This page chronicles my journey in the Christian faith after my conversion from atheism to Evangelical Protestantism.

I had just been baptized in the Spring of my senior year in college and was growing tremendously in my faith. I was involved in Bible studies, went to a young men’s fellowship group made up of my Christian friends, and also began helping out in an outreach program where members of my Central Baptist church spent time playing with elementary school children after school before their parents came to pick them up.

I also began memorizing Scripture verses after attending a retreat with my friends which included a session taught by a man who had memorized thousands of verses of the Bible.

I had one Summer and one Fall semester left before graduating from Texas A&M. Most of my friends left town for the summer and went back home to work, often in youth ministry, or had an internship. However, one of my friends, Matt, was staying in town to take classes, so he and I roomed together for the Summer.

Matt and I continued to go to church together regularly, attend Sunday school classes, and always we would talk about our Christian faith, both the teachings and the practice of it. He was a very logical thinker and a good debater, so we could delve into matters deeply and have discussions without taking things personally if we disagreed.

Then it happened one day: I began to wonder and become uneasy about why we as Christians were so divided in our teachings and in our worship. Our Southern Baptist teachings differed, in big and in small matters, from those of other denominations, and we certainly didn’t worship with them: They had their church, and we had ours.

One funny thing was that our very large Baptist church was a short distance away from a large Presbyterian one, which really brought home to me the problem of our Christian divisions.

“What do they believe at that Presbyterian church?” I asked Matt. He didn’t really know.
“Why are we going to church at Central Baptist and not to that church?” I continued.

This began a long series of discussions that we had together about the lack of Christian unity and whether it was a problem. It got me thinking about what I believed and, more importantly, why I believed it.

I had only been a believer for a year and had only been baptized for a few months, but already I more or less subscribed to the Southern Baptist teachings and had rejected, for example, many of the Catholic Church’s teachings. How had I, a newly minted Christian, come so quickly to the conclusions about which denomination taught the fullest and most accurate truth?

I realized then that I had been influenced strongly when becoming a Christian by my Evangelical friends. As an atheist, I “knew” on some level that there were many different kinds of Christians and vaguely understood that they differed in some beliefs, but to me at that time, they were all about the same.

So when I was beginning to believe in God, my Evangelical friends in particular were very interested and one of them saw that I was reading an Old King James version of the Bible, which was difficult to say the least, and he promptly bought me a large, well-annotated, plain English Bible, New International Version (NIV).

As I mentioned in my conversion from atheism account, I read this Bible from cover to cover and read it again. When I didn’t understand something, which was often, I would look down and see if there was an explanatory note about it, and usually there was; it was very helpful.

Also, when I had questions about the faith, I would ask my Evangelical friends, and they would answer me according to what they believed was true. Similarly, I went to the church they went to, Central Baptist, and so I listened to the pastor there expound upon the Bible and explain what the true Christian teachings were as he understood them.

These are not bad things; they are the normal way that God made us and account for why children of Muslims usually become Muslim, children of Christians become Christian, and so on.

However, I realized that I had chosen the Evangelical Protestant understanding of the Christian faith without deliberately giving other denominations a chance: Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, etc.

And so I returned to the discussions with Matt about which denomination’s teachings are “closest” to the truth that God has revealed, praying that Jesus would guide me because I wanted to be as close to Him, who is Truth, as possible.

The Bible was the sure basis for all of our beliefs because we believed it was the inerrant word of God. That sounded good, but there were two problems:

  1. Other denominations claimed the same thing, and yet we were divided from them, too, in matters big and small.
  2. The Catholic Church claimed there were 7 more books inspired by God that should be in the Bible.

The first problem led to the inevitable conclusion that it was possible for Christians who all claimed were being led by the Holy Spirit to veer off in different, often mutually exclusive directions with regard to the interpretation of the Bible.

They believed differently and so broke off from one another to form their own, new denominations, which seemed to me to violate Christ’s prayer and command for us Christians to be one, to be in unity (cf. John 17).

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and would never lead people to believe something untrue, so that meant that people who thought they were listening accurately to the Spirit’s promptings, in reality were not.

The second problem was of a different sort because it struck at the root of the tree: We believed in the “Bible alone” as the rule of our faith, yet that meant we had to know with confidence which books made up the Bible! Here we had the Catholic Church claiming that my Bible was missing 7 books that God inspired and therefore desired to be included in the Bible.

Suddenly I realized that I had accepted without question the Bible given to me by my good Evangelical friend, believing it and only it, nothing more, nothing less, to be the inspired word of God. How did I know that the Protestants got it right?

More broadly, what authority determined which books should be in the Bible, and when did they do so, and why should I believe them?

And if I trusted this authority to decide the canon of Scripture, as it is called, why don’t I trust them with the other decisions they made about what was true and what was false in matters of the faith?

So I realized at that point that one of two things must be true:

  1. The Holy Spirit tried to guide Christians to know the canon of Scripture and how to interpret it accurately, but because we are so full of faults and don’t always listen, we may have gotten some of the books wrong, leaving some that were inspired out and/or including ones that were not inspired.
  2. The Holy Spirit tried to guide Christians to know the canon of Scripture and how to interpret it accurately and by God’s power miraculously succeeded, overcoming the myriad individual and institutional faults that all humans are prey to, such that our Bible was made up of the exact books that God himself inspired.

In other words, God either preserved his Church from errors corrupting her teachings, or he did not, leaving us in a state where we can only be somewhat confident that most of what we believe is probably true, though for any given matter, who knows whether it was true or corrupted in some way.

If God did preserve his Church from errors in her teachings, which denomination had the boldness to claim that they were that Church who held the fullness of the truth?

ke

The only “denomination” that made the claim and that I found credible historically and theologically was the Catholic Church.

I couldn’t believe it. The Catholic Church taught stuff about Mary, Purgatory, the saints, the sacraments, and priests that I disagreed with.

But I realized that my disagreements stemmed from my Protestant bias that had formed so quickly in my brief year as a Christian; I had to put these disagreements on hold to more objectively examine the Catholic Church’s claims and teachings.

With a sense of dread that I may have to one day soon tell my Evangelical friends that I was becoming, of all things, a Catholic, I began learning about the Catholic Church in earnest, looking and hoping for something that would let me off the hook and return to peace in Protestantism.

Alas, I failed to find it. I challenged my Evangelical friends to prove these ideas wrong and explain where I was going off course. They tried to do so but could not disprove them. We had debates and discussions over so many matters of our faith, but I returned again and again to the canon of Scripture and the authority by which it was formed.

The ax was at the root of the tree, but for most of them, who had grown up assuming as a given the 66 books of the Bible, posing these questions was something that they almost couldn’t fathom: Was I claiming the Bible was made up and not inspired? Why was I challenging the very Bible that they had derived so much wisdom and truth from?

a

I read books, read internet discussions and apologetics, read stories of faithful and intelligent Protestants converting to the Catholic faith (Scott Hahn, Mark Shea, David Currie, and others).

In the end, I joined RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) the Fall semester of my senior year and was received into the Catholic Church on Easter of 2001. Two of my Evangelical friends, including Matt, came to the 4-hour long vigil Mass, which I greatly respect them for.

My Evangelical friends were instrumental in my conversion to Christianity and in my subsequent growth as a Christian. They love Christ and courageously proclaim Him in the way they live their lives, and I would not be the man I am today without them.

And so, though I believe that God wants us all to be united as one and not divided, I am grateful that he worked in the lives of my Evangelical friends to bring me into the faith in Jesus Christ that has been the greatest blessing in my life.

“Seek, and you shall find,” Jesus assures us. May God be glorified in all people and things, and may He bless you in your search for truth!

“When we were lost and could not find the way to You,
You loved us more than ever.” -Eucharistic Prayer of Reconciliation

Once I entered into full communion with the Catholic Church, I found even more evidence that confirmed my decision, which you can read about here.  For deeper exploration of the central issue of the authority that Christ gave His Church and how Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons differ in their beliefs, read on here.

  • Share/Bookmark

9 Responses

  1. 1
    Tim 

    I admire your courage and your perseverance in your search and openness to the truth. And I thank God for the grace you have received and the fruits it has borne in you.

  2. 2
    gilbert 

    That was amazing ! I cried in my heart when reading it. U came home because u found the true path. God Bless ..

  3. 3
    Cate 

    Devin, it has been a while :) This is Cate from high school. I received the link to this site from Nathan, and I have so enjoyed going through it. You write in a way that is touchingly honest and upfront, and though you and I approach faith in different ways, it is an inspiring testimony to me in my own walk.

    Someday I’d love to catch up and hear more about all of this. If you’d like, you’re welcome to get my contact info from Nathan. Otherwise, I wish you and your wife much peace and happiness!

  4. 4
    Merdock 

    Glory to Jesus Christ!

    One question, why Roman Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox?

  5. 5
    Devman 

    Hi Merdock,

    Thank you for your comment. At the time of my conversion from Evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism, I did not deeply study the differences between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I visited one Orthodox convert site that explained why they decided to become Orthodox instead of Roman Catholic, but their reasons did not seem compelling to me.

    Similarly, I did not seriously consider Anglicanism, which is often a stop along the way to Rome for Evangelicals and Reformed Protestants. It seemed like Catholic-lite to me and historically did not seem to have a credible claim to the historic Church.

    Since this time, I have learned much more about Reformed Protestantism, Anglicanism, and the Orthodox Churches. My questions for an Orthodox person would be about the issues of papal supremacy and the lack of (Eastern Orthodox-recognized or -held) Ecumenical Councils for the past 1,000 years.

    Unfortunately, I have no Orthodox friends, nor have I ever had any; there don’t seem to be many around here. Because of that, I have never had to delve deeply into Orthodox claims and theology, though I have read a history of the schism between Rome and Constantinople, which from my reading had little do with differences of doctrine and much more with power and pride.

  6. This was great! Thanks for sharing. I see a lot of things in common with my own conversion to the Catholic faith, but I don’t think I articulate it nearly as well!

  7. 7
    Devman 

    Thanks David! (I started following your blog recently after you commented on another post.)

  8. 8
    Lojahw 

    Hi Devin,

    Thank you for sharing your story. I grew up in the Episcopal Church and promised at confirmation to follow Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. That promise led to my departure from the Episcopal Church in the early seventies following a series of encounters with apostate priests. I visited many different churches and solidified my commitment to the Bible as the Word of God and to the essential truths of Trinitarian faith as summarized in the creeds. I found a number of churches that met these criteria, and having come from a liturgical background, I also discovered the joy of spontaneous prayer and variety in worship that other traditions offered. I never felt the need to find the “one true Church” because Scripture describes the Church as made of many members, many branches from the true vine, Jesus Christ. Reading the church fathers confirmed my observations of the diversity within the Body of Christ on just about every subject other than commitment to God’s Word and to the essential truths summarized in the creeds. Diversity was not a barrier to communion in the early church – why should it be so today?

    Your description of your path to Rome puzzles me. There are three major streams of Christianity that all hold the Bible to be God’s Word and all share the same core beliefs. There are several variations on the canon (including more than one within Orthodoxy), but the different canons have no impact on the essential truths of the faith (cf. CCC 188-193). On the other hand, the role of the papacy, the Marian dogmas, and other things closely identified with Rome today cannot be traced to the teaching of the Apostles, the founding fathers of the Church. In light of these things, how did you decide that Rome has unique authority over not only the canon but also of every area of faith and practice for the universal church?

    Blessings,
    Lojahw

  9. 9
    Devman 

    Hi Lojahw,

    Thank you for your tactful response.

    I found a number of churches that met these criteria,

    These criteria were ones of your own devising. How do you know that they are the right ones?

    I never felt the need to find the “one true Church” because Scripture describes the Church as made of many members, many branches from the true vine, Jesus Christ. Reading the church fathers confirmed my observations of the diversity within the Body of Christ on just about every subject other than commitment to God’s Word and to the essential truths summarized in the creeds. Diversity was not a barrier to communion in the early church – why should it be so today?

    Legitimate diversity can only exist within unity. I have coworkers with rainbow bumper stickers that say DIVERSITY. What is the criteria for determining whether something is a legitimate _branch_ versus a heretical _schism_? Read this post for a deeper explanation of this dilemma: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/branches-or-schisms/

    Which of the men deemed “heretics” by the Church were actually just new, diverse branches on the tree versus schisms (Sabellius, Arius, the Monophysites, the Monothelites, the Cathars, etc.)? Who decides, and by what authority?

    Irenaeus gives a much stronger description of the unity of the Church than you claim existed: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm

    As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

    On the other hand, the role of the papacy, the Marian dogmas, and other things closely identified with Rome today cannot be traced to the teaching of the Apostles, the founding fathers of the Church.

    Says you. Read Carroll’s History of Christendom series to see how the papacy existed and was understood throughout the centuries. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all believed in most of the Marian dogmas; they believed that these dogmas all traced back to the Apostles. Why should I believe you on them over the magisterial Reformers?

    In light of these things, how did you decide that Rome has unique authority over not only the canon but also of every area of faith and practice for the universal church?

    We both have made assents of faith, and both of those assents have reasons supporting them, but I found that the reasons behind my assent as a Protestant were inconsistent whereas the reasons behind the assent of faith to the Catholic Church were consistent.

    Why? One example: a Protestant assents by faith that God inspired books to be written such that they are inerrant but don’t believe that he infallibly guided the men leading the Church to know which books those were (hence Protestant pastor R.C. Sproul’s unsettling but eminently logical “fallible collection” of inspired books). So as a Protestant, it is impossible to have certainty in the canon of Scripture. Or you can claim to have certainty but it will not be consistent with your beliefs.

    The Catholic assent is consistent: God infallibly inspired the books to be written and infallibly guided the Church to know exactly which books those were. Why? Because God wants us to know the truth and be set free by it, so he made sure we would know it. These two beliefs are not ad hoc the way Protestants’ are because they are only two examples of the belief that God protects his Church from error in _all_ her teachings on faith and morals.

    In Christ,
    Devin

Leave a Reply