Comments on: Layman to Layman: A Response to Rob Koons Conversion to Romanism

By: Erich Heidenreich, DDS

Erich Heidenreich, DDS — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:27:38 +0000

Terry,
I like the way you put it on Rev. Weedon’s Blog:
“If Dr Koons wants to find a misrepresenter of the teachings of Roman Catholicism he is now in the best possible place to do so, having joined the greatest one on earth, the post conciliar Roman church.
“What these guys are all misty eyed about I saw emerge in the 1960s and was taught by some of the perpetrators. Somewhere along the line they may encounter the real deal, and the mist will turn to tears.”

By: Terry Maher

Terry Maher — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 03:43:32 +0000

My 2c is this. I read the paper as it appears on the Internet. What struck me was it was clearer than anything I had read from other “conversions” that what was being converted to was Rome, but the Rome of the Second Vatican Council, and that conversion to the pervious Rome would not have been possible.
I grew up in pre-conciliar Rome, saw the post-conciliar Rome emerge, and left it as in no possible way a continuation of the same thing, this some twenty years before Lutheranism would strike me as just a well intended effort to be Catholic without being Catholic.
So to me, these “conversions” are a double tragedy. Not only do they involve the loss of the Gospel rightly proclaimed and the Sacraments properly administered, but they are to a “Rome” that has existed for roughly forty years now, not even the real Roman Catholic faith, which Rome now suppresses with an iron hand
Oddly enough, though each case impresses me the same way, the Koons case made it clearer than any other that not only did I do the right thing in rejecting the Brave New Church on Catholic grounds, I am grateful for the gift of faith that allowed me to profess the Christian faith correctly and accurately taught in the Book of Concord.

By: Erich Heidenreich, DDS

Erich Heidenreich, DDS — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:06:29 +0000

I should note that what is printed above was a response I wrote to a much earlier and less mature form of his paper, written as private notes to himself.
Rob Koons is a good friend and colleague of a very good friend of mine (and fellow parishioner), the academic dean and chair of the department of history at a well-known conservative college. In August 2005, Rob sent my friend a less developed version of the essay now circulating the Internet. My friend asked me if I would take on the task of responding to Rob’s arguments, as he did not have the time right then. I took the time to do so, and what I wrote to Rob, in part, is what Pr. McCain has provided above.
You will note that his final paper incorporated many responses he ended up making to my counterarguments, for instance the quotes of the fathers he takes issue with. Koons writes in his final paper: “If we look at the corpus of Fathers who are typically cited by Lutherans — Clement of Rome, Ambrose, Basil, John Chrysostom, Augustine…” These are the exact citations I gave him, and these were not part of the original paper I critiqued. Obviously I gave him something he felt he had to deal with. Too bad he couldn’t have benefited from a more professional refutation before having converted.
I think this paper’s circulation on the Internet warrants a strong but detailed reaction from those more capable than I. Koons’ words could do a lot of people some serious spiritual damage, leading many to Rome. Pr. Weedon is in the process of going over the paper in detail, and I look forward to reading more of his refutations on his blog. I only hope that I did not assist Koons in perfecting his attack on Lutheranism by showing him what a committed, life-long Lutheran layman might provide in defense.