As I opened my phone one morning, I was both amazed and saddened to find my Catholic friend had shared yet another illogical meme in defence of her Church. The meme, displayed above, features 6 ex-"Protestants" who not only converted to Catholicism, but also chose to become apologists. The argument? "If Protestantism is true, why did they convert and become apologists?"
In my response meme, I singled out Trent Horn, the 5th apologist in the list, implicitly mocking him. Now, I will not do so further. I will confess I have a very low opinion of Trent Horn, but bashing him is certainly not the point of this article. Rather, the reason I bashed him at all was to illustrate the folly of doing so. This cuts off the option for the Catholic to do so.
See, just as there are "Protestants" who became Catholic, there are likewise ex-Catholics who became "Protestant". Dan Corner, Mark Driscoll, and Joseph Mizzi, for example. But I want you to imagine the Catholic response if you were to cite these three men and ask "if Catholicism was true, why would these former Catholics leave the faith and become Protestant apologists". A wise Catholic would call this argument out for what it is: An argument so fallacious, you'd be kicked out of any debate club for using it. A less wise Catholic would attack the character, qualifications, and motivations, of any ex-Catholic cited. In other words, they would attack these men as viciously as I attacked Trent Horn, but with one difference: They would actually mean it.
Now, every man in the original meme is a Catholic apologist. That means they present arguments in defence of the Catholic Church. Obviously, I cannot verify it, but I'm willing to bet none of them has ever presented the other 5 as a reason to convert to Catholicism. It just shouldn't occur to them to use such fallacious reasoning, and it would hurt their reputation if they did. Asking why they converted to Catholicism is no more effective than asking why hundreds upon thousands of "Protestants" converted from Catholicism. It simply has no effect on the truth value of the Catholic Church. Thus, rather than asking "Protestants" why these men joined Catholicism, show us why. You've cited them, even linking to their websites, so you obviously have direct access to their arguments. Why not present them?
Ultimately, I do not believe "Protestantism is true". I find the term itself very silly, it is absurd to suggest my faith exists just to protest yours, and no faith should be named based on what it rejects. You may as well call me an atheist because I reject Allah. No, much as my forerunners in the faith, I refer to myself only as a Christian (Acts 11:26), and I utterly refuse to play the denomination game. How do I defend my Christian faith? Well, much the same as the Catholic Church does.
In spite of our differences, Christians and Catholics do have a lot in common. In fact, it is my firm belief that a good portion of Catholics may well be Christians. Catholics still believe in the Risen Lord. We still have the same Bible (and no, contrary to modern legend, the Catholic Church did not produce it), we still have the same God. While there are many differences between Christianity and Catholicism, there is nevertheless enough Christianity in Catholicism to save Catholics.
The main source of our conflict is the emphasis on tradition. Whereas the Bible indisputably teaches its own sufficiency, Catholicism, much like the Pharisaic order of Jesus' day, places a heavy emphasis on man-made tradition. Thus, my simple argument for "Protestantism", in as much as it is defined as a reliance upon scripture over tradition, is that whereas "Protestant" apologetics can be done exclusively from scripture, "Catholic" apologetics instead takes the focus away from scripture. As an apologist myself, I find whenever I make a Biblical argument, I do not receive Biblical arguments in response, but instead numerous appeals to a heavily revised version of history.
Therefore, my question to Catholics is not why do so many Catholics become "Protestants", but rather, why does the Bible appear to be a "Protestant" book? The Bible presents a very non-Catholic view of Christianity. It doesn't present Peter as a Pope, it defies the Marian dogmas, it presents itself as the sole and sufficient source of Christian doctrine, it rejects Apostolic succession, it clearly teaches salvation by faith alone, and the only way any Catholic can dispute these interpretations is by making us doubt our ability to read. The Bible is so clearly a non-Catholic book that the Catholic Church once banned the laity from owning a translation. The very fact that Catholics currently possess Bibles in their own language is proof that their Church is fighting a losing battle.
A time will come when mankind will stop sinning. Every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess Jesus is Lord. But some of them will confess it from the pits of Hell. Until then, people will be converting to hundreds, thousands of false religions. Even those who currently call themselves Christians could fall away. "Protestants" becoming Catholics proves no more than them becoming atheists. It is the Bible, not the number of ex-Catholics, that proves Catholicism wrong. Thus, even the 6 men in the original meme ought to repent, and leave the Catholic Church, because the God they believe in, as the Pharisees also did, will one day judge their every thought, word, and deed. Catholic apologetics is not a sin you want to copy.