Roman Catholic Apologetics Is Surging Online. Intended Audience? Protestants.

As I have said before a number of my protestant friends some with multiple seminary degrees have converted. This is why I see them gravitate:

1. Many have jumped around between Baptist, Reformed, Presbyterian.... so they are a bit restless. In addition, many if not most have roots in IFB churches, and the challenges they had with that in their younger years propels them forward
2. They are frustrated with the fact that if there is one true church, how come there are thousands and thousands of protestant churches that are not in agreement with each other. Some with IFB roots, seeing the contstant separation from everyone
3. If the Protestant reformation yielded the "true church", where was it the first 1,500 years
4. They become attracted to the teaches of all of the early church fathers highlighting that they received their teaching from the Apostles, as a result they put a lot more ephasis on the writings of the early church fathers than they do Scripture.

This is what I have seen them go down the road to the RC

...they are not grounded in Scripture. Those who know and truly believe the Biblical gospel will not be attracted to Rome, even when it is cleverly marketed.

They become attracted to the teaches of all of the early church fathers highlighting that they received their teaching from the Apostles, as a result they put a lot more ephasis on the writings of the early church fathers than they do Scripture.

I've become more interested in the patristics during the past several years. It started with reading The Apostolic Fathers, edited by Michael Holmes. I found what I read fascinating, especially the Didache. We have extant writings about how the late 1st-Century / early 2nd-Century church functioned and worshiped. We get to see how these believers closest to the apostolic generation understood God's Word and the Apostles' teachings. I think this can be informative for how our churches should function and worship given we're two-thousand years removed from the first church.

That said, I don't hold up the patristic writings as inspired, inerrant, or necessarily authoritative.

I am also hesitant to giving too much credance to "early" church activities. Much of the New Testament is focused on things that the early church was doing wrong, and those churches were started by the Apostles and being led by the Apostles. The Apostles continue to warn the church and guide them back into correction through continuous references to Scripture.

One of the biggest attacks that RC apologists make is the fallacy of Sola Scriptura. And yet the Apostles don't point to traditions to correct the church, but point back to Scripture to correct the church. The root of the issue is that they hold a higher view of tradition, and they view interpretation of Scripture as being prone to essentially everyone creating their "own view" from their interpretation.

....these men crossing the Tiber are not well grounded in Scripture, as GN notes. There are no doubt many who never really came to Christ nonethless filled pews, but at the same time, there at least ought to be a little bit of reflection by the pastors of those who "cross the Tiber" to consider whether their instruction is clearly informed by Scripture, or whether it is primarily cultural.

Along those lines, many of those who have gone to Rome were with Focus on the Family--I remember Jay Budjiszewski and some others--and it is worth noting that a key criticism of Focus is that all too often, they are supporting an evangelical culture rather than going directly from Scripture. And hence those who have similar cultures--not just conservative Catholics but also Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses--make huge inroads because the treasures of the Solas are not adequately explained in many evangelical churches.