sure about the twenty-seven books of the New Testament themselves being the infallible Word of God, since fallible Church councils and Popes are the ones who made up the list?” Gerstner’s answer, Hahn contends, pushed him over the edge. “I will never forget his response,” recalls Hahn: “Scott, that simply means that all we can have is a fallible collection of infallible documents.” Hahn recounts asking, “Is that really the best historic Protestant Christianity can do?” To which Gerstner replied, “Yes, Scott, all we can do is make probable judgements from historic evidence. We have no infallible authority but Scripture.” Hahn remembers thinking, “I felt very unsatisfied with his answers, though I knew he was representing the Protestant position faithfully.”43 Uncertain what to do, Hahn resigned from his pastorate and pursued answers to his questions through additional graduate instruction. On Easter 1986, Scott and Kimberly Hahn joined the Roman Catholic Church, as did Gerry Matatics and his wife—two former Presbyterian minsters, now apologists for the Roman Catholic Church.
Hahn’s doctrinal pilgrimage is important to examine, because it does raise important issues that merit response. However, the issues raised are complex and require in-depth response—something beyond the scope of this essay. Therefore, I will be limiting my brief response to Hahn’s rejection of sola scriptura,44
This dilemma illustrates one of the primary reasons someone like Hahn is effective as a Catholic apologist. Whereas Karl Keating laments the theological illiteracy of the Roman Catholic laity, there is every indication that evangelicalism now experiences the same plight. Evangelical laity are often not interested in doctrinal matters, and neither are many of her key preachers and theologians. This is especially true in matters of controversy. Unity has become an idol of sorts, and in many evangelical circles there is more willingness to sacrifice doctrinal distinctives, so long as the peace is kept, than there should be. We should never expend any of our precious energy looking to pick doctrinal fights with anyone. Yet it is irresponsible to look the other way when the foundations of our faith are challenged. So it is lamentable how difficult it is to find church leaders and theologians willing to address contemporary doctrinal matters, such as the current debates between Protestants and Catholic apologists. Hence, the evangelical community is slow to respond to people like Scott Hahn.
Evangelical pastors and leaders need to devote much more time and energy to doctrinal matters than they do at present. Too often this burden is left at the feet of various parachurch research organizations that differ widely in doctrinal perspectives, ability, and resources. Many of our historic Protestant denominations have little stomach for such matters. When historic Protestant denominations and seminaries do respond, the answer is often, “Oh, we dealt with that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.” And, indeed, some excellent work was dome in defense of sola fide and sola scriptura in response to the Council of Trent.45 But what about some kind of contemporary response from those who do have the biblical and historic answers? Usually there is far too little response, and what responses are forthcoming are often too late to contribute anything of use to the debate at the key moment of battle. It is difficult to find well-written but popular historic Protestant (Lutheran or Reformed) works on any of the subjects germane to this debate. Much of the reason for the success of Catholic apologists is that they simply go unchallenged by the best and brightest of the historic Protestant traditions.
Hahn rejects the concept of Scripture alone because, supposedly, Scripture itself does not teach it.46 How can sola scriptura be true, asks Hahn, if Scripture itself does not state that Scripture alone is our only authority? An additional element of this argument is that since Scripture does refer elsewhere to an “oral tradition” (i.e., 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Timothy 2:2) this renders sola scriptura unbiblical because the existence of a distinct oral tradition, not inscripturated, must mean that oral tradition is an additional authority. Hence, Scripture and tradition constitute a kind of dual authority. Therefore, sola scriptura is in error.
There are two primary issues here. The first is, Does Scripture itself teach sola scriptural and the second, What is the relationship between the authority of tradition and the church in relation to the authority of Scripture?
It is clear that sola scriptura is a biblical doctrine even if there is no one single text that expressly states, “Scripture is the only authority for faith and practice.” First, we are told by Paul that “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16; cf. also 2 Peter 1:20-21), indicating that the Old Testament was the product of God’s breathing forth an inspired biblical text through the agency of human authors. Paul states that the Old Testament is profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness so that believers may be thoroughly equipped. The ramifications of this declaration that Scripture is inspired are very important in establishing Scripture as the only authoritative source for faith and practice.
Though this affirmation about the inspiration of the Old Testament does not rule out the existence of an infallible tradition per se, the fact is that there is no mention anywhere else in Scripture of an “inspired tradition” existing as an authority equal to Scripture. In fact, based on other biblical evidence, it is clear that Scripture alone is regarded as the only infallible source of authority by the biblical writers (see below). Paul clearly says that the Old Testament is “God-breathed” and is therefore an infallible source for Christian doctrine and practice. This means that the burden of proof rests with the Roman Catholic to demonstrate that tradition (as defined by Rome) is likewise so authoritative. To argue that because the Bible refers to a “tradition” and that this is somehow the basis for Roman “sacred” tradition (which often conflicts with that same Scripture) completely begs the question.
A related point is that Scripture also clearly contains all that a Christian needs to know about the will of God and how to be saved, since both the law of God and the gospel are revealed only in Scripture. Therefore, Protestants have argued that Scripture alone is a sufficient basis for authority in all matters of doctrine and practice, since the Bible declares itself inspired and therefore infallible. The Word of God alone contains all that a Christian needs to know to be saved. If Scripture contains all such knowledge, what, then, is the purpose of tradition? How can tradition add anything necessary to the law and the gospel? Are the law and the gospel as found in Scripture somehow incomplete? Since the answer to these questions is no, Protestants contend that Scripture alone is sufficient, meaning that “no human tradition not firmly grounded on Scripture can be necessary to salvation. ”47
If true, this forces us to conclude that “the Word of God is both temporally and regulatively prior to the church,”48 no small point in such discussions. An important argument raised by Protestants based chi the clear biblical statements about the inspiration of Scripture, and therefore the priority of the Word of God, is that the Holy Spirit moved the biblical writers, not the church (not even the “Spirit-led” church), to produce holy Scripture. Inspired Scripture, then, is the basis for the authority of the church, but only as the church is faithful to that inspired Word. This is because “Scripture is the Word of God given as a rule to the church, [and] the authority of doctrine and of the church comes from God ... by way of the Scriptures. Indeed, it is the Scriptures that, as the Word of God ‘bring faith and authority to the church.’ ”49 The church has no authority apart from the prior written Word and no authority at all apart from a faithful proclamation of that Word—a standard that I as a Protestant would argue Rome cannot meet!
A second line of argumentation against Hahn’s contention that the Bible does not teach sola scriptura is to point out that there are numerous biblical texts supporting the concept. Since Scripture itself, being inspired, warns us against adding to or taking away from its clear declarations (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32), Scripture must be complete in itself. The Psalmist echoes this, stating that “the law of the Lord is perfect” (19:7), that His statutes are “trustworthy” (v. 7), and that His precepts are “right” (v. 8). Why would “sacred” tradition be needed as a dual authority if Scripture is perfect in itself?
Elsewhere, Paul tells us that “everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Romans 15:4). As in 2 Timothy 3:16, there is no appeal to an infallible tradition, nor to an infallible church, but only to the Old Testament, the written Word of God for the apostolic church. In Ephesians 5:24 Paul states that the church is to “submit to Christ,” which, as we learn in Colossians 3:16, is through the means of the “word of Christ.” At the time of Paul’s writing of these epistles, this “word of Christ” existed in oral form, but it was subsequently inscripturated in the gospels. In these passages, Paul appeals to the Old Testament (i.e., to “psalms” and “hymns”; see Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16). In Ephesians 2:20, Paul writes that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone,” a reference to the fact that the church is built on the apostolic gospel subsequently inscripturated.30
Scripture refers to itself as the “rule” for the Christian (Galatians 6:16), and “Scripture not only, therefore, demands obedience to God alone (Deut. 12:32; Matt. 15:9), it also clearly condemns other allegiances and is alone designated by God as a rule (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21).”51 We are to anathematize anyone who comes preaching a different gospel, for such is really no gospel at all (Galatians 1:6-9). What is that gospel according to Paul? It is the doctrine of justification by grace, through faith, on account of Christ! It is a gospel based on the finished work of Christ and received through faith alone (Galatians 3).
The biblical case for sola scriptura becomes even stronger when one looks to the words of our Lord on the subject. When tempted by the devil (Matthew 4:1-11), our Lord responded three times to Satan, “It is written.” “ ‘Here,’ Jesus was saying, ‘is the permanent, unchangeable witness of the eternal God, committed to writing for our instruction.’ ”52 Thus, at the very height of His struggle with the devil, Jesus appeals to the authority of Scripture. There is no higher court of appeal. Jesus states that “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and that He came not to abolish the Word of God but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:18; Luke 6:17). Jesus instructs us to obey the Old Testament (Matthew 23:3) and tells us that the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms bear witness of Him (Luke 24:44). Is the Old Testament incomplete in this regard, requiring a “sacred” tradition to complement it? On the contrary, Jesus declares that the Old Testament alone is authoritative in matters of doctrine when He states, “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them” (Luke 16:29). Jesus confirms this priority of Scripture when He tells the Sadducees, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). In fact, in the rally reference to tradition mentioned by our Lord, He expressly tells us that unless such tradition conforms to the prior norm of Scripture it has no authority and is nothing but “rules taught by men” (Matthew 15:2-9).
There is no hint, therefore, in any of these texts, that the biblical writers viewed anything other than the written Word of God (the Old Testament) as the rally infallible guide or authoritative source for the faith and practice of the church. This brief treatment of the biblical data certainly confirms the Protestant understanding of sola scriptura. As one writer put it, “Hence, even a cursory review of the teachings of Christ and the apostles suggest that, just like the Old Testament, the New Testament is saturated with the teaching of sola scriptura."53
A third issue needing to be addressed is the role and authority of tradition. Historic Protestants do not reject tradition altogether. In fact, tradition plays an important role in the life of the church. Generally speaking, Protestants have seen tradition as occupying a ministerial rather than a magisterial function.54 Tradition has rally a derivative authority (based on its faithfulness to the prior authority of the Scriptures) rather than an intrinsic authority (wherein tradition has an authority equal to Scripture in its own right). Tradition, then, has a regulative function and value, but rally as a particular tradition faithfully reflects the prior authority of the Word of God. John Murray contends,
Tradition ... has the greatest potency and, if of the proper kind, the greatest value. But one thing must be appreciated, namely, that tradition even when it is the best, has no intrinsic authority. Tradition is always subject to the scrutiny and test of Scripture. Its rightness or value is always determined by its conformity to Scripture. This is just saying that it is never proper to appeal to tradition as having an intrinsic authority in matters of faith and morals. Tradition when right and true and good always flows from the Scripture and is simply God’s will as revealed in Scripture coming to expression in thought and life. Tradition when right is always derived; it is never original and primary.55
Protestants have seen the value of creeds and confessions as serving a regulative function, by preserving church order and doctrinal clarity. Indeed, one significant difference between historic Protestants and many of their evangelical descendants is that historic Protestants are bound to both the so-called ecumenical creeds and to a series of Reformation era craifes-sions and catechisms. Whereas a church body has the authority to demand subscription to a particular creed, the creed can never have divine authority since the churcII’s own authority is itself only ecclesiastical and, therefore, derivative. Thus, “a creed or any other ecclesiastical pronouncement derives its whole authority from its consonance with Scripture.”56 So whereas Protestants do not reject tradition or the importance of being “confessional,” they must be careful not to set up a scenario in which tradition challenges the only source of divine authority, the Word of God. For this is the primary error of Roman Catholicism.
A final area of concern regards the perennial question debated by Protestants and Catholics: Which came first, the church or the canon? Is Scott Hahn correct in rejecting Gerstner’s thoroughly Protestant understanding of the closure of the canon? Does the closure of the canon demonstrate that the church has an infallible authority equal to that of Holy Scripture, thereby proving that the Roman church possesses that infallible authority today? Here we must keep clearly in view the fact that the divine authority of inspired Scripture serves as the foundation for the authority of the church, whose own authority is derivative and ecclesiastical. God the Holy Spirit inspired the Scripture, and God the Holy Spirit bears witness to which written books are Scripture.
Thus, Protestants have argued from “the theological principle [of inspiration] to the logical and empirical proofs” of inspiration and canonicity.57 Therefore, while the church is a witness to, and a guardian of, the inspired Word of God, the declaration of canonicity by the church is only a pronouncement about an already existing state of affairs. Through the providential activity of God and through the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit, the church is certainly able to discern and declare which written books are Scripture. But such a declaration by the church does not give to the Scripture any authority it does not already possess by virtue of its prior inspiration.58 As Richard Muller contends, “The question of the canon was a question of authority and, given the prior authority of Scripture, the question had to be answered theologically rather than ecclesially.”59
It is God, the author of Scripture, who bears witness through them of their divine authority. It is to this authority of God that the church bears witness as far as the collection of canonical writings is concerned. It is to this same authority that the church must appeal if she is to have any derivative authority to make such pronouncements. Such an act of bearing witness to Scripture, while in effect, closing the canon and eliminating noninspired writings from inclusion, does not render Scripture something other than what it already is, the written Word of God, the only divine authority for all matters of faith and practice. Thus, Hahn’s contention that the issue of canonicity requires an infallible church and that that infallible church is the Roman church is based solely upon his prior rejection of sola scriptura; it is simply a totally unsubstantiated claim to authority. If the Protestant conception of sola scriptura is indeed true, then the Roman conception of the canon becomes untenable. Simply declaring that the Roman church has such authority does not make it so. Hence, Gerstner’s point stands.
CONCLUSION
So why are evangelicals joining the Catholic Church? In many cases it is because we have not given them good enough reasons to stay. In other cases converts have become convinced that evangelicals simply do not have the answers to Catholic objections. But in either case, unless evangelicals recall and defend their own Protestant heritage and recover the true understanding of what it means to be an evangelical in the first place, they should not expect this trend to reverse itself anytime soon.
Notes
1. Scott Hahn, “The New Converts,” Audio Cassette (San Diego: Catholic Answers).
2. Ibid. According to a recent Newsweek article (August 9, 1993), the latest statistics seem to indicate that membership in mainline Protestant denominations is rapidly declining, while that of evangelical churches is growing significantly. Over the last thirty years, the United Church of Christ, as but cme example of mainline decline, has managed to halve itself numerically. Statistics indicate that mainline Protestant denominations decline as they become more liberal in their theological orientation. Certainly, a number of those leaving mainline Protestant churches move to evangelical churches, which oddly enough are themselves becoming less theological and more “seeker centered,” in many cases downplaying their own Protestant distinc-tives. The vitality and longevity of this “new” evangelicalism is an open question. There are also no exact figures demonstrating how many Roman Catholics have converted to evangelicalism during the same period, though it is popularly contended that the number is significant. The point must be made, however, that, while evangelicalism is growing numerically, apparently there are not as many notable Roman Catholics becoming evangelicals as vice-versa.
3. The departure of much of evangelicalism as a movement from its historic Protestant theological foundation has been spelled out in several significant recent works: Carl F. H. Henry, Twilight of a Great Civilization: The Drift Toward Neo-Paganism (Westchester: Crossway, 1988); Michael S. Horton, Made in America: The Shaping of Modern American Culture (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991); James Davidson Hunter, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1987); Harold Lindsell, The New Paganism: Understanding American Culture and the Role of the Church (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987); and David F. Wells, No Place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerd-mans, 1993).
4. Catholic lay apologist Karl Keating’s lengthy critique of Jimmy Swaggart and others is an example of this. Swaggart represents a crude form of Pelagianism that is rejected not only by Roman Catholics but by all historic Protestant confessions and catechisms as well. See Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), esp. 86-120.
5. One thinks of the infamous Alberto comic book/tract produced under the auspices of Chick Publications.
6. Karl Keating, “Dave Hunt & Karl Keating Debate ‘What Catholics Believe’,” Audio Cassette (Clearwater: Action Sixties Television Ministries, 1993).
7. Thomas Howard, Evangelical Is Not Enough (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1984).
8. Ibid., 1.
9. Ibid., 3.
10. Ibid., 4.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid., 5.
13. See the illuminating discussion on this point in Richard A. Muller, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology, vol. 2 of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 37ff. For a discussion of the development of two distinct understandings of the role of tradition in the medieval church, see Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 53-66.
14. Howard, Evangelical Is Not Enough, 22.
15. Ibid., 29.
16. Ibid., 34.
17. Ibid., 35.
18. Ibid., 34-35.
19. Franky Schaeffer, Sham Pearls for Real Swine (Brentwood, Tenn.: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1990), 6-7.
20. Thomas Howard and John D. Woodbridge, “Why Did Thomas Howard Become a Roman Catholic?” Christianity Today, 17 May 1985, 48.
21. Ibid., 57.
22. Chuck Colson, “Forward,” in Keith A. Fournier, Evangelical Catholics (Nashville: Nelson, 1990), v-vi. Colson is clearly motivated by the need for both traditions to join forces in the face of rising secularism. “When the barbarians are scaling the walls, there is no time for petty quarreling in the camp.” While I for one would shout “Amen” at the thought of historic Protestants and Roman Catholics joining forces to oppose the rising tide of secularism, I simply do not agree with Colson when he describes those things that have historically divided Protestants and Catholics as “petty differences.” I am much more comfortable with Roman Catholics and Protestants acknowledging that they have significant differences that are important to preserve and then declaring a temporary “truce” in the face of a mutual enemy. Is not a major aspect of a secular worid-and-life view the conception that truth can be relativized? Whereas we may need to work with Roman Catholics against our common secularist opponents, if we redefine what it means to be an evangelical in order to do it, we may have already bought the secularist farm!
23. Keith A. Fournier, Evangelical Catholics, 21.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid., 16.
26. Ibid., 11-12.
27. Ibid., 18.
28. Ibid., 17.
29. Ibid., 23.
30. Howard, Evangelical Is Not Enough, 1.
31. Witness the recent attempt by much of the evangelical leadership to get a handle on such doctrinal hemorrhaging, in Kenneth A. Kantzer and Carl F. H. Henry, Evangelical Affirmations (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), esp. 27-38.
32. Scott and Kimberly Hahn, Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993), 48.
33. Gerald Matatics, “The Word of God Is the Supreme Norm, but According to Scripture Itself, God’s Word Is Not Entirely Contained Within Scripture Alone,” Antithesis 1, no. 5 (September/October 1990): 50. For an account of Matatics’s conversion, consult Gerry Matatics, “From Anti-Catholic to Catholic,” Audio Cassette (San Diego: Catholic Answers).
34. Hahn, Rome Sweet Home, 25ff.
35. Ibid., 25-33.
36. Ibid., 30. Evangelical leaders such as Clark Rinnock support Hahn’s contention and also seek to shift the evangelical movement away from its historic Protestant roots. See, for example, Clark Pinnock, “The New Model Explained,” in The Megashift Conference, Audio Cassette Series (Anaheim: Christians United for Reformation, 1991).
37. See, for example, Henry Denzinger, “Systematic Index,” in The Sources of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis: Herder, 1957), [26]; for a contemporary statement, see John A. Hardon, The Catholic Catechism (New York: Image, 1981), 191-93.
38. Hahn, Rome Sweet Home, 31.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid., 32.
41. Hahn does not spell out whether or not his understanding of the Eucharist was Roman. The historic Reformed and Lutheran traditions have doctrines of a “real” presence that are quite different from the Roman dogma of transubstantiation.
42. Hahn, Rome Sweet Home, 52.
43. Ibid., 70-76. Hahn mentions that Gerstner asserted that tradition, popes, and ecumenical councils all taught contrary to Scripture on numerous occasions. This argument is simply dismissed by Hahn without dealing with the questions raised by an errant “infallible” tradition because of Hahn’s contention that the churcII’s closure of the canon must render the church infallible (pp. 74-75).
44. For an excellent discussion of the contemporary issues surrounding the doctrine of justification and sola fide, see D. A. Carson, ed., Right With God: Justification and the Bible in the Modern World (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992).
45. Take for example, John Calvin’s examination of the “Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, with the Antidote,” in Selected Works of John Calvin, vol. 3, ed. Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983); Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 1, trans. Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia, 1971); and Francis Turretin, Institutes ofElenctic Theology, trans. George Mus-grave Giger., ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: Presb. & Ref., 1992), esp. 1:55-167. For an important discussion of the development of the Reformed doctrine of Scripture during this period, see Muller, Holy Scripture.
46. Hahn, Rome Sweet Home, 51-55. Also, Gerry Matatics, “The Bible and the Catholic Church,” Audio Cassette (San Diego: Catholic Answers).
47. Muller, Holy Scripture, 367.
48. Ibid., 373.
49. Ibid., 366.
50. Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, vol. 42 of Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1990), 152. Gerry Matatics argues that 1 Timothy 3:15 throws a different light on this text, since Paul tells us that the church, rather than the Word of God, is the “pillar and foundation of the truth.” This means, according to Matatics, that the church (specifically the Roman church) is the foundation of the truth (cf. Gerry Matatics, “The Bible and the Catholic Church”). However, in his outstanding com-mentary (A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981], 88), J. N. D. Kelly writes, "We should note (a) that buttress is probably a more accurate rendering of the Greek hedraioma (nowhere else found) than ‘foundation' or ‘ground' (AV), and (b) that the local church is described as a pillar, etc., not ‘the pillar, etc.', because there are many local churches throughout the world performing this role." Clearly, then, the passage does not support Matatics' contention.
51. Muller, Holy Scripture, 377.
52. John W. Wenham, “Christ’s View of Scripture,” in Norman Geisler, ed., Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 15.
53. Douglas Jones, “Scripture Teaches That the Word of God is the Supreme Norm,” Antithesis 1, no. 5 (September/October 1990), 48.
54. Turretin, Institutes ofElenctic Theology, 90.
55. John Murray, “Tradition: Romish and Protestant,” in Studies in Theology, vol. 4 of Collected Writings of John Murray (Carlilse: Banner of Truth, 1982), 271.
56. Ibid., 272.
57. Muller, Holy Scripture, 399.
58. Turretin, Institutes ofElenctic Theology, 92.
59. Muller, Holy Scripture, 398.