In the final analysis Jeremy de Haan left the light of the Reformation for the darkness of Roman Catholicism.  Had he rightly understood the basic teachings of the Faith he once confessed, he might have been useful in the kingdom and ministry of Jesus Christ.  Unfortunately, he chose the pursuit of a confused heart over the teaching of Holy Scripture.  The end result, as sad as it may be, is that he is no longer with us.  But was he ever?

Objective or Objecting?

With the letters of Ignatius and the testimony of Peter Kreeft bearing down on him, Jeremy de Haan decided that he needed to be as objective as possible.  But for some reason, his re-examination of the evidence proved to be futile.

I read Scripture with Catholic eyes and with Reformed eyes… the result of all this was that I was near despair by the end of the semester… If so many intelligent and amply-informed scholars could not agree on these issues, how could I make a decision either way?

According to de Haan, there are just some things that are impossible to understand.  In his mind the fundamental content of Scripture is one of those things.  From his perspective, Scripture was both Catholic and Reformed.  The truth was simply inaccessible.  But the perspicuity of Scripture was not all that de Haan struggled with.  At some point in his thinking he had also bought into the myth of neutrality – believing that the human mind is at any point in time capable of true objectivity.  But how could this be?  As a fourth year seminary student, had this man really never studied the philosophy of Gordon Clark?  Apparently not.  For if he had he would not now perpetuate his claim to neutrality.  He would not blame the facts for his own confusion.  Instead he would admit that his confusion was really rebellion so that his inability to find truth was only his refusal to accept it.

What de Haan really needed was support.  He needed help.  Not to understand the truth of Scripture but to overcome it.  Who could help with such an impossible task?

Overcomer or Undercover?

According to de Haan, he sought counsel from a Roman Catholic priest he calls Father Adam.  And while he himself was inclined to resign from seminary his priest friend convinced him to remain.  After all, why should de Haan forfeit his Masters?  Simply because he no longer believed what he professed to believe?  Nonsense.

I was ready to quit school by this point. I canceled my remaining preaching engagements and stopped teaching catechism… I was strongly tempted to walk away from my schooling and spend my time instead pursuing the Catholic question to the full… It was Father Adam who convinced me not to quit… I might as well take this time, he said, to complete my Masters and to do my best to understand what I was being taught… That was just the advice I needed.

In other words, that was the very thing I wanted to hear and it was from the source I wanted to believe.  I could be a convinced Roman Catholic and still attend a Reformed Seminary.  I don’t have to be an overcomer.  I can be an undercover.

De Haan explains that he was able to relax now and embrace Reformed teaching anew.  Only this time, he admits, it was “for the purpose of understanding and testing it.”  In apologetic terms this is called Accepting something for the sake of argument.

In April of 2016 Jeremy de Haan graduated from Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary as a Master of Divinity.  He describes his heart at that time as being restless and “yearning for its true home.”  For de Haan seminary was, in the words of Psalm 63:1, “a dry and weary land where there is no water.”  Once he graduated, he was finally able to follow his own heart.  And his heart was in Rome.

De Haan provides us with a word of Wisdom,

If there is one verse that could sum up the whole process, it would be Proverbs 18:17:  The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.  All my life I’d been presented with the Reformed case.  As a result, I had obviously been critical of Catholic teaching.”

In other words, de Haan is beginning to understand the Bible.  Proverbs 18:17 teaches that whoever states their case first is wrong.  And therefore whoever states their case second is right.  How convenient.  Does this also apply to those who were Catholic first?

Read More