With wife Judy and Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., on the day I was received into the Church: 8 February 1991<\/span><\/p>\n (4-25-04)<\/p>\n EL Hamilton (evangelical Protestant) is asking the questions (in\u00a0blue<\/span>):<\/p>\n I\u2019d be interested in knowing what teaching(s) of Catholicism you found hardest to embrace during your conversion-study period.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Papal and conciliar infallibility.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t necessarily mean historical \u201cscandals\u201d (\u201cthis Pope was corrupt\u201d, or \u201cthe Crusades were too violent\u201d), but actual dogmatic teachings.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n That stuff was highly offensive to me as well. I wrote a letter to Karl Keating<\/a> complaining about all that. Here are some excerpts from it. It was dated 25 February 1990, which was near the beginning of my serious study of Catholicism (initially purely out of curiosity). I had begun my ecumenical group discussions only the month before and this was before I changed my mind on contraception. This is the first time I have ever cited this since my conversion. It may provide some insights to people who wonder how I was thinking when I was a Protestant considering Catholicism:<\/p>\n I am an evangelical with growing and sincere respect for Roman Catholics, largely due to my increased communion with them by virtue of the Operation Rescue movement . . . I consider Catholicism as a fully Christian faith . . . I am, with you, disgusted and scandalized by works such as Boettner\u2019s and Jack Chick\u2019s and all such ilk, which, if any works deserve to be censored, certainly qualify in the highest degree.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I then proceeded to a lengthy exposition on my disagreement with Keating\u2019s constant use of the term \u201cfundamentalist\u201d on the grounds that it paints with too broad a brush, and wrongly included many ecumenical evangelical Protestants (like myself at that time) in its sweeping scope. I argued that this was setting up a straw man and was, though on a much lesser scale, what the anti-Catholics did to Catholics in their literature. I suggested that he use \u201cevangelical\u201d or \u201cProtestant\u201d instead. I wrote, \u201cI\u2019m concerned with being lumped in with people I have very little affinity with.\u201d<\/p>\n After that, I objected to a subtle insinuation Keating made, that Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses were a species of Protestant, and made an argument that if they were similar to any Christian groups, it was Catholicism. I concluded:<\/p>\n The idea of\u00a0sola Scriptura\u00a0<\/i>and individual conscience and study would release thousands of JW\u2019s from their spiritual bondage to false and deceitful leaders. But if it\u2019s so clear that a JW should \u201ccheck up\u201d on the validity of his leaders by reading the Bible, why should this\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0be the case with Catholics?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I then strongly objected to an article by William Reichert, entitled \u201cI will be where Peter is,\u201d in\u00a0This Rock<\/i>, January 1990 (in retrospect this was really hitting a nerve). I responded to two paragraphs which I described as \u201clogically outrageous,\u201d \u201crather foolish,\u201d and guilty of \u201cunfounded and illogical conclusions.\u201d I stated that Riechert \u201cbetrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what exactly perspicuity is.\u201d To show what it was, I cited Charles Hodge, backed up with two citations each from St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine. I wrote:<\/p>\n Therefore, differences over \u201cminor\u201d matters not necessary to salvation do not cast doubt on the concept of perspicuity\u00a0by definition<\/i>. Protestants are merely allowing freedom of diversity on matters such as church government, modes of baptism, views on the Lord\u2019s Supper, worship style and liturgy, etc. On central doctrines, we are indeed unified (God , Man, Salvation, Biblical Authority). So we have unity as Christians, at the same time allowing for differences of opinion on non-crucial items, and we all mutually-recognize one another as part of the Body of Christ \u2014 something Catholics cannot comprehend because of their different view that the Church is equivalent to an ecclesiastical organization \u2014 i.e., Roman Catholicism.<\/p>\n The falsity of that view is well dealt with by Calvin in Book IV of his\u00a0Institutes<\/i>. Although it is unfortunate that denominations (usually smaller ones) do split over much more trivial matters than those mentioned above (die to sin, to be sure, on\u00a0someone\u2019s<\/i>\u00a0part), I still prefer this state of affairs to the purely formal \u201cunity\u201d Catholics have.<\/p>\n In theory, no diversity on doctrine is allowed, but in practice, you well know (and I\u2019m familiar with enough Church History) that there is much dissension held privately \u2014 notable examples today being widespread Catholic dissent concerning contraception, abortion, and even fornication, but particularly the first, because it is so summarily and disobediently broken. Likewise, theological liberalism looms large in Catholicism, despite this supposed \u201cunity\u201d you claim.<\/p>\n Human nature is everywhere the same, and there will be diversity of opinion, whether due to illogic, different perspectives, evil, conscience, or whatever. We recognize it and allow for its expression, within certain bounds, whereas you attempt to deny and suppress it, which only causes it to flourish and become rebellious in spirit (I see this in countless young former Catholics whose questions were ignored).<\/p>\n Further, it\u00a0is<\/i>\u00a0true that many will differ due to ignorance (Hodge: \u201cthings hard to understand\u201d) or evil (Hodge: \u201call men need the guidance of the Holy Spirit\u201d). These are not incredible assertions nor are they peculiar to Protestants, and they are quite consistent with perspicuity rightly understood, as opposed to the caricature of it by Reichert. The least one can do in \u201crefuting\u201d a position is to portray it accurately (another \u201cstraw man\u201d).<\/p>\n Catholics recognize the same two factors in their distinction between formal and material heresy, denoting evil and ignorant differences from catholic Dogma respectively. I can\u2019t resist mentioning in passing the case of Galileo, whose views which were condemned as heresy were neither ignorant nor evil \u2014 far from either, whereas his accusers were obviously ignorant and arguably evil as well.<\/p>\n . . . for us, unity is not \u201ca joke.\u201d For the invisible Church is a far more profound unity than a merely formal, artificial, organizational unity, as it is comprised of those truly in Christ, including those now with the Lord \u2014 somewhat like your \u201ccommunion of saints.\u201d You might say we value individual conscience and standing under God more than the unity you aspire to \u2014 in fact, we regard separation from a group with which we cannot agree as a duty, not as a dreaded \u201cschism\u201d \u2014 far preferable to the spectre of millions of Catholics refusing to honestly acknowledge that they are not \u201ctrue\u201d or \u201cgood\u201d Catholics.<\/p>\n Lastly . . . I would like to see how you would respond to the material enclosed. Are you familiar with a book:\u00a0The Infallibility of the Church<\/i>, by George Salmon, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI (orig. 1888)? It is very good (from\u00a0my<\/i>\u00a0perspective!). The photocopies are from a work very well-written and worthwhile (Salmon) \u2014 it is not at all stylistically like Boettner. Salmon is an Anglican with much respect for Catholicism.<\/p>\n The fundamental disagreement between Catholics and Protestants is, I believe, the issue of Apostolic Succession, Tradition, and its corollary, Infallibility. Therefore, I\u2019ve set out to show that Catholicism has in fact not been infallible historically, by means of clear logical contradictions and instances of undoubted heresy. If this is shown, then the whole edifice collapses, and you are on the same ground as we are. I think that such an utterly extraordinary and remarkable claim as Infallibility must be prepared to meet objections of example seemingly contradictory to that claim. Thus, out of motives of sincere inquiry and interest, I seek your assistance on that score. Thanks so much for your time.<\/p>\n With respect and sincerity,<\/p>\n Dave Armstrong<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And did you resolve that opposition more by 1) convincing yourself that your objections were unfounded, or 2) just deciding to submit to the authority of the church even when you didn\u2019t understand it?<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Both, but more so, the first. The first thing I changed my mind on was contraception, so that could be classified under \u201cmoral theology\u201d or \u201cthe moral argument.\u201d But it also related to the history of dogma because I was shocked to discover that all Christians opposed contraception until 1930 (and Church history and doctrinal precedent were highly important to me. I had a strong \u201chistorical sense\u201d). In my own developing moral theology (especially all the \u201csexual\u201d issues which are always controversial \u2014 for some odd reason), I had arrived on my own at positions that were invariably held by the Catholic Church all along. I increasingly felt that \u201chere was the place where someone (at last) got it all right \u2014 the traditional Christian moral teachings are all firmly in place.\u201d<\/p>\n As for infallibility, I was studying all the \u201cusual suspects\u201d: people like Hans Kung<\/a>,\u00a0Johann Joseph Ignaz von D\u00f6llinger<\/a>, and George Salmon<\/a> (precisely as the anti-Catholics do today: people like William Webster and Jason Engwer and David T. King: those who concentrate on historical critiques). I even worked up a long paper of\u00a095 Feces<\/i>, containing difficult \u201cproblems\u201d of Catholic history and alleged contradictions and so forth, to torment my Catholic friends with, in the discussion meetings I was having at my house. So I was behaving very much like the big bad (cynically chuckling) \u201cCatholic-slayer\u201d and gadfly, who brings up all the \u201cembarrassing\u201d facts of the scandalous history of the Beast (though I was never anti-Catholic, I hasten to add; just thoroughly\u00a0Protestant<\/b>, through and through).<\/p>\n Anyway, while I was doing that, I was also fair-minded enough (at first out of sheer curiosity; never thinking I would possibly convert) to read Catholic works, like Karl Adam\u2019s\u00a0The Spirit of Catholicism<\/i><\/a>, and Chesterton, and Thomas Howard, and Thomas Merton, and Alan Schreck\u2019s\u00a0Catholic and Christian<\/i>. And then I took to studying the Protestant Reformation from a Catholic perspective. I discovered that my hero, Martin Luther, was not this perfectly noble guy who was merely bringing the \u201cgospel\u201d back from darkness, etc., and that the actual facts of what happened during that volatile time were immensely more complex than I had been led to believe as a Protestant: hearing only one side all those years.<\/p>\n At length, I read Newman\u2019s\u00a0Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine<\/i><\/a>, which brought about a paradigm shift in my thinking. he explained all the facts of doctrinal development in a way far more plausible than I had ever heard before. It was simply a brilliant historical and analogical argument, and I found myself unable to refute it. I was honest enough with myself to admit that I could not, and had to admit that this was a huge problem for me to resolve.<\/p>\n My conversion, then, was a combination af the cumulative effect of three different \u201cstrands\u201d of evidences, all pointing in the same direction. This was perfectly consistent (epistemologically) with my apologetic outlook that I had developed over nine years: the idea of cumulative probability or what might be called \u201cplausibility structures.\u201d<\/p>\n So I converted (apart from God\u2019s grace; I am talking specifically about my thought processes \u2014 not denying God\u2019s role) because I was convinced on all three grounds. The Catholic arguments were better than the ones I had been setting forth previously. I was simply ignorant about early Protestant history (I accepted what might be called \u201cthe Protestant myth of origins\u201d uncritically); I had come to agree on my own with Catholic moral teaching, and the historical arguments of Newman blew Salmon and Kung and all their ilk out of the water, revealing them to be mostly special pleaders or sophists with an axe to grind (which is the way I myself had been acting in my arguments about papal infallibility).<\/p>\n All this stuff led me to the notion that the Catholic Church had a unique status, and so I accepted its authority in faith. Of course, I hadn\u2019t answered every jot and tittle of the arguments I had myself produced (no one ever answers everything; it is unreasonable to think that they can), but I had seen more than enough to come to a place where I was more than rationally justified to accept the authority of the Catholic Church and to reject the Protestant rule of faith (private judgment and\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>).<\/p>\n So there is faith involved; of course, just as in any religious view. I keep saying: \u201cChristianity is not philosophy.\u201d But at the same time, I was following the direction that my mind and thinking had led me. I would never adopt a view which was contrary to my reason or thinking. Since then, I have become always more convinced, as I keep defending the Catholic faith and observing how weak or nonexistent the opposing arguments are. I didn\u2019t, for example, do all the \u201cbiblical Catholicism\u201d stuff I do now, before my conversion. I started that right after my conversion, in an attempt to justify my change of mind to my Protestant friends, and to strengthen my own newfound, fledgling faith. It is then that I learned how very strong the Catholic biblical \u201ccase\u201d is.<\/p>\n The version of my conversion that goes into the above dynamics the most, would be: \u201cHow Newman Convinced me to Become\u00a0a Catholic\u201d.<\/a><\/p>\n Do you think one of those two approaches is better than the other, with respect to either Catholicism in particular or \u201cmere Christian\u201d apologetics in general?<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n I don\u2019t think we have to choose; consistent with my long-term apologetic outlook. One ought to always have a reasonable faith, supported by as much evidence as one can find (I thoroughly oppose fideism or \u201cpietism\u201d \u2014 which attempt to remove reason from the equation). We accept in faith what appears most plausible and likely to be true from our reasoning and examination of competing hypotheses and worldviews. We are intellectually \u201cduty-bound\u201d to embrace the outlook that has been demonstrated (to our own satisfaction, anyway) to be superior to another competing view.<\/p>\n Is that absolute proof? No, of course not. I think \u201cabsolute proof\u201d in a strict, rigorous philosophical sense is unable to be obtained about virtually anything. But one accepts Catholicism in and with faith, based on interior witness of the Holy Spirit and outward witness of facts and reason and history; much like one accepts Christianity in general or how the early disciples accepted the Resurrection and the claims of Jesus.<\/p>\n I have been doing apologetics since 1981 (initially influenced by C. S. Lewis<\/a>, Josh McDowell<\/a>, and Walter Martin<\/a>). I was a full-time campus missionary as a Protestant from 1985-1987 and then part-time till 1989. After I converted in late 1990 I kept writing, but had no intention to publish at first (I was writing strictly for my Protestant friends, then, in order to explain \/ defend my conversion). I happened to meet Fr. Peter Stravinskas in Steubenville at the Defending the Faith Conference in 1992, and gave him copies of some of my writings on Martin Luther. He liked them a lot, and so an article on Luther <\/a>in his magazine,\u00a0The Catholic Answer<\/i>, in 1993, was my first published piece as a Catholic.<\/p>\n So I kept on writing and seeking publication. I got my conversion story in\u00a0This Rock\u00a0<\/i>in late \u201993 and then in\u00a0<\/a>Surprised by Truth<\/a>\u00a0<\/i>in 1994. The latter, of course, gave me much name exposure (though not one penny in royalties), as it has sold some 200,000 copies.<\/p>\n![\"HARDON4\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/01\/HARDON4.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n