Luis Dizon has reverted to Catholicism:
Luis was an up-n-coming evangelical apologist with a knack for foreign languages.
Regarding the contemporary landscape, there aren't any converts to Catholicism. Rather, there are converts to multiple choice Catholicisms. They convert to Thomism. Or they convert to an idealized abstraction. Or they convert to a museum piece. Then you have the modernist Catholicism of Pope Francis, most of the hierarchy, most of the Bible scholars.
I wonder if Luis will still be Catholic 10-15-20 years from now if his denomination continues to liberalize. Does he have a fallback?
By contrast, Protestant converts to Catholicism tend to come from the best and the brightest–pastors, professional theologians, and graduates from top Protestant seminaries such as Westminster Theological Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary, Geneva College, and (in my case) Wycliffe College.
i) Even assuming that these are the best and the brightest, we have to examine the arguments. Aren't conversion stories to Catholicism pretty much interchangeable? The same canned arguments for Catholicism. The same canned arguments against the Protestant faith. Like a form letter.
ii) To my knowledge, Reformed seminaries don't generally have courses on how to respond to Catholic apologetics.
iii) What I find striking is the reverse situation. In my experience, the best and brightest minds in modern Catholicism don't make a case for Catholicism. They don't become Catholic apologists, or write extensively in defense of Catholicism. That task is demoted to the less and the lightest.
For instance, Peter Geach and Elizabeth Anscombe were two of the very brightest converts, but I don't think either one ever made a sustained case for Roman Catholicism. Alexander Pruss is arguably the smartest Catholic philosopher of his generation, but while he sometimes toys with ingenuous defenses of Transubstantion, I haven't seen him defend Catholicism in general. Bas van Fraassen is a brilliant philosopher of science who takes some inept potshots at sola Scriptura in one of his books, but that's about it. Copleston debated Ayer and Russell on God's existence, but despite his prolific outlook I don't recall his writing a book or essay in defense of Roman Catholicism. Indeed, towards the end of his life he was quite skeptical.
Has Michael Dummett or Nicholas Rescher made a case for Roman Catholicism?
Cardinal Dulles was the product of a nominal Protestant upbringing. The retro Catholicism he converted to is different from post-Vatican II Catholicism, and he documents the backpedaling in Catholic theology.
While not in the same league as Pruss, Ed Feser is a very smart convert. But to my knowledge, Feser spends most of his time defending Thomism. Moreover, he's currently at war with his adopted denomination over the death penalty.
Karl Rahner was the great Catholic theologian of the 20C. A superior mind. But he takes the truth of Catholicism for granted. His output is devoted to revising Catholicism in response to the challenges of modernity.
The brightest Catholic Bible scholars like Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, John Meier, and John Collins subvert traditional Catholic positions.
iv) Newman is an exception, but an ironic exception. Newman didn't really convert to Roman Catholicism. Rather, Newman converted (or subverted) Roman Catholicism to himself. He redefined tradition to bend Catholicism to his own predilections. He changed the thing he converted to, so that Newman's Catholicism is Newman's face in the mirror.
v) Here's another reverse situation. Alvin Plantinga and Peter van Inwagen are certainly two of the best and the brightest. They have precious few intellectual rivals. Plantinga taught at Notre Dame from 1982-2010 while Inwagen has been there since 1995. Don't you suppose they've heard all the best arguments for Catholicism from their Catholic colleagues and gifted students? Yet that hasn't swayed them to become Roman Catholic.
In fact, my intention from here on out is to continue to focus my efforts on combating and converting the adherents of these non-Christian ideologies and religions.
Given the creeping universalism in the Catholic hierarchy, what's the point? Vatican II already implied that you don't even have to be Christian, much less Catholic, to be saved. If these are different paths to the same God, why convert them to your pathway?
In one of the facebook groups we are both in, I posted the following. I don't know if he'll have the time to read it, but it comes from the heart.
ReplyDelete>>>>
You have to go with your conscience and current knowledge (a Protestant principle, a la Luther's "Here I Stand" speech ). But I think your reversion is precipitous quick. Even though I'm a fellow Filipino who's older than you both in age and Christian faith, you have surpassed my knowledge in many fields. So, I know you haven't come to your conclusions without some good reasons. But I wonder why Catholicism instead of Orthodoxy? I've recently made the following statements concerning Catholicism which I think are fairly accurate [which I'll just copy and paste].
QUOTE
/////The ironic thing is that Eastern Orthodoxy has a much greater claim to being the "original Church which Christ founded" given Catholicism and Orthodoxy's shared [but false] understanding of Church Tradition. It's Catholicism that has invented the Papacy with an alleged "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church", when originally the bishop of Rome was merely the "First AMONG EQUALS" [cf. Tertullian's ridicule of a "Pontifex Maximus"]. It's Catholicism that changed the creed to include the filioque contrary to the dogmas of the ecumenical councils. It's Catholicism that attempted to rationalize the mystery of the mystical eucharist by introducing and applying pagan Aristotelean philosophical metaphysics into cataphatic theology. It's Catholicism that has claimed more ecumenical councils then the universally accepted 7, even though Catholicism didn't involve the Eastern Churches in that process. Catholicism affirms the genuine Apostolic Succession of Eastern Orthodoxy. How then could Rome's additional alleged ecumenical councils [now totaling a massive 21?] be truly Ecumenical if the Eastern Churches were excluded from the proceedings? It's Catholicism that uses 3 dimensional statues (whose noses you can pinch), instead of the more 2D Orthodox icons. It's Catholicism that has invented the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, her sinless life, her bodily assumption, in purgatory, the practice of the Stations of the Cross, in the discipline of disallowing priests to marry before ordination, in introducing the Latin Vulgate as authoritative and then changing its mind despite the fact that the LXX was already in popular use among the early patristic churches, Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, etc.
Catholicism more blatantly violates Vincent of Lerins' maxim regarding orthodox teaching which must have been believed, "everywhere, always, and by all." A much better case can be made that it was the Western Church (i.e. Rome and those who followed her) who broke away from the Eastern Church, than that the Eastern Churches breaking away from the Western Church. Meaning, Catholicism is more plausibly a false church given her own views regarding Church Tradition, history and the Fathers.///// END QUOTE
CONT.
Given the above "facts" (which some might correct), I think a better position to hold would be that of Orthodoxy. Or sedevacantism. That seems to be another possibility, if one were to take seriously 19th century Catholicism. Given other additional issues including epistemology, providence, Jewish and church history, and biblical theology, I would say some form of Protestantism is the best choice. I'm disappointed, but not in you. You've made me, a fellow Pinoy, proud. But I am disappointed in your (possibly) too quick a decision to revert. Pride might cause you to double down on your reversion lest you be embarrassed to convert back again to Protestantism despite ostensibly better arguments for Protestantism.
DeleteAs far as I know, you didn't openly share your thoughts that Catholicism might actually be correct. I'm sure your conversations with the best Protestantism has to offer would have been different and much more focused. You're clearly highly intelligent, but even the most rational person is susceptible to the longing for (what you know White calls) the "infallible fuzzies". Truth must conquer our desires. Catholicism might offer that feeling of certainty we all long for, but God's providence hasn't given us that certainty outside of Himself. If it were located in an institutional church, there'd be better evidence for it than found in either Catholicism, Orthodoxy or the other alleged Apostolic churches. The evidence of which is often contradictory and inconsistent. You've only started doubting Protestantism for only 2 years now. IMHO, that's too short of a time seriously reconsider Catholicism. I'd say keep considering it. Maybe in 5 or more years you'll return to Evangelicalism. But if you cease considering it, it's almost certain that you remain in Catholicism. Since it's easier and more psychologically comfortable to rest on alleged infallibility.
I'm not one to say you've ceased being Christian (or that Catholics/other traditional Christians can't be saved). But I do hope you keep the door open to the possibility of returning to Evangelicalism. I'd like to say more, but there are many other people I'm sure have comments to make that are more important. God Bless you.
<<<<
Reading it here, I see some typos that I corrected on FB. I really do think 2 years is too short a time to reconsider Catholicism. He should have interacted with Steve and other Protestants with his doubts out in the open. I fear part of his reversion is partly based on the poor defense lesser Protestants like myself have made on FB. I would have liked to have read dialogues between him and Steve or Dr. White or John Bugay, William Webster et al.
DeleteI could have mentioned many other Protestants I wish Luis could have dialogued with while he was reconsidering the whole Catholicism vs. Protestantism thing. I don't know why I didn't include in the above list our own Jason Engwer. Jason's materials get into the nitty gritty of the fathers in a way some of us Protestants can't.
DeleteWith the very high and sober claims of Catholicism, I would have expected more explanation and argumentation from Luis about his reversion. Presumably, he'll provide that in the future. But for the life of me I don't know how he can rationally justify the decision knowing all that he knows. Maybe he knows more than I do, but I personally can't reconcile many problems with Catholic claims. For example, he mentions how we Protestants are considered "separated brethren" by Lumen Gentium. But he knows about all the anathemas prior Popes have made against separatists who have been called "heretics and schismatics". Such statements have a historical context that you can't anachronistically alter (as Catholic interpreters have had to do since Vatican II). Otherwise, you'll have to admit that the Catholic Church (through the arm of the State) has wrongly anathematized many separated brethren in the past. Sometimes, burning them at the stake, sometimes digging up their remains and cremating them posthumously et cetera, etc. I mean, even in Catholic circles, it's almost a proud fact that some orders (e.g. Dominicans) were specially known for persecuting simple Christian believers to death.
The following Ex Cathedra should cause one's heart to skip a beat regardless of which side of the Tiber you're on:
Ex Cathedra: "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." Pope Innocent III, Forth Lateran Council, 1215
Ex Cathedra "Consequently we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctuam, 1302
[[alternate version: Ex Cathedra: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely neccesary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctuam, 1302]]
Ex Cathedra: "[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels', unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the Ecclesiastical body is such that the Chruch's Sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739) (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
CONT.
[[alternate version: " The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that NONE of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics [Protestants] and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, UNLESS before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, NO ONE, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).]]
DeleteCompare that with what the modern Catholic Catechism states along with what many modern Catholics have stated. Including Pope John Paul II and the current Pope [as Steve alluded to above]. Statements that affect Muslims, atheists and others. And this is just ONE major problem with Catholicism's consistency.
Maybe Luis just isn't as aware of all the atrocities the Catholic Church (along with the Popes) has committed in the name of Christ as he should. I don't know. Surely the following video's claim that 50 million Christians were murdered by the Catholic Church is EXTREMELY exaggerated. But, even if it were only a few thousand, the fact remains that they were murdered based on unbiblical and anti-Biblical reasons which ought never to be forgotten.
Catholic Inquisition and The Torture Tools
https://youtu.be/__cjIWP1pvg
The Catholic Church has accumulated so many accretions of erroneous and/or fallible human tradition is so patently obvious, that I don't know how an informed person could ever convert/revert to Catholicism.
One of the things I've always thought was unfortunately missing in the apologetics of James White and his circle (e.g. James Swan, David King, William Webster et al.) on Catholicism were the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church. The Berean Beacon website and its YouTube CHANNEL addresses such things. Unfortunately, the historical research and its interpretation isn't always as scholarly as it should be. But, I nevertheless think, the the moral issues and arguments against Catholicism are relevant and decisive. Despite the Catholic arguments used to lessen their force that concede the Pope and the Church isn't infallible and correct in everything He and the Church say and do.
DeleteAnother problem with the materials of Berean Beacon is the blanket statement that Albigensian and Waldensians (et al.) who preceded the Reformation were virtual Proto-Protestants. That's not necessarily the case. The various groups weren't always unified in doctrine, and sometimes positively held heretical, heterodox, aberrant views. But that doesn't undermine the fact that Catholicism wrongfully persecuted theological opponents to death. And I'm not being inconsistent with the core principles of Reformation when I concede the fact that some of the Reformers themselves were wrong for doing the same thing. The problem is that Catholicism, in principle, is irreformable. Though, over time, it does change and even contradict previous dogmas (contrary to its claim of holding to the unchanging "ancient and constant faith of the universal Church").
DeleteAnnoyed Pinoy - excellent points about EO and the additions that RC has made.
DeleteI don't recall hearing this name before - though, that's hardly an indicator of anything. But, I read the article with one of my usual questions when I read such articles (no doubt inspired by things I've learned through Triablogue over the years): "What is the Catholicism that you have converted to? What do you mean by Catholicism?" As Steve indicates, there's no answer in the article. It's just assumed that there is a single, well-identified thing called "Catholicism" whose referent is sufficiently obvious to both the author and the reader without explanation.
ReplyDelete"Best and brightest" appeals always struck me as self-defeating. Secularism has subsumed many (most?) of the greatest minds in the world, a great number of which came from Catholic or Protestant families.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to see how most of the Catholics mentioned are on par with say Einstein or Feynman or say Terry Tao today, but I think Plantinga might give them a run for their money.
DeleteGranted, Einstein and Feynman are setting the bar at the very tippiest toppiest of heights. Also, it might be easier to compare people achieving in the same field rather than across disparate fields, even if the same intelligences could conceivably have ended up achieving in different fields.
Still, at the very highest levels, I suspect we're probably talking about a few points difference in IQ at most. If Einstein is a 175+ in IQ, then Plantinga might be a 170+, Pruss a 165+, and so on. Something along those lines.
In my anecdotal experience as one of John Frame's TAs at RTS and Westminster Seminary in California, most seminary students aren't intellectually outstanding. For that matter, most seminary professors aren't intellectually outstanding. Same thing with Christian colleges. The intellectually gifted students and professors occupy a tiny minority. So it's not nearly as elite as Luis implies.
DeleteMoreover, his appeal cuts both ways. On the one hand, very few converts to Catholicism are brilliant. On the other hand, there are plenty of brilliant Protestant philosophers, theologians, Bible scholars, and church historians who remain unimpressed by the claims of Roman Catholicism.
Not to mention in the sciences most Roman Catholics are beholden secular science in ways many or perhaps most Protestants aren't (excepting liberal mainline Protestant denominations). Take theistic evolution. It's easy for Catholics to dismiss "creationists" as anti-intellectual but in truth there's quite arguably significant intellectual development among Protestants who aren't imprisoned by the theistic evolution paradigm (e.g. see the ID theorists including the Biologic Institute), whereas Catholics are merely following mainstream secular science with regard to the origin of life, neo-Darwinism, Adam, etc.
DeleteI was musing not long ago upon why there are some cerebral Reformed types who are attracted to Romanism. Reading their 'conversion stories', I was struck by how many seemed to be searching for some sort of absolute certainty, or were treating growing as an intellectual (and sometimes pride-fuelling) game in which you continually move to a newer, more profound level, going one stage deeper than your contemporaries. Common themes seemed to be either that Rome gave them absolute certainty (because, in effect, now the Magisterium did their thinking for them - of course, questions of how to exegete and reconcile Magesterial pronouncements, and how that's different or easier than doing the same with Biblical texts, don't figure much in these accounts......), or that they had now reached (in effect, not how they'd put it of course) they'd now reached a new level of profound cleverness in which they had some amazing unsight which unpicked the whole mystery and led to seeing how to harmonise Romanism with the Bible (and un-harmonise their previous beliefs), as if there was a big prize for being able to pull off the feat of finding in there all the stuff that really isn't, which ordinary mortals can't do.
DeleteForgot to add: I also surmised that what they really needed to do was to get away from their desks more, fraternise with ordinary Christians, help those who were in need, and take part in 'ordinary' endeavours to show practical love to the lost, spend more time with their wives and children, etc. Stop treating Christian growth as overwhelmingly an intellectual game. Use their intellectual talents to work out how to serve the Great Commission better.
DeleteDavid Anderson - your two comments are very good and helpful. insightful and balanced.
DeleteI don't understand how cerebral Reformed types succumb to believing things like Transubstantiation and priestly ex opere operato powers, prayers to dead saints in front of statues, relics, etc. (thinking grace is like glue to the soul and comes down through physical things) and Papal infallibility and the contradictions between pre-Vatican 2 theology and post Vatican 2 theology, etc.
Those things don't seem intellectual to me; rather, for lack of a better word, stupid, superstitious, mechanical - magic orientation.
//Given the creeping universalism in the Catholic hierarchy, what's the point? Vatican II already implied that you don't even have to be Christian, much less Catholic, to be saved. If these are different paths to the same God, why convert them to your pathway? //
ReplyDeleteTo piggyback on that comment, I think it's therefore more spiritually dangerous to convert/revert to Catholicism. Since Catholicism adds to the essentials of the Gospel things the Apostles would never have thought of in their wildest dreams. For example, the concept of the Bodily Assumption of Mary is invented whole cloth. The first reference to the concept that we can find extant in church tradition is mentioned in 4th or 5th century pseudo-Gospel purported to have been written by Melito of Sardis (Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo-Melito). The apocryphal work (along with others) was deemed heretical by the Pope of Rome at the end of the 5th century. Yet, we're supposed to believe that this is a Revelation from God that has been dogmatically defined by Rome to be essential to the Gospel. Something which a good Catholic or Christian must not fail to believe.
[[See the White vs. Sungenis Debate]]
Or think of the concept of transubstantiation and of the Mass as propitiatory. If Protestantism is correct, then the Mass is either blasphemous or nearly so. And therefore belief in it could endanger one's soul. The church fathers did NOT clearly, directly or explicitly teach such things. Only by anachronistically importing those concepts into their statements (which have the appearance of teaching them) could one eisegetically interpret them that way. I've noticed that phenomena when debating Catholics. They often will quote a church father, but when I read the statement in context, it's not clear that that's what the father meant to say or teach. Sometimes it's an aside comment because their real interest in the context (both before and after the comment) is addressing some other subject.
The problem with Catholic and Reformed debates is that both sides assume and want to claim a certainty and fullness of Gospel understanding that gives Catholicism an advantage. When aspects of Reformed theology is shown to have weak or no Biblical support, that then makes Catholicism look better than it otherwise would have. Since, both sides claim virtual certainty. That's why I agree with Steve's criticism of the extremes of Reformed confessionalism. Scripture takes precedence over even Reformed tradition. That's also why I dislike how some Reformed folk make a distinction between "Solo Scriptura" and their version of "Sola Scriptura" [with the addition of the creeds and confessions as nearly canonical]. They define Solo Scriptura as "me and my Bible alone in the woods". But there's a position in between "Solo Scriptura" and "Sola Scriptura + the Creeds/Confessions". The position that I take, and which I think Steve takes as well. I suspect this assumption of certainty (the psychological desire and especially epistemological need for it) is part (out of many things) of what lead Luis back into Catholicism.
typo correction:
Delete//The [EARLIER] church fathers did NOT clearly, directly or explicitly teach such things.//
Clearly, the latter church father did teach such things to a progressively greater degree and depth as time went on and they were farther from the apostles. They would often add onto and magnify accretions of extra-Biblical tradition.
typo correction:
Delete//....is part (out of many things) of what lead ["LED" not "lead"] Luis back into Catholicism.//
Last comment for now. I'm sure some people are fatigued by all my posts. Even if they're not reading them.
The Marian dogmas are especially problematic. Some of them might even be demonically inspired if some accounts of the rise in their acceptance in the Catholic Church is to be believed. Even assuming they weren't, they nevertheless do affect the core and equilibrium of the Gospel. The focus is taken off of, or away from Christ and placed onto Mary (even if only in part). That is clearly dangerous to one's soul if they are false. Since it (at the very least in principle) abandons the all sufficiency of Christ's salvific work. The sinlessness of Mary detracts from the glory of the sinlessness of Christ. The perpetual virginity of Mary detracts from the singular and unique sanctification and dedication of the Son of God to the Father. The Immaculate Conception detracts from Christ's virgin birth. The Bodily Assumption of Mary detracts from the Ascension of Christ in glory to the Father to sit at His right hand. Mary becomes a kind of mediator between us and Christ, when the supreme mediator we need is Christ Himself between us and the Father. Instead of focusing on Christ's offer and command "Come to Me all you who are weak and carrying heavy burdens" (Matt. 11) and "he who comes to Me, I will by no means cast out" (John 6), we're taught in Catholicism to come to Mary who will appease her wrathful Son. That's NOT the Gospel we find in the New Testament. I'm sorry. But it's NOT.
BTW, it's ironic to see Luis direct readers to debaters like Matatics and Sungenis. Matatics has been a sedevacantist for years while Sungenis has become so disaffected with the hierarchy that he's now more of an apologist against Catholicism than for it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, many of these debates are very dated, going back to the pontificates of JP2 and Benedict16, but the implosion under Francis has been dramatic.
//Given the creeping universalism in the Catholic hierarchy, what's the point? Vatican II already implied that you don't even have to be Christian, much less Catholic, to be saved. If these are different paths to the same God, why convert them to your pathway? //
ReplyDeleteI think this assumes that Vatican II is the be all end all of Catholicism. It also treats Catholicism like Protestantism.
Nevermind that Vatican II doesn't teach *universalism* the basi contention is this. Since Vatican II says that a non-Christian can be saved, therefore there's no point in evangelizing them.
the problem with this is this. Even say you assume any particular non-believer is not mortally culpable for his rejection of Catholicism. That still doesn't guarantee that he won't be damned for some other mortal sin, which with the Catholic sacraments he could have been saved from.
TBH I think this is probably in large part why even ultraconservative trad Catholics like Archbishop Lefebvre were comfortable saying some non-Christians could be saved "despite their religion" while only more liberal leaning Prots say so. Inclusivism along with faith alone is much more problematic than one or the other but not both.
Viewing things from the Catholic vantage point, no matter how you reconcile Florence and Vatican II, lacking the sacraments seems dangerous.
I think that instead of saying that Catholicism attracts the best and brightest, it might be a more accurate conclusion to say that modern Protestant seminaries drive people away from Protestantism.
ReplyDeleteThis is shocking and sad.
ReplyDeleteWow.
On his Facebook page someone asked him what convinced of the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass. He linked to an article at Called to Communion. "holy orders and the sacrificial priesthood"
and a guy named Eric Ybarra's website.
https://erickybarra.org/2018/09/11/why-every-bible-believing-christian-must-believe-in-the-holy-sacrifice-of-the-mass/?fbclid=IwAR2xT_t9f1XVXYnOQjHg6-CfY4EpcB8qDguVjxcla0H5kSsQjAZ8IDKXaJE
My friend Rod Bennett is very smart, IMO. He was perhaps the smartest friend I ever had. When were were still close friends at a Southern Baptist Church, we discussed C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer and he knew all of their works inside out. He was great at logic and forcing an argument. Later, after he converted, we debated from 1996-2004 over his conversion to Rome in 1996. He shocked me. He wrote a book called "Four Witnesses" on the early church.
ReplyDeleteI will never understand how he could have done that, except for what I have written in many articles about him and his book and his conversion to Rome at Beggar's All and at Apologetics and Agape.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/04/17/review-of-rod-bennetts-book/
Another important article on my friend Rod Bennett's conversion to Rome and also analysis of his lecture here.
ReplyDeletehttps://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/06/09/rod-bennetts-lecture-the-four-witnesses-brought-me-home/
Good point about Catholic converts generally ignoring apologetics and theology. Most of the Catholic answers apologists are converts from what I can tell, and none seems particularly impressive. And you also have someone like Dave Armstrong who is reasonably bright and knows his limitations. Then there is Mark Shea who has descended into lunacy.
ReplyDelete