|
"We believe that modern
evangelicalism has little to say to Roman Catholicism,
since it agrees with Rome on some of the most basic
issues of the Gospel!
So I wrote in my first book, The Fatal Flaw
(p. 22), and so I believe. But what is more, it seems that Roman
Catholic apologists have recognized the same fact. Reformed
writers and apologists are their greatest foes, and hence it
seems they wish to focus their attention upon making as many
converts of Reformed churches as they possibly can.
I was not surprised, then, upon receiving a
copy of Surprised by Truth, a new work edited by the
former Vice President of Catholic Answers, now director of
publisher of Envoy Magazine, Patrick Madrid (subtitled
"11 Converts Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons for
Becoming Catholic"), to see that a number of these converts
claimed to have once been "Reformed" in one way or
another. Steve Wood I knew—I had listened to him give his
"testimony" at a church in El Cajon right after
debating Dr. Mitchell Pacwa in January of 1991. And James Akin
claimed to have some "Reformed" background, having been
a member of a Presbyterian Church.1
These two individuals aside, I was immediately drawn to the
stories of Robert Sungenis and Julie Swenson, which are found
back-to-back on pages 101-160. I had encountered Mr. Sungenis
just a few days before in the religion forum of America
Online, a national computer service. He had identified
himself as a Catholic apologist, and very quickly raised the
possibility of debating me on various topics. Mrs. Swenson’s
story follows immediately after Mr. Sungenis’, and it caught
my attention due to the prevalence of the term
"Calvinist" in its text.
Over the past few years I have corresponded
with, or met, or debated, numerous "converts" to
Catholicism. Gerry Matatics was the first. He, too, claimed to
have been staunchly Reformed at one point. I have met Scott Hahn,
who makes the same claim. Steve Wood was a Presbyterian, as was
James Akin. And now I was reading the stories of Sungenis and
Swenson. Is there something to what they have to say? There
certainly are consistencies, but I should start by giving the
reader some idea of what these folks say about their own reasons
for conversion.
Church-Hopping Bob
Bob Sungenis was a church-hopper. His own words
make this very, very plain:
Being true to the name
"Protestant," I eventually left one denomination
after another, due to disagreements in doctrine (p. 109).
. . . which forced me to leave the
institution after only one year (p. 110).
Not being totally convinced that the
militant Calvinistic theology espoused at Westminster was
correct, I continued to find myself in theological debates
with professors and fellow students (p. 111).
After two years of enjoyable and
challenging work at Family Radio, something happened that
shattered my life-long dream of being a Bible teacher:
another doctrinal controversy (p. 112).
We were in and out of five different
Presbyterian churches within the next five years, each move
being due to disagreements on the pastor’s
interpretation of the Bible (p. 113).
Still searching for truth, we entered a
small, vibrant denomination, the Boston Crossroads Movement
of the Church of Christ (p. 114).
Once again I found myself having to leave
another church over doctrinal controversy (p. 115).
Brigitte and I were members of his church
for only two months (p. 115).
It’s hard to keep track of how many
different churches Bob Sungenis was a member of, but this is
certain: he wasn’t a member of any one particular church for
very long. Why is this important? Church-hopping is a very clear
sign of spiritual immaturity, as any pastor knows. Those who
cannot overlook even the slightest differences of opinion within
the fellowship will not be long for any one church. It takes
maturity and experience to be able to recognize that pastors are
people, too, and they may well have some quirks or beliefs you
don’t share. There’s something in the Bible about love
covering a multitude of sins.
The reason for Mr. Sungenis’ constant
movement may be revealed in his story as well. Immediately after
concluding that "there was absolutely no Scriptural warrant
for the Protestant claim that the Bible is the sole infallible
guide for Christian doctrine and practice," he says,
In many Protestant circles I was known
– to my great private satisfaction – as "Bible
Bob." When someone had a doctrinal question or wanted to
find something in the Bible, I usually had the answer (p.
104).
He speaks of making the Scripture his
"expertise" (p. 104), speaks of his "self-guided
study of the Bible" making him a "something of a
scriptural know-it-all" resulting in "smugness" on
his part (p. 109). Each of his doctrinal disagreements, it seems,
stemmed from his belief that he was an expert on the Bible, the
final authority, one might say. One looks in vain for any mention
of a "teachable spirit," or any willingness to consider
that differing viewpoints on non-essential beliefs can co-exist
in peace.
Mr. Sungenis graduated from Westminster
Theological Seminary, a true "bastion" of Reformed
thought. Yet, we are told that he not only joined, but was being
"groomed for leadership," in the Boston Church of
Christ, a movement identified by most as a cult! How one can jump
from one end of the theological spectrum (Reformed) into the
Boston Movement in one fell swoop is difficult to understand.
Such actions, however, demonstrate that Mr. Sungenis, far from
being a grounded, well-instructed Reformed believer, was, in
fact, ripe for the call of an authoritarian system like Rome.
"I Was an Anti-Catholic!"
Many of those who convert to Rome wish to be
viewed in a "Pauline" way. That is, they wish to
project a Damascus-road type experience, and they foster this
image by insisting that they were once ardent
"anti-Catholics" before their "enlightenment"
to the truth. Right before Gerry Matatics parted company with Catholic
Answers (eventually becoming a Traditionalist) he was
featured on the inside front cover of an issue of This Rock
magazine under at banner that said, "I’m the guy who
lured your family and friends out of the Church." Of course,
a tape entitled "From Anti-Catholic to Catholic: One
Protestant Minister’s Pilgrimage" was then offered for
a small donation. I asked Mr. Matatics about what books he had
written against Catholicism. He hadn’t. I asked him what
tracts he had written. He hadn’t. I asked him what debates
he had engaged in. He hadn’t. One would think there are
thousands of "anti-Catholic" Protestant apologists
swarming over the face of the United States, given how many have
"converted." Bob Sungenis is no exception. He describes
himself as a "militantly anti-Catholic Evangelical" (p.
103), one who "developed a robust hatred for
Catholicism" (p. 108). He writes of himself,
I abandoned the Catholic Church, and for
the next seventeen years, as a staunch Evangelical
Protestant, I fancied myself (as so many Protestants do) a
David, courageously defying the towering Catholic Goliath (p.
108).
No offense to Mr. Sungenis, but one has to
wonder about such statements. I certainly do know of some people
who think of themselves as David in the fight against Goliath,
but such folks are normally not educated, and are rarely even
aware of the issues surrounding the Protestant/Catholic debate.
But Mr. Sungenis is a graduate of Westminster Seminary, no mean
institution. And he thought of himself in this way? Despite two
published books on the topic, over a dozen scholarly debates, and
a growing list of "shots" to be found in Catholic
magazines and books, I do not view myself as a David fighting
Goliath. One does not last long in the ministry if one does not
have a realistic view of things. God places people in positions
to minister to others, and He keeps them there as long as He
wishes. Nobody is irreplaceable. If Mr. Sungenis thought himself
a David, he should certainly have known the issues a whole lot
better than he did. David well knew Goliath’s strengths, but
Mr. Sungenis gives no evidence of ever having made an even
cursory study of the apologetic works of Rome. Indeed, this is
another common element of these "converts" — all
admit to having been ignorant both of Catholic doctrine and of
Protestant responses to Roman claims. If they were
"anti-Catholic," it was out of ignorance, both
positively of their own faith, and negatively of the Roman
system.
Nothing New Under the Sun
At times it is difficult to remember that one
is reading Mr. Sungenis’ words rather than those of the
editor, Patrick Madrid. The arguments are, at times, almost
verbatim from the pages of This Rock magazine. For
example, when I debated Madrid in San Diego on the doctrine of sola
scriptura he said to the audience at one point,
Folks, Mr. White, Mr. White, Mr. White is a
thief. Mr. White, in the context of this debate
tonight, he has stolen a tradition from the Church, from the
Catholic Church, which many Councils, Rome, Hippo, Carthage,
Carthage again, the Pope, Pope Damasus, these were in the
late 4th century, the Church officially defined
what the canon of Scripture was.
And we read from Mr.
Sungenis,
The truth is, Protestants are living off
the borrowed capital of the Catholic Church, for it was the
Catholic Church that infallibly recognized, under the divine
guidance of the Holy Spirit, the canon of Scripture.2
There are many comments in Mr. Sungenis’
article that cry out for comment, but I will limit myself to the
following:
Although still firmly entrenched in the
smugness of my Protestant anti-Catholicism, I was dejected
and frustrated by the experience of "church
hopping" for so many years. Evangelicalism had turned
out to be merely a mirage of the shining theological Camelot
I had envisioned it to be all those years ago when I became
"born again" (p. 117).
I note that we are being led to believe that
"church hopping" is normal, and is, in fact, part and
parcel of Protestant theology. Yet, is it? Surely there are many
"church-hoppers." Yet, there are also literally
millions of "nominal Catholics" who are utterly unaware
of the most basic elements of Roman doctrine as well, and who
darken the door of a Roman Catholic Church but once or twice a
year. Does that mean that this kind of surface-level Catholicism
is part and parcel of the system, or is it an aberration of the
system, something that the system decries, and yet it still
exists? Mr. Sungenis may well be confusing his own inability to
"settle down" and be patient with God’s providence
with some kind of problem in not embracing an extra-Scriptural
ultimate authority, specifically, the authority of Rome.
Next, we note Mr. Sungenis’ words,
Since only an entity with the ability to
observe and correctly interpret information can act as an
authority, I saw that the Bible, though it contains
God-breathed revelation, cannot act as a final
"authority," since it is dependent on thinking
personalities to observe what it says and, more importantly,
interpret what it means (p. 118).
This is an important argument which is used
with great frequency by Roman apologists. We first note that it
is self-defeating, however. What does Rome offer us in place of
the Scripture as the final authority? Scripture plus their
tradition. And yet, once the Teaching Magisterium of the Roman
Church speaks, what happens next? Are we not left to interpret
what has been said? And do we not see Roman Catholics bitterly
fighting with each other over the interpretation of those very
traditions? I have observed the most heated debates over the
meaning of such things as Humanae Vitae or this section or
that from Vatican II. All Rome has done is move the question back
one step: you still have fallible human beings interpreting
allegedly infallible pronouncements, whether those are to be
found in Scripture, or in the added Roman documents. Nothing has
been accomplished by the addition of this next level of
authority.
But beyond this we note that Rome has to attack
the nature of Scripture to maintain her claims. Is God so
restricted that what He speaks is limited in relevance and
ability to a particular time and place? The writer to the Hebrews
said that the Word of God is "living and active and sharper
than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of
soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the
thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12, NASB).
The Scriptures say they are "able"3 to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Perhaps the Scriptures are more than Mr. Sungenis has been lead
to believe?
Finally, we read these words:
My seventeen-year experience with
Protestant biblical scholars had made one thing very clear to
me: Sola scriptura is a euphemism for "sola
ego." What I mean is that every Protestant has his own
interpretation of what Scripture says and, of course, he
believes that his interpretation is superior to everyone
else’s (p. 119).
What makes this statement so ironic is that it
seems Mr. Sungenis does not realize that he is describing himself
in these words. A self-professed "church-hopper" who
could not find a way to settle down and take instruction from the
pastor of his church, and who confesses the fact that he viewed
himself as a "Scriptural know-it-all," is hardly in a
position to define, and then reject, the entire doctrine of sola
scriptura on the basis of his own experience! Obviously the
twisted version of sola scriptura4 that Mr. Sungenis
rejected was based more upon his own unwillingness to submit to
proper Scriptural authority and show an ability to live in peace
with all men than it is upon the historic statements of the
doctrine itself.
The Calvinist’s Calvinist
Julie Swenson describes herself in a number of
ways in her essay in Surprised by Truth. Unfortunately,
nearly all of them demonstrate that again we do not have here an
example of a rooted, grounded Calvinist becoming a Roman
Catholic. Instead, we again find a sad lack of accuracy in
describing the doctrines of the system that has been abandoned in
favor of the ultimate authority of Rome. Mrs. Swenson describes
herself as "a complacent, staunchly anti-Catholic, reformed
Calvinist" (p. 135); she asserts that when she became
Reformed she "embraced John Calvin’s system of theology
with gusto and thought of myself Reformed with a capital
‘R’ " (p. 137). Unlike Gerry Matatics and Bob Sungenis, Mrs. Swenson was not a "church-hopper," at
least not until she began her journey to Rome (which involved a
brief stop at Canterbury). But did she have a solid grasp of the
theology she claims to have embraced with "gusto"? Does
she accurately represent her former beliefs in her essay?
The Pillar and Foundation
Mrs. Swenson describes an incident that may
well help us to understand her journey to Rome right at the
beginning of her essay. She speaks of encountering the words of 1
Timothy 3:15, which describes the Church as the "pillar and
foundation of the truth," and how this verse
"threatened my secure, independent spirit." She says
that "I was my own authority and determined truth using
Scripture as my sole guide" (p. 138). Yet, if she was such
the child of Calvin, why, we must ask, would this passage be
unknown to her? Was her study of the New Testament so shallow as
to have missed this vital passage? And if, as she claims, she had
embraced with "gusto" the teachings of John Calvin, how
had she managed to avoid reading his main work, The Institutes
of the Christian Religion, which comments on this passage a
number of times? We read in Book IV, Chapter 8, section 12,
The other passages, as we have elsewhere
seen, has an entirely different meaning from what they
pretend. For when Paul has instructed Timothy and trained him
for the true office of bishop, he says that he has done so
that he may know how to behave in the church. And, that he
may with greater piety and zeal bend to this task, Paul adds
that the church itself is "the pillar and foundation of
truth" [1 Timothy 3:15]. But what else do these words
mean than that God’s truth is preserved in the church,
that is, by the ministry of preaching? Or, as he elsewhere
teaches, "Christ gave… apostles, pastors, and
teachers" [Ephesians 4:11], "that . . . we may no
longer . . . be tossed about by every wind of doctrine, or be
deluded by men" [v. 14 p.]. Rather, illumined "by
the true knowledge of the Son of God, we should meet together
in oneness of faith" [ v. 13 p.]. Truth, therefore, is
not extinguished in the world, but remains safe, because it
has the church as its faithful custodian, by whose work and
ministry it is sustained. And if this custody rests in the
prophetic and apostolic ministry, it follows that this
safekeeping of the truth wholly depends on whether the Word
of the Lord is faithfully kept and preserved in its purity.
And from whence did Mrs. Swenson derive this
idea that the Church is not used of God to teach, instruct,
admonish, and correct? This is a common straw man
argument, one that a Reformed person with a capital "R"
would never embrace.
This helps us to understand the many other
amazing statements that we encounter in this article. The
fullness of the Reformed understanding of justification and
sanctification is passed over in favor of the "legal
fiction" (pp. 140, 156) perspective, ignoring the fact that
it is part and parcel of Reformed theology to insist that those
who are justified will be sanctified, and that there is no
means of separating the two, while it is vital to
differentiate between them. Mrs. Swenson relates a personal
instance where, due to physical suffering and depression,
"for the first time in my life, reading Scripture was
insufficient to get out of this spiritual desert" (p. 141).
While all believers have experienced times when the Lord, it
seemed, had hidden His face, it is instructive to note that she
relates this experience after saying, "I had been raised to
believe that the written Word of God alone was my sure guide to
salvation." How does her experience of not finding solace in
her depression relate to the Bible being an insufficient guide to
salvation? Obviously this is important in her thinking, but
surely we can see that this is hardly how one is to determine
issues of eternal importance.
There are many other items that should be
addressed but space precludes a full review. We simply note in
passing her statement that a "fundamentalist scheme of
holiness" leads one to avoid cultivating the gifts of God in
one’s life (rather, it leads one to cultivate said gifts to
the glory of God); her statement that her idea of worship, as a
Protestant, amounted to reading about him in Scripture (hearing
the living Word preached is an encounter with God), singing about
him in church (what happened to singing to Him in
church?), and listening to others preach about him.5 And most amazingly, this one who claims to have been
Reformed with a capital "R" can write,
This realization of the profound role of
suffering in the life of a Christian was something about
which I knew little. As a secure, "don’t worry, I
have it all worked out" Calvinist, I never felt the need
to embrace suffering. Sure, I would put up with it as best I
could when it happened to come my way, but that was mere
toleration of suffering, a sort of Christian stoicism. I
never felt I had to do anything to persevere toward final
salvation (p. 143).
I can only assume, then, that Mrs. Swenson
never read John Calvin, who spoke much of sufferings, trials, and
tribulations (he was a living example of experiencing such
things), nor any of the Puritans who dwelt upon such topics in
fullness. Nor, I can only surmise, did she ever bother to note
Calvin’s denial of the charge of "stoicism," (Institutes,
Book II, Chapter 8, sections 8-9) and the many and
constant calls in nearly all Reformed writings to perseverance in
salvation. As many Roman Catholics say they cannot recognize some
of the representations made of Rome by former Roman Catholics,
this Reformed person has to wonder where Mrs. Swenson got her
unique, though sadly inaccurate, view of Reformed beliefs.
The Common Denominator
One might suggest many commonalities between
the stories of Bob Sungenis and Julie Swenson. But the one that
strikes me most is this: aside from the constant repetition of
the same tired arguments for Roman supremacy (i.e., a denial of
the sufficiency of Scripture, the "fractured" nature of
Protestantism in light of the alleged unity of Rome, etc.), we do
not hear our converts to Rome speaking of how they managed to
abandon the life-changing realization of their utter sinfulness
and their dependence en toto upon Christ for all of
salvation. I am speaking of that self-shattering moment when we
realize we are undone before God, helpless to save ourselves, in
need of a perfect Substitute, a perfect Savior. Those who were
once truly Reformed know of what I speak. Those who were
not cannot understand what I am referring to. One does not easily
deny justification by faith and embrace concepts such as
purgatory, indulgences, the treasury of merit, and the sacrifice
of the Mass, when one has truly dwelt upon what it means to be
have peace with God because of the work of another, the work of
Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1-2). Those who have knelt at the foot of
the cross in utter despair of self, works, and merit, and have
seen, by God’s grace, the perfection of the work of the
Savior in their behalf, cannot quickly or easily embrace a system
that makes salvation a joint venture between God and man.
Mr. Sungenis and Mrs. Swenson have made their
homes in Rome. But one thing is certain: they had never built a
home upon a firm foundation in Geneva. Anyone with title to a
home there knows that at the top one reads, Sola Scriptura,
Sola Fide, Soli Deo Gloria.
ENDNOTES:
1. I did not realize, in Mr. Akin’s case, that he
had gone directly from being a devotee of Gene Scott, the wacko tele-evangelist, to joining the Presbyterian Church!
2. It hardly seems a coincidence
that this statement comes on the page immediately following a
footnote that is nothing less than an advertisement for the tapes
of my debate with Madrid, introduced by, "A glaring example
of the utter absence of biblical evidence for sola scriptura
and of the inability of Protestant apologists to deal with the
epistemological problem of the canon as it relates to sola
scriptura, is seen in a debate on sola scriptura
between Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid and Fundamentalist
apologist James White." Mr. Sungenis (if he even wrote the
blurb—remember, the book is edited by Patrick Madrid) fails
to note that the topic of the canon did not come up until a point
in the debate that did not allow for even a cursory discussion of
the topic. I have invited Roman Catholic apologists to debate the
idea that "oral tradition" is in fact inspired. So far,
none have taken up that challenge, including Mr. Madrid. He has
publicly said that he does not feel oral tradition is theopneustos
(qeovpneustoj). Interestingly, Mr. Sungenis directs his readers to The
Catholic Controversy¸ which gives the arguments of St.
Francis de Sales. This work, however, plainly asserts the
inspiration of the oral traditions. The inconsistency is
striking. 3. The Greek is striking. The term is kritikos (kritikovj), an
adjective which means "able to discern or judge." It is
the term from which we derive our word, "critic." 4.
Mr. Sungenis and Mr. Madrid both continue to attack a
misrepresentation of the doctrine of sola scriptura rather
than the actual doctrine. I have engaged both on the topic on America
Online and have demonstrated this fact over and over again.
See the documentation
provided elsewhere on this site. 5.
I note with sad irony that Roman Catholics speak often of
Christ’s presence with them in the Mass through
transubstantiation, yet Paul said that the Lord Jesus came to
believers, not through the Mass, but through the person of the Kerux,
the preacher, who speaks the words of Christ to the people of
Christ (Ephesians 2:17). And what is the one thing that has been
minimized in Roman worship so as to make room for the Mass? The
preaching of the Word.
|
