Thread: Are Any Scholarly Catholics Becoming Protestant These Days?

We hear all the time about the movement of Protestants, especially some in scholarly circles (Kreeft and Hahn come to mind), converting to Catholicism and then becoming Catholic apologists.

Has there been any movement in the other direction recently, of Catholic scholars (or even just clergy) becoming Protestant and then writing in defense of their change?

That's something I always wondered myself

It may not exactly fit the criteria, but it is worth listening to:
SermonAudio.com - Testimony of Pastor Tim Williams

We have a former Roman Catholic, who was preparing at one point to go to school and become a priest, getting ready to join our church.

I know that's not the same, but hopefully it's an encouragement!

Who was the former RC priest who has the series on Calvinism available on the web? How long ago did he leave the RCC?

And wasn't Brian Schwertly a former RC?

I think it is berean beacon hosted by Richard Bennett, I just went to his site it's looks nice now.

Yep, Richard Bennett. That's it. Thanks!

Yes, Brian Schwertley was formerly RCC

Thanks for these - any others that come to mind?

Hahn is no scholar, by the way. He doesn't know the first thing about Reformed theology. He left something he didn't even understand.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Hahn is no scholar, by the way. He doesn't know the first thing about Reformed theology. He left something he didn't even understand.

This is just a neutral interjection, but isn't this always the charge leveled against people who change? some mixture of ignorance, confusion, or deception? If I'm right that he has a degree from a well-known Reformed seminary, I find it hard to believe that he's completely ignorant. What about Kreeft? He seems to be fairly educated (both "secularly" and religiously, having been brought up Dutch Calvinist and done his undergrad at Calvin) and teaches philosophy at a name-brand university.

I'm asking you this question specifically because you were so involved with the FV controversy, where it seems to be the problem that no one understands anything (you don't understand the Reformed confessions, no you don't understand history or theology, etc. etc.).

It just seems a little too clean-cut to me to explain it all away by asserting the opposition's complete ignorance.

Originally Posted by Davidius

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Hahn is no scholar, by the way. He doesn't know the first thing about Reformed theology. He left something he didn't even understand.

This is just a neutral interjection, but isn't this always the charge leveled against people who change? some mixture of ignorance, confusion, or deception? If I'm right that he has a degree from a well-known Reformed seminary, I find it hard to believe that he's completely ignorant. What about Kreeft? He seems to be fairly educated (both "secularly" and religiously, having been brought up Dutch Calvinist and done his undergrad at Calvin) and teaches philosophy at a name-brand university.

I'm asking you this question specifically because you were so involved with the FV controversy, where it seems to be the problem that no one understands anything (you don't understand the Reformed confessions, no you don't understand history or theology, etc. etc.).

Do you really think that these men would come around if they knew a different set of propositions, or do you also think that they are willfully deceived?

I'm basing these observations off of reading I did in Sproul and Gerstner, who relate their experience in talking extensively to Hahn before he apostatized. That was the conclusion they reached was that even though Hahn was seminary trained, he did not know what the Reformed faith was. Hahn apparently brought up all the old canards that Roman Catholics have been bringing up for centuries now, apparently unaware that all of them have been answered many times by brilliant men.

Add to this the fact that Hahn, who is not a believer, could not even grasp the smallest truth of our faith in a meaningful or helpful way (whereas the least Christian would be able to, by the Spirit). The unregenerate heart is too sullied by sin to understand the faith we adhere to. It must be illumined by the Spirit of the Lord.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Originally Posted by Davidius

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Hahn is no scholar, by the way. He doesn't know the first thing about Reformed theology. He left something he didn't even understand.

This is just a neutral interjection, but isn't this always the charge leveled against people who change? some mixture of ignorance, confusion, or deception? If I'm right that he has a degree from a well-known Reformed seminary, I find it hard to believe that he's completely ignorant. What about Kreeft? He seems to be fairly educated (both "secularly" and religiously, having been brought up Dutch Calvinist and done his undergrad at Calvin) and teaches philosophy at a name-brand university.

I'm asking you this question specifically because you were so involved with the FV controversy, where it seems to be the problem that no one understands anything (you don't understand the Reformed confessions, no you don't understand history or theology, etc. etc.).

Do you really think that these men would come around if they knew a different set of propositions, or do you also think that they are willfully deceived?

I'm basing these observations off of reading I did in Sproul and Gerstner, who relate their experience in talking extensively to Hahn before he apostatized. That was the conclusion they reached was that even though Hahn was seminary trained, he did not know what the Reformed faith was. Hahn apparently brought up all the old canards that Roman Catholics have been bringing up for centuries now, apparently unaware that all of them have been answered many times by brilliant men.

I would agree that ignorance plays a part but isn't apostasy primarily a heart issue or is the ignorance part of a heart issue? Maybe the reason Hahn didn't understand the Reformed answers to the Catholic errors is because he didn't want to and his heart had already been given up to embrace the deception. That's why I think it is extremely important that our Reformed Theology avoid a hyper-intellectual tone and that we put some real Passion and Heart behind what we believe.

Originally Posted by whitway

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Originally Posted by Davidius

This is just a neutral interjection, but isn't this always the charge leveled against people who change? some mixture of ignorance, confusion, or deception? If I'm right that he has a degree from a well-known Reformed seminary, I find it hard to believe that he's completely ignorant. What about Kreeft? He seems to be fairly educated (both "secularly" and religiously, having been brought up Dutch Calvinist and done his undergrad at Calvin) and teaches philosophy at a name-brand university.

I'm asking you this question specifically because you were so involved with the FV controversy, where it seems to be the problem that no one understands anything (you don't understand the Reformed confessions, no you don't understand history or theology, etc. etc.).

Do you really think that these men would come around if they knew a different set of propositions, or do you also think that they are willfully deceived?

I'm basing these observations off of reading I did in Sproul and Gerstner, who relate their experience in talking extensively to Hahn before he apostatized. That was the conclusion they reached was that even though Hahn was seminary trained, he did not know what the Reformed faith was. Hahn apparently brought up all the old canards that Roman Catholics have been bringing up for centuries now, apparently unaware that all of them have been answered many times by brilliant men.

I would agree that ignorance plays a part but isn't apostasy primarily a heart issue or is the ignorance part of a heart issue? Maybe the reason Hahn didn't understand the Reformed answers to the Catholic errors is because he didn't want to and his heart had already been given up to embrace the deception. That's why I think it is extremely important that our Reformed Theology avoid a hyper-intellectual tone and that we put some real Passion and Heart behind what we believe.

Um, are you asserting that somehow the passion/heart changes the heart when the intellectual argument fails?

CT

-----Added 3/14/2009 at 03:58:48 EST-----

Originally Posted by Davidius

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Hahn is no scholar, by the way. He doesn't know the first thing about Reformed theology. He left something he didn't even understand.

This is just a neutral interjection, but isn't this always the charge leveled against people who change? some mixture of ignorance, confusion, or deception? If I'm right that he has a degree from a well-known Reformed seminary, I find it hard to believe that he's completely ignorant. What about Kreeft? He seems to be fairly educated (both "secularly" and religiously, having been brought up Dutch Calvinist and done his undergrad at Calvin) and teaches philosophy at a name-brand university.

I'm asking you this question specifically because you were so involved with the FV controversy, where it seems to be the problem that no one understands anything (you don't understand the Reformed confessions, no you don't understand history or theology, etc. etc.).

It just seems a little too clean-cut to me to explain it all away by asserting the opposition's complete ignorance.

But are there really that many options available to explain coming to different conclusions on a subject?

1)Someone is ignorant of some fact that the other side knows
2)One side is in willful rebellion against the truth
3)Or there is no truth to come to in the first place

CT

No I am asserting that regardless of the intellectual argument when it comes to Faith it is typically the Heart which has already been deceived which in turn causes one to embrace an error. So in this case it would be #2 rebellion.

In my young adult years, in my flight from the relativism of liberal Protestantism, not finding fundamentalism a viable option, ignorant of true reformed theology and conservative reformed denominations, and finding some fellowship among the Roman Charismatics of the early 70's, I turned to the Roman Church as seeming to hold a definitive theology and morality. I formally became a Roman Catholic for about three years, attended one of their graduate schools, and considered joining one of their religious orders and seeking ordination.

God in his grace providentially removed me from those circumstances and introduced me to Calvin’s Institutes. After a brief sojourn among evangelical Anglicans and moderate Presbyterians, I discovered all Presbyterians were not liberal lesbians denying the Bible. Since then, I’ve been discovering the magnificent biblical truths of God’s sovereign grace and the comprehensive understanding of this revelation to be found in the Puritans and heirs of Westminster.

Because of my former ignorance, I realize there are many among the Romanists, Modernists, Fundamentalists, Arminians, and Neo-Evangelical who have no idea of what precious treasure we have to share. God has granted me opportunity to witness to more than one Roman Catholic the dominant flaws of their system having to do with authority and grace, which are common to most groups promoting a false gospel.

Several years ago, didn't Eric Svendsen have a former Jesuit working for NTRM?

For that matter, isn't Eric Svendsen a former RC?

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

For that matter, isn't Eric Svendsen a former RC?

Yes. I think he is.

This isn't related to Svendsen but when priests leave the priesthood, morally bite the dust, or have their faculties removed they usually are gone from the RC all together. Unless they are saved unto something they are often basket cases completely. I've been acquanted with a couple on the verge, it isn't pretty. For a committed Catholic to leave the RC is an emotionally draining experience, for a priest it is infinitely more so. So going from the RC cloth to reformed scholar is not going to be overnight thing or easy to clock in terms of numbers.

-----Added 3/14/2009 at 07:11:31 EST-----

Originally Posted by Glenn Ferrell

In my young adult years, in my flight from the relativism of liberal Protestantism, not finding fundamentalism a viable option, ignorant of true reformed theology and conservative reformed denominations, and finding some fellowship among the Roman Charismatics of the early 70's, I turned to the Roman Church as seeming to hold a definitive theology and morality. I formally became a Roman Catholic for about three years, attended one of their graduate schools, and considered joining one of their religious orders and seeking ordination.

God in his grace providentially removed me from those circumstances and introduced me to Calvin’s Institutes. After a brief sojourn among evangelical Anglicans and moderate Presbyterians, I discovered all Presbyterians were not liberal lesbians denying the Bible. Since then, I’ve been discovering the magnificent biblical truths of God’s sovereign grace and the comprehensive understanding of this revelation to be found in the Puritans and heirs of Westminster.

Because of my former ignorance, I realize there are many among the Romanists, Modernists, Fundamentalists, Arminians, and Neo-Evangelical who have no idea of what precious treasure we have to share. God has granted me opportunity to witness to more than one Roman Catholic the dominant flaws of their system having to do with authority and grace, which are common to most groups promoting a false gospel.

I thought about becoming a priest or religious as a catholic. Thanks be to God that never happend.