# Jason Stellman Has Officially Gone to Rome



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I Fought the Church, and the Church Won - Called to Communion


----------



## Christopher88

While I will use google for this question but I would much rather read wiser men on this board who can respond; 
The Reformed take on scripture is it is the final authority of God's word. He does not speak any new revelations to this day. This being Sola Scripture
The Catholic view is Solo? Does this imply the Catholics see the word of God as truth but not the final truth? Jason seems to make a stance against the scripture writings of Paul; does the Catholic Church deny the writings of Paul or not embrace them as they would the gospels?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jason has forgotten his Bible passages. 



> To cite but one example, the Church in her earliest days was confronted with a question that Jesus had not addressed with any specificity or directness, namely, the question of Gentile inclusion in the family of God.



This looks specific to me. 

(Mat 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.


(Mat 28:19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


(Mat 28:20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.



(Joh 10:16) And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

I am sorry but I could only read so far. This thing is so fraught with stuff he has forgotten and the Devil has taken away from him. 

This is reminding me of the parable. Now I don't know Jason's mind nor heart but his words. But it appears he has forgotten a lot or he never read much of the scriptures even though he had to learn theology. They do go hand in hand. I fear for his soul and I am not going to speculate that he will go to heaven or hell. God knows. But he surely can't justify this move nor a lot of what is being said here if he truly did read the Bible. BTW, Calvin's institutes are full of the Church Fathers. Wow! Thought he was well read. Now he is imbibing too much on something he probably shouldn't be imbibing on. Sober up brother. It is time. We still love ya. 



> (Luk 8:5) A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
> (Luk 8:12) Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.


----------



## kodos

Reading Called to Communion, I am constantly impressed by these former Protestants' ability to forget the basics of our doctrine and faith. They curiously enough never weigh difficulties they encounter with Protestantism against even worse difficulties in Catholicism. 

They seem to enjoy the fact that the Catholic church gets to do the hard work of interpretation of Scripture for them, but they refuse to address gross _extrapolations_ of doctrines not to be found anywhere near Scripture (case in point: Mary the co-redemptrix). 

They seem curiously silent on these points. Well, we'll pray that in God's grace he continues to work on the hearts and minds of Catholics and draw them to the gospel of grace. I have so many ex-Catholics in my life who are now Reformed Christians it's incredible!


----------



## a mere housewife

I once spoke with a lovely lady, an RC coworker for a few days at a temp job, who after awhile began to speak about the differences between Protestants and Catholics. The biggest one she cited was that we could just pray anywhere at the drop of a hat, just walk into God's presence and address him. I explained that I think it is because we know Christ loves us. We look at the cross and see Him laying down His life for our salvation. When did Mary or any other saint do that? Why would we need to go to anyone else to get Him to think kindly of us, when He is the one who poured His life out in the greatest expression of love? We look at Him there suffering for our sin and know He has thought kindly of us from the beginning of eternity. We don't need an intercessor with God -- He is our intercessor. And so we can come to Him anytime knowing His heart is for us. I could see a light coming on in her eyes. She looked like she was going to try it at home.

Another RC girl I spoke with cited one of the differences being that we could be assured of our salvation. She was a very staunch, good Catholic, very unwilling to admit any lack in her faith. When I spoke about assurance of faith, she looked almost hungry and hunted. Again, she had an image of Mary in her car, and she prayed to the saints and to Mary.

When we moved into this house, there was a statue of Mary in the yard, and this prayer in the bedroom: 'Our Lady, the Mother of Fair Love, Thou unto the King of Kings wert a gate to earth and us. We must go to Christ through thee. We can reach him only thus.' This dear old lady died in this home with that on the wall.

I have been in Mexico and I doubt any of these people would be very proud of faith in many of its expressions there. But just taking my contact with American Roman Catholics, my heart breaks for people who wander in this direction. People can talk about all these things as if they were what our faith is in, rather than our faith being in Christ. When Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door I told them I wasn't even going to listen because I wasn't about to give up my Divine Lord, my only hope in life, the Lord I know who bought me with His blood, for anything they were peddling. And I *closed the door*. Why did Mr. Stellman not say that the day he was confronted with the claims of the Catholic church? Was he ignorant that they teach people to pray to Mary?

I can only think people are leaving assurance, peace, boldness before the throne of grace, the comfort of the love of God -- in leaving their first love. I pray Mr. Stellman will find himself unable to pray to anyone other than the Lord whose name he was baptised into.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> Historically speaking, the idea that the written Word of God is formally sufficient for all things related to faith and practice, such that anyone of normal intelligence and reasonably good intentions could read it and deduce from it what is necessary for orthodoxy and orthopraxy, is not a position that I see reflected in the writings of the early Church fathers. While there are plenty of statements in their writings that speak in glowing terms about the qualitative uniqueness of Scripture, those statements, for them, do not do away with the need for Scripture to be interpreted by the Church in a binding and authoritative way when necessary.



This is a straw man in my estimation.

The Reformed do believe that the Church is important for understanding the Scripture. But the Church isn't infallible nor is it inerrant as the scriptures are. The Church is not the final authority. It is dependent upon its King and the Holy Spirit for understanding the Scripture. St. Paul tells the Ephesians as a congregation to be understanding what the will of the Lord is. 1 Corinthians 2 says the spiritual man only understands the things of the given to us by God. It is written for our edification and growth. All of Scripture is inspired. Not the Church. Wow!. I know those who think the Roman Catholic, excuse me, (some would prefer the one and only Catholic Church) have always interpreted scripture inerrantly. But if we examine their claims then we must also understand that even the Early Church made many mistakes. It even started with St. Peter who after he was told the Gentiles were clean returned to shunning them watching Judiazer's make them fall under self justification by circumcision again. Thank the Lord for St. Paul and the Council of Jerusalem who had to deal with the issue. It was handled in a Presbyterian way I must say. At least it appears that way according to Acts 15. I am grateful the Lord said the gates of Hell will not prevail. I actually don't think the Church ever went away and that it took many detours and had to have many warnings as Chapter 2 of Revelation states even back in the day. The Church is not inerrant but it is Victorious in Christ. Revelation chapter 2 proves this.


----------



## SolaGratia

Dear Jason: the Church Won? You Didn't Even Throw a Punch, My Friend


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I don't think I can say this definitively or dogmatically, but when I see folks leave the sure mercies in Christ's person us-ward as revealed in His word for the _formulas_ of receiving "grace" through observing the Roman "sacraments" – "grace" dispensed by the RC organization – I say, "Can these people truly have known the Savior's person, known His heart toward them, to exchange it for a formula?"

While living in a Greek Orthodox country many years I observed that some people found it easier to obey numerous intricate rituals and austerities of religion rather than simply rending the heart, owning our helplessness and utter dependence, and casting ourselves upon His sure mercies and undeserved favor – given freely to those who so trust Him. The flesh works to please Him; the spirit simply cleaves to Him.


----------



## SolaGratia

Does anyone know if Mr. Stellman ever sought guidance from within PCA leaders?


----------



## toddpedlar

Am I the only one that expects within ten years to hear that Stellman's is a committed agnostic? I don't think the guy has the respect for and submissive attitude toward authority over him that will be expected of him as a member of the Romanist church...


----------



## Alan D. Strange

I do know this--that the party in question met with prominent and able men from his seminary who sought to dissuade him and rather than listening to his professors assayed to instruct them. 

I've commented here before about the dangers of an overly objective view of the Christian faith and Church, one that downplays the ministry of the Holy Spirit, an ecclesiology that swallows up soteriology--this and other matters are involved in such defections. There's a difference between faith and sight and without true faith, believing and trusting in that which we do not see, there are those who fall away. We had an alumnus who did it and left the OPC. It was not what he was taught. WSC has had this now (and one before graduating). 

It's heartbreaking--and reminds me all that much the more what I must be doing in helping to train our students. The soundest of institutions have had men do this, pointing to the sort of thing that Steve raises in #8 and the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Wayne

Gil:

Noting the link above to James White's blog and White's comments there--while he is not a PCA pastor, I think his counsel was quite pointed and any good PCA pastor would have said as much.


Jeremiah 2:11-13, 19


----------



## DMcFadden

Todd,

Ironically, another convert to Rome, Francis Beckwith, has coined a term that captures the spirit of the age: "egopapism." Veith defines it "as the belief that you yourself are your own infallible religious authority."

We live in an era when all too many see themselves as their own religious authority. Retreating to Rome will not solve the problem for such as these. It will only exacerbate the tendency to reject confessional boundaries.


----------



## Unoriginalname

I pray that God will show mercy on this man's former congregation in this trying time and that this man will repent of this wickedness.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

DMcFadden said:


> Veith defines it "as the belief that you yourself are your own infallible religious authority."



I was accused of this by a Catholic tonight because of this thread. He also accused the Reformers of such. Then he made a comment, "No, I believe that Catholic ecclesiology makes better sense of scripture and history​" I turned to the topic of whether the Church was innerrant and I asked, "So you decided they have always been inerrant from history past? From the Popes decisions?"
​
He responded with, "I'm not sure what you are asking about it being inerrant. the Church is not impeccable but its dogmatic definitions are inerrant, yes." 
​
My position was that he had to come to place and say "I believe." He was the one who decided what he believed and as an autonomous reasoning being he trusted in something with a faith. I am not so sure he could understand that. Either way the conversation ended up going in this direction next. 

As a side note let me put this observation here. If the Q'ran claims the same should we just follow it? Why or why not? Are we not called to test the spirits? 

Now for the next thing. 
I first tried to responded to some of his claims by responding to the below statement by Jason. 




PuritanCovenanter said:


> Historically speaking, the idea that the written Word of God is formally sufficient for all things related to faith and practice, such that anyone of normal intelligence and reasonably good intentions could read it and deduce from it what is necessary for orthodoxy and orthopraxy, is not a position that I see reflected in the writings of the early Church fathers. While there are plenty of statements in their writings that speak in glowing terms about the qualitative uniqueness of Scripture, those statements, for them, do not do away with the need for Scripture to be interpreted by the Church in a binding and authoritative way when necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a straw man in my estimation.
> 
> The Reformed do believe that the Church is important for understanding the Scripture. But the Church isn't infallible nor is it inerrant as the scriptures are. The Church is not the final authority. It is dependent upon its King and the Holy Spirit for understanding the Scripture. St. Paul tells the Ephesians as a congregation to be understanding what the will of the Lord is. 1 Corinthians 2 says the spiritual man only understands the things of the given to us by God. It is written for our edification and growth. All of Scripture is inspired. Not the Church. Wow!. I know those who think the Roman Catholic, excuse me, (some would prefer the one and only Catholic Church) have always interpreted scripture inerrantly. But if we examine their claims then we must also understand that even the Early Church made many mistakes. It even started with St. Peter who after he was told the Gentiles were clean returned to shunning them watching Judiazer's make them fall under self justification by circumcision again. Thank the Lord for St. Paul and the Council of Jerusalem who had to deal with the issue. It was handled in a Presbyterian way I must say. At least it appears that way according to Acts 15. I am grateful the Lord said the gates of Hell will not prevail. I actually don't think the Church ever went away and that it took many detours and had to have many warnings as Chapter 2 of Revelation states even back in the day. The Church is not inerrant but it is Victorious in Christ. Revelation chapter 2 proves this.
Click to expand...


The conversation just went on about sacraments and context of scripture. It is sad that we have to deal with this issue and sin. It is sad that the idolatry we have in our hearts just wants to arise and destroy the truth and simplicity found in Christ. I am not out to offend anyone. I have friends on all sides of life and we get along very well. They know I love them personally and that it isn't based upon their holding to Christ. It is based upon my Union with Christ and obeying him by loving those who are not like me, as the Father does. 

Anyways, I have been studying all day and this evening. I am tired. I need to go to bed. Be Encouraged guys.


----------



## Jeremy McLellan

Assuming that his rejection of what he thinks is Reformed doctrine is settled--I hope it isn't but let's say it is--Was I the only one hoping he'd turn Orthodox or Anglican? I'm really sympathetic to what a paradigm shift does to a person (it's not easy to argue between traditions) but from what I read of his earlier stuff, the points about which he has the most issue put him...well...in the good graces of most churches outside more confessional Reformed churches. Didn't he just become a high-church Arminian? Why Rome?

It's rather strange to see educated folks reject a certain modern, individualistic, congregational form of Christianity that thinks Christianity began around 1500, and then... they agree to papal infallibility, intercessory prayer, purgatory, damnation upon dying in a state of mortal sin, etc.? Doesn't seem to follow.


----------



## Somerset

Apart from the theology - why would any sane person want to join a cult whose senior officials seem to be locked in a serious, no holds barred, power struggle. I would have thought that the revelations as to the number of priests who spied for the Polish communist government - not to mention the 6800 priests under suspicion of child sex abuse in the USA alone - might also give pause for thought as to the moral soundness of the RCC.


----------



## Galatians220

Somerset said:


> Apart from the theology - why would any sane person want to join a cult whose senior officials seem to be locked in a serious, no holds barred, power struggle. I would have thought that the revelations as to the number of priests who spied for the Polish communist government - not to mention the 6800 priests under suspicion of child sex abuse in the USA alone - might also give pause for thought as to the moral soundness of the RCC.



Ken, I don't know. As one who sat in the RCC (consciously) for 35 years and gradually came, only by God's grace, to know how evil it was (if not the full extent of that evil), I'm perhaps further from understanding how one could go the other way than others are. The Lord will have mercy upon whom He will, and others He will leave in the misery of a cult. To some He will give eyes to see and ears to hear and to others, He will not. It's all of grace, obviously -- unmerited grace at that. It's only by His gracious looking with favor upon some of us that we become squeamish at the very thought of attending mass again, whether for a family event or whatever, or that we can't even look upon expensive "gift" rosaries that have been shoved to the bottoms of drawers we seldom look into, etc. Stellman's embrace of Rome was always "in the works" in God's eyes, as conversely, was the salvation of each one of us, whether we came out of Rome or not. I praise Him today as always, for He has loved each of us here with an everlasting love. If Stellman is also loved, he'll be back within the true church in God's timing; if not, well, God's will has been done.


----------



## Unoriginalname

Jeremy McLellan said:


> Assuming that his rejection of what he thinks is Reformed doctrine is settled--I hope it isn't but let's say it is--Was I the only one hoping he'd turn Orthodox or Anglican?


I also kind of hoped that. Partly because I always enjoyed the EO's aesthetic more than the RC and probably because I have a disproportionate dislike of the RC. I am so exposed to the RC on a daily basis (went to a RC college and work at an RC hospital crucifixes in every room), that on top of disagreeing with it theologically I just do not like it because I think it is tacky, hopelessly superstitious and sentimental. So I can share in that bizarre feeling that I wished he walked away from the faith and into something cooler.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

The interesting thing is that I haven't heard anything from any of the faculty of his seminary. I wonder why they haven't said much. Interesting fact is that there was another guy who went to a certain reformed seminary (recently) and came to the conclusion that Rome was right. Is there something in the milk? What should one do if this young man was seeking counsel but didn't receive any?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Let's all just put the genetic fallacy to rest here. If there was a true pattern of men leaving one seminary, it might be reason to reevaluate within and without the institution. BTW, I happen to know that a SINGLE man going off the reservation gets his mentor's and past supporters worked up almost inevitably into a frenzy of self-examination. "Was it something I said...or didn't say?"

The fact is that even several men going off together or serially doesn't of itself prove anything about the school that trained them. While I think it highly unlikely, given the investment involved, it is not impossible that some men go get a theological education at a Reformed institution in order to make a "splash" in about 10 years, doing things like this. It's not impossible, because in essence that's the path that ScottHahn took. Read his and his wife's little biopic, and you can see how he started at WTS with a trajectory out of the Reformed faith.

Do I believe there's a big conspiracy to embarrass Reformed Seminaries? No, but the fact that one or two guys, from one school, in a year or two go off in the same direction proves nothing at all about the school. And the fact that there was another guy from another conservative school did the same thing also proves nothing. If it hasn't happened in every school yet, just give it some time.

Finally, don't assume that no one tried to talk these guys out of their moves, just because you may not have heard anything. I know that JJS had talks with his profs and his session. The session has basically two choices: they can work with their pastor to help him if they think its worthwhile, and the people won't suffer any worse no matter what happens. Or they can tell him immediately to resign, because the next step is a congregational meeting, followed by seeking the Presbytery's consent--and he's gone. He will not win that fight.

JJS's session seems to have taken taken the first route, and to his credit JJS brought himself to his Presbytery when he says his mind was too far away from his vows. The dude in PA was more of a prevaricator, who hid his intentions pretty much right up to the end, kept preaching and taking a paycheck, until he bailed--having already joined himself to Rome. He left a stinkbomb behind, and a lot of shattered trust. Regardless of how a man leaves, how does it feel to be a church that called "the wrong guy," in a manner of speaking?



Bottom line: we need to stop all public queries about the integrity of the men's schools, sessions, presbyteries, and others. The issues are fundamentally individual and spiritual. In some cases, these men are honest, and find themselves changing and getting consistent with their deepest convictions. Sometimes they are dishonest, perhaps first with themselves, then with others. These very same events have happened since the 1500s in every place. The profiles of the men are different. In a smaller set of churches, the effect of a departure is magnified, as is such a move in the age of internet-instant communication. These things are (thankfully) unusual, but they aren't unheard-of. These recent events are a reminder to us of that fact, and of how vulnerable the church is, if Christ is not our watchman on the wall.


----------



## J. Dean

Contra_Mundum said:


> Bottom line: we need to stop all public queries about the integrity of the men's schools, sessions, presbyteries, and others. The issues are fundamentally individual and spiritual. In some cases, these men are honest, and find themselves changing and getting consistent with their deepest convictions. Sometimes they are dishonest, perhaps first with themselves, then with others. These very same events have happened since the 1500s in every place. The profiles of the men are different. In a smaller set of churches, the effect of a departure is magnified, as is such a move in the age of internet-instant communication. These things are (thankfully) unusual, but they aren't unheard-of. These recent events are a reminder to us of that fact, and of how vulnerable the church is, if Christ is not our watchman on the wall.


I agree with that to a certain point, but if said departing seminarian says "Hey, this professor said 'x' in seminary!" then at the very least it should be examined. You're right that seminaries are too quick to be blamed, but at the same time error can and (as we have seen in the history of the church) does enter them. Seminaries are made up of men, and men are not infallible.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

J. Dean said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line: we need to stop all public queries about the integrity of the men's schools, sessions, presbyteries, and others. The issues are fundamentally individual and spiritual. In some cases, these men are honest, and find themselves changing and getting consistent with their deepest convictions. Sometimes they are dishonest, perhaps first with themselves, then with others. These very same events have happened since the 1500s in every place. The profiles of the men are different. In a smaller set of churches, the effect of a departure is magnified, as is such a move in the age of internet-instant communication. These things are (thankfully) unusual, but they aren't unheard-of. These recent events are a reminder to us of that fact, and of how vulnerable the church is, if Christ is not our watchman on the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that to a certain point, but if said departing seminarian says "Hey, this professor said 'x' in seminary!" then at the very least it should be examined. You're right that seminaries are too quick to be blamed, but at the same time error can and (as we have seen in the history of the church) does enter them. Seminaries are made up of men, and men are not infallible.
Click to expand...


I think the point is that ultimately we are responsible for our own theology. In the same way that many of us on this board went to liberal or Arminian schools, and yet went on to reject those things, many men will go to solid, conservative seminaries and equally reject those things despite what they may or may not hace been taught. I think it also ironic that this only causes concern when it happens at a reformed seminary. No one is going to call up New Orleans seminary and demand an explanation as to why David Platt is a Calvinist.


----------



## toddpedlar

J. Dean said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line: we need to stop all public queries about the integrity of the men's schools, sessions, presbyteries, and others. The issues are fundamentally individual and spiritual. In some cases, these men are honest, and find themselves changing and getting consistent with their deepest convictions. Sometimes they are dishonest, perhaps first with themselves, then with others. These very same events have happened since the 1500s in every place. The profiles of the men are different. In a smaller set of churches, the effect of a departure is magnified, as is such a move in the age of internet-instant communication. These things are (thankfully) unusual, but they aren't unheard-of. These recent events are a reminder to us of that fact, and of how vulnerable the church is, if Christ is not our watchman on the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that to a certain point, but if said departing seminarian says "Hey, this professor said 'x' in seminary!" then at the very least it should be examined. You're right that seminaries are too quick to be blamed, but at the same time error can and (as we have seen in the history of the church) does enter them. Seminaries are made up of men, and men are not infallible.
Click to expand...


Yes, and since this (to my knowledge at least) is NOT something that can be applied to this case, then there is no reason whatsoever to make the above statement, and the appropriate thing is to follow Pastor Bruce's advice.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Rev Buchanan,

I hope it didn't come across as if I was suggesting anything of the sort. I whole heartedly believe this seminary is a great seminary, including the faculty. The men within that faculty are very godly men. I think my choice of words were wrong. Sorry for any confusion in my statement.


----------



## mjmacvey

It appears that the link posted above was removed from the Called to Communion site at Jason's request. He has not explained why. I am not at all sure why Jason has found it necessary to make this a public process. I don't see how this can be of help to his family or former congregation. He could have met with his congregation and submitted his letter of resignation quietly, but he has (in my opinion) taken a much more self-serving route.

I think Rev. Buchanan's post addresses the issue well, but wanted to answer a few questions that arose in this thread directly:

1) I can say with certainty that Jason consulted with both WSC faculty and alumni (many his friends and former classmates). A meeting took place on our campus shortly before he announced his resignation from the PCA. As far as the perceived silence of the WSC faculty on this issue, I don't get it. Dr. Horton has posted a few things at the White Horse Inn Blog. Dr. Clark has re-posted some blog posts/articles on his page at Westminster Seminary California. Our faculty positively defends the Reformed Confessions at every opportunity and regularly contrasts them with the teaching of Rome in the classroom. They are very concerned about these situations. I am not sure what more needs to be said. 

As an aside, I think that it is interesting (though troubling) that far more often graduates of theological seminaries leave the ministry due to moral failings than theological ones. Each can be quite devastating to congregations, yet these theological defections seem to receive much greater attention (within Reformed circles at least). Do we have a greater obligation to respond because this is a theological failing? 

2) I should also make it clear that these two recent WSC grad transitions to Rome are quite different (besides the fact that they were enrolled at WSC nearly 10 years apart). Although Mr. Lim was in good standing as a member of a Reformed Church when he arrived at WSC, it is quite apparent from his explanation of his conversion that he was questioning the Reformed/Protestant Faith before he arrived at WSC. To my knowledge, he did not disclose any of these concerns to the faculty until he had made a decision to join the RC church. At that point many did reach out to him, but he could not be persuaded to reverse his course. You will also noticed that Mr. Lim did not mention in his post the seminary from which he graduated. I am sure this was added by the folks at CTC for effect. 

3) One of the troubling things about this situation, in my opinion, are the responses. It is the "confessionalism" or "Two Kingdoms" or an "Over-emphasis on ecclesiology" or a "a Lutheran view of Justification." We all want to know why, but none of the quick explanations that have been showing up on blogs since Jason first announced his resignation come close to getting at the complexity of this situation. If you look at the list of contributors at the Called to Communion site you will several former Presbyterians (from many denominations) and a variety of seminaries. It is impossible to point to any particular theological or educational defect that unifies these situations.


----------



## arapahoepark

mjmacvey said:


> It appears that the post above was removed at Jason's request. He has not explained why. I am not at all sure why Jason has found it necessary to make this a public process. I don't see how this can be of help to his family or former congregation. He could have met with his congregation and submitted his letter of resignation quietly, but he has (in my opinion) taken a much more self-serving route.
> 
> I think Rev. Buchanan's post addresses the issue well, but wanted to answer a few questions that arose in this thread directly:
> 
> 1) I can say with certainty that Jason consulted with both WSC faculty and alumni (many his friends and former classmates). A meeting took place on our campus shortly before he announced his resignation from the PCA. As far as the perceived silence of the WSC faculty on this issue, I don't get it. Dr. Horton has posted a few things at the White Horse Inn Blog. Dr. Clark has re-posted some blog posts/articles on his page at Westminster Seminary California. Our faculty positively defends the Reformed Confessions at every opportunity and regularly contrasts them with the teaching of Rome in the classroom. They are very concerned about these situations. I am not sure what more needs to be said.
> 
> As an aside, I think that it is interesting (though troubling) that far more often graduates of theological seminaries leave the ministry due to moral failings than theological ones. Each can be quite devastating to congregations, yet these theological defections seem to receive much greater attention (within Reformed circles at least). Do we have a greater obligation to respond because this is a theological failing?
> 
> 2) I should also make it clear that these two recent WSC grad transitions to Rome are quite different (besides the fact that they were enrolled at WSC nearly 10 years apart). Although Mr. Lim was in good standing as a member of a Reformed Church when he arrived at WSC, it is quite apparent from his explanation of his conversion that he was questioning the Reformed/Protestant Faith before he arrived at WSC. To my knowledge, he did not disclose any of these concerns to the faculty until he had made a decision to join the RC church. At that point many did reach out to him, but he could not be persuaded to reverse his course. You will also noticed that Mr. Lim did not mention in his post the seminary from which he graduated. I am sure this was added by the folks at CTC for effect.
> 
> 3) One of the troubling things about this situation, in my opinion, are the responses. It is the "confessionalism" or "Two Kingdoms" or an "Over-emphasis on ecclesiology" or a "a Lutheran view of Justification." We all want to know why, but none of the quick explanations that have been showing up on blogs since Jason first announced his resignation come close to getting at the complexity of this situation. If you look at the list of contributors at the Called to Communion site you will several former Presbyterians (from many denominations) and a variety of seminaries. It is impossible to point to any particular theological or educational defect that unifies these situations.



I think the lure of Rome has to do more with comfort and stability of being in a large, unshattered (as oppose to Protestant's many denominations, and organized church that 'claims' to have roots as the 'true church.' Of course I can't say for each individual one but it seems likely that they aren't necessarily one of so much theological motive (praying to mary, saints, etc. etc.) as that stability rather than saying your a protestant who has many different factions that supposedly ignore unity and people are their own popes and ignoring supposedly age old ecclesiastical tradition in regards to scriptures amongst the many other things (at least as is seen to those on the outside).
I could be wrong, but that seems why people are also lured to Eastern Orthodox and their doctrine seems farther off (more mystical) than RCC.


----------



## nicnap

arap said:


> unshattered



Depends on who you ask...history or Rome.


----------



## py3ak

We have had several people who were members on the board jump ship for pastures that seem rather definitely less green. We have to recognize that those who are unstable and vulnerable will probably show that at some point, in one way or another. What else can we do? And let us learn to exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of us be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
We stand by grace; if God did not preserve us, there is no doctrine so unbiblical, no cult so absurd, that it could not take us in. Let us take heed lest we fall.


----------



## arapahoepark

nicnap said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> 
> unshattered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on who you ask...history or Rome.
Click to expand...


I edited my post, I mean in the sense, not fractured in the way us protestants are...if you read the rest of my post I make that clear, and of course not trying to bash myself or other protestants. But I believe some 'vulnerable people' as Py3ak says would rather want unity no matter the cost and buy into that whole 'true church' thing.
I apologize if that seems abrasive.


----------



## mvdm

I found this to be one of the better and more precise/step by step responses to Stellman's announcement:

Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Response to Jason Stellman


----------



## Beoga

mvdm said:


> I found this to be one of the better and more precise/step by step responses to Stellman's announcement:
> 
> Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Response to Jason Stellman



Well since Jason's article is now gone this is an especially helpful response.


----------



## Jeremy McLellan

I’m engaged in a Facebook "argument" about Stellman with some Converted-to-Catholic friends (Joshua Lim and Chad Pecknold) and it seems to me that the vast majority of the arguments between Protestants and Catholics rest on how we understand the Apostolic Fathers. In other words, while schism between Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans rest on hundreds of things that each have to be addressed, schism between Protestants and Catholics+Orthodox seems to rest on differing understandings of the period of the Apostolic Fathers, out of which the differing hermeneutics (and their ensuing doctrines like sainthood) arise. Maybe individuals have different motivations for converting both ways, but it seems to me that the basic reason a Catholic becomes a Protestant is because he starts to think like a Protestant (and vice-versa) which in turn assumes something about the history of the early church: namely, whether to regard the extra-Biblical government, practices and beliefs of the Apostolic Fathers as authoritative in a way that requires obsequium religiosum. Even Calvin and Luther both agreed that many of the Apostolic Fathers practiced and believed many things that they opposed–including the veneration of saints like Polycarp–but they did not believe such practices and doctrines were authoritative in the same way.

Would you (or others on here) agree that this is the crux of the matter, and the rest are just footnotes? (For me, if I were convinced of that, I’d become Catholic.) What resources would you recommend for this? So far I’ve relied mostly on Jaroslav Pelikan’s 5 Volume Series for my very early church history.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Alan D. Strange said:


> I do know this--that the party in question met with prominent and able men from his seminary who sought to dissuade him and rather than listening to his professors assayed to instruct them.
> 
> I've commented here before about the dangers of an overly objective view of the Christian faith and Church, one that downplays the ministry of the Holy Spirit, an ecclesiology that swallows up soteriology--this and other matters are involved in such defections. There's a difference between faith and sight and without true faith, believing and trusting in that which we do not see, there are those who fall away. We had an alumnus who did it and left the OPC. It was not what he was taught. WSC has had this now (and one before graduating).
> 
> It's heartbreaking--and reminds me all that much the more what I must be doing in helping to train our students. The soundest of institutions have had men do this, pointing to the sort of thing that Steve raises in #8 and the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan





I am very grateful for your participation on this board.

Likewise to Steve and Heidi's comments.

The man who has not this grace has not _spiritually_ apprehended the things of Christ:
Matt 11:25-30


> At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.g 27All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light"



The irony of these "Calls to Communion" is that the RCC does not ask men to reason that the Church is correct but to accept, as an article of faith, that the Church is correct regardless of the evidence. There is no place for an examination for the internal consistency of the Roman Catholic Church's claims. They are to be believed and held. The notion that each of us is to examine the evidence and come to the conclusion that their claims of history are true is not a principle of their religion. Furthermore, the notion that the Church interprets the Scriptures for the Roman faithful is belied by the fact that no uniform interpretation exists. Again, there is no place for examination. Simply an implicit resolve that the Church is correct.

Jason's arguments are, therefore, not applicable. It needs to begin and end with this statement: Believe what the Roman Catholic Church says is true right now. Full stop.

Do not pass Go. Don't even try to harmonize a dogmatic statement from today with one from the past. Simply trust that the Church is correct. All other inquiry is futile and non-Roman Catholic.

That said, I return to what has been noted.

Ours is, indeed, a reasonable religion and our minds are involved in faith. We can reason from the Scriptures for God's Word is shown to be faithful and true and does not contradict itself.

Yet we are of a people who have been called from darkness into light. That darkness is not that we lacked the logical propositions and, if we merely demonstrate that we can master Systematic theology and demonstrate its coherence, that we have arrived at the heart of the matter.

No!

Christ thanks the Father for us.

Why? Because the Father has revealed these things to us. Truth is not a matter of undifferentiated facts organized by the organ of our mind to make sense of "facts" of revelation (special and general). All knowledge is revelation and our minds were darkened. We were blind to the things of God. But the Spirit of Christ has opened our eyes to worship. We have been transported from the Wisdom of this Age to the Wisdom of the Age to Come.

Do not lament the Roman Catholic's faulty syllogisms. Lament that his mind is darkened and pray for the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Do not be haughty that we have received light but be patient with all men and endure their folly for such as we were except that God, in His infinite mercy, looked upon me, a sinner.


----------



## Jeremy McLellan

Rich,

I agree with you, but I'm not entirely sure that it's that simple. The _reason_ that Catholics are to "accept, as an article of faith, that the Church is correct regardless of the evidence" and we Protestants are not to accept that, rests on our differing understandings of the period of the Apostolic Fathers, out of which our differing hermeneutics (and their ensuing doctrines) arise. Maybe individuals have different motivations for converting both ways, but it seems to me that the basic reason a Protestant becomes a Catholic is because he starts to reason like a Catholic (and vice-versa) which it turn assumes something about the history of the early church: namely, whether to regard the extra-Biblical government, practices and beliefs of the Apostolic Fathers (and their progeny) as authoritative in a way that requires _obsequium religiosum_. 

"Thinking like a Catholic" involves regarding the development of doctrine throughout history as authoritative in a particularly linear unreformable way, like we find in Newman's _Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_. Obviously, I do not share that view, but that's because--as a Reformed Christian--I regard as fallible the history of doctrinal development, leaving open the possibility of wrong turns, non sequiters, bad reasoning, lack of access to Greek texts, ecclesiastical expediency, the existence of practices that might be tolerated but never mandatory, etc. (e.g. We might say that Augustine misunderstood the Hebrew concept of justification because he relied on a Latin translation.) 

All this just to say that treating the development of doctrine as authoritative or not (in the way I describe) needn't be an _a priori_ conviction NOR an objective assessment of "is the history correct?" I think it relies fundamentally on how one views the transition from the Apostles to the Apostolic Fathers. If you buy the Catholic account of that, it seems that the rest would follow. Again, I'd like to know what Reformed resources are available in terms of that history (besides Calvin's ICR4).


----------



## Unprofitable Servant

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I don't think I can say this definitively or dogmatically, but when I see folks leave the sure mercies in Christ's person us-ward as revealed in His word for the _formulas_ of receiving "grace" through observing the Roman "sacraments" – "grace" dispensed by the RC organization – I say, "Can these people truly have known the Savior's person, known His heart toward them, to exchange it for a formula?"
> 
> While living in a Greek Orthodox country many years I observed that some people found it easier to obey numerous intricate rituals and austerities of religion rather than simply rending the heart, owning our helplessness and utter dependence, and casting ourselves upon His sure mercies and undeserved favor – given freely to those who so trust Him. The flesh works to please Him; the spirit simply cleaves to Him.



I have recently acquired a set of volumes of Spurgeon's sermons. The very first one in volume one speaks to what you are saying. It is based upon Isaiah 45:22-

_"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else."_

Men will gladly do the impossible for salvation, and will trust in formulas and rituals before trusting in the stumbling block that is the simplicity in Christ. Spurgeon goes on to speak about how He does this for His glory.

I read Spurgeon right after hearing about this Stellman fellow. It was an encouragement.

We must be grounded in the Word and in prayer. But for the grace of God, there go I.


----------



## Unprofitable Servant

PuritanCovenanter said:


> It is sad that the idolatry we have in our hearts just wants to arise and destroy the truth and simplicity found in Christ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jeremy McLellan said:


> Rich,
> 
> I agree with you, but I'm not entirely sure that it's that simple. The _reason_ that Catholics are to "accept, as an article of faith, that the Church is correct regardless of the evidence" and we Protestants are not to accept that, rests on our differing understandings of the period of the Apostolic Fathers, out of which our differing hermeneutics (and their ensuing doctrines) arise. Maybe individuals have different motivations for converting both ways, but it seems to me that the basic reason a Protestant becomes a Catholic is because he starts to reason like a Catholic (and vice-versa) which it turn assumes something about the history of the early church: namely, whether to regard the extra-Biblical government, practices and beliefs of the Apostolic Fathers (and their progeny) as authoritative in a way that requires _obsequium religiosum_.
> 
> "Thinking like a Catholic" involves regarding the development of doctrine throughout history as authoritative in a particularly linear unreformable way, like we find in Newman's _Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_. Obviously, I do not share that view, but that's because--as a Reformed Christian--I regard as fallible the history of doctrinal development, leaving open the possibility of wrong turns, non sequiters, bad reasoning, lack of access to Greek texts, ecclesiastical expediency, the existence of practices that might be tolerated but never mandatory, etc. (e.g. We might say that Augustine misunderstood the Hebrew concept of justification because he relied on a Latin translation.)
> 
> All this just to say that treating the development of doctrine as authoritative or not (in the way I describe) needn't be an _a priori_ conviction NOR an objective assessment of "is the history correct?" I think it relies fundamentally on how one views the transition from the Apostles to the Apostolic Fathers. If you buy the Catholic account of that, it seems that the rest would follow. Again, I'd like to know what Reformed resources are available in terms of that history (besides Calvin's ICR4).



There are obviously complexities to the issue. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it is not up to a believer, in Roman Catholic dogma, to come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is correct in her historical theology through a process of independent reasoning. The person in the pew is not permitted the liberty to "check the math" of the Church in her formulations but must accept, as an article of faith, that she is correct in her conclusions regardless of the way those conclusions are supported. 

It is certainly the case that some Roman Catholics argue from their understanding of historical theological development that they are Catholics by independent study but that is not the foundation upon which the Church calls her adherents to believe. In fact, some Roman Catholic apologists who engage in a historical theology have concluded the Holy See is in error because they attempt to draw a historical line of theological understanding according to what they have independently concluded the Church believed and held.. This is not what the Roman Catholic Church calls her adherents unto. The individual has no authority to do this and it thus demonstrates that, in the final analysis, even trying to keep track of the dogmas and harmonizing them is not what an adherent is expected to do. When Luther noted that councils contradicted one another he was committing an unpardonable sin. The Church does not allow anyone to determine what is and isn't to be reasoned from her contradictory dogmas that have been variously laid down only to be brought up again and replaced with another. Papal infallibility? No problem. Those popes that taught things contradictory to current dogma were not teaching _ex cathedra_. How do we know? Of course because the Church tells us so.

The Church gets to decide what is to be believed and held and even gets to say that this has always been the case. It also gets to decide how to interpret ECF's and which portions of which ECF's are to be listened to and which are to be ignored. At the end of the day, my point is that the argument to "check for yourself if this is so" is not a Roman Catholic method. The method is: "We're the Church and you owe us implicit faith in all our dogmatic and historical assertions...."

Consequently, in the final analysis, any appeal to call a man to "check for yourself that these things are so" is simply not a way that an adherent is called to think. It's bait and switch. The man who comes to the independent conviction that Rome is correct because he has independently reasoned that she is what she says she is get in one way and then, when in, is expected to never again reason any further than to accept, as dogma, whatever the Church holds forth.


----------



## py3ak

Jeremy McLellan said:


> Maybe individuals have different motivations for converting both ways, but it seems to me that the basic reason a Catholic becomes a Protestant is because he starts to think like a Protestant (and vice-versa) which in turn assumes something about the history of the early church: namely, whether to regard the extra-Biblical government, practices and beliefs of the Apostolic Fathers as authoritative in a way that requires obsequium religiosum.



I think it's wider than that, Jeremy; that's undoubtedly a part of it, but "sacred tradition" is not exhausted by the Apostolic Fathers, even if it starts with them. And so it comes around again to the issue of authority: _sola scriptura_. Can doctors, popes, and councils err, and have they done so? Is there anything that can be placed on a level with Holy Scripture? When Luther cannot be convinced by any authority that is not derived from Scripture or plain reason he has, as you say, begun to think like a Protestant; but that sort of thinking is exactly what Scripture calls us to with its exhortation not to believe all the spirits, but to test them; or with the command to prove all things and retain only what is good. You can call it thinking like a Protestant; but it is also thinking like Isaiah, or indeed like Christ. The question is "What saith the Scripture?" not "What say the Apostolic Fathers, or the college of cardinals, or the Pope?"


----------



## Jeremy McLellan

Like I keep saying, the reason they ask "What say the Apostolic Fathers, or the college of cardinals, or the Pope?" is that they assert a way of understanding Scripture and Tradition, the latter being central to their assertion of a very seamless transition from the Apostles to the Apostolic Fathers. *If* it's true that the Apostolic Fathers (even while John and Mary were around) presented a fairly unified Roman Catholicism that continues uninterrupted to this day, that's a pretty compelling reason to become Catholic. If nobody on this board has any resources to combat their narration of the first two hundred years of church history, I can request it elsewhere, but I hoped y'all would.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Jeremy McLellan said:


> Like I keep saying, the reason they ask "What say the Apostolic Fathers, or the college of cardinals, or the Pope?" is that they assert a way of understanding Scripture and Tradition, the latter being central to their assertion of a very seamless transition from the Apostles to the Apostolic Fathers. If it's true that the Apostolic Fathers (even while John and Mary were around) presented a fairly unified Roman Catholicism that continues uninterrupted to this day, that's a pretty compelling reason to become Catholic. If nobody on this board has any resources to combat their narration of the first two hundred years of church history, I can request it elsewhere, but I hoped y'all would.



Jeremy:

Bryan Litfin has a fine work, _Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction_, published in 2007 by Brazos Press. 

I am in the midst of something, have just seen your posts, and don't have time to respond fully now. But you've been sold a bill of goods by someone, friend, and I am quite concerned to hear someone coming on this confessional board and saying what you're saying about "pretty compelling reason to become Catholic." 

I trust that you know with the Apostolic Fathers we are talking about only the most immediate churchmen after the close of the apostolic era. We're talking, say 95-140 (A.D.), men like Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius. It is the case that their writings are strikingly different than that of the NT (in terms of spiritual power, clarity, and authority), being often quite moralistic, lacking in grace; notwithstanding, these are our fathers who are trying to understand the momentous thing that has just happened. They get that Jesus is Lord and that what He did saved us. That's pretty momentous. But there are many other things that they are not clear about. Nobody will be clear about grace like Paul until Augustine and then he gets some things about justification unclear. 

Roman Catholicism does not exist as such until the fourth century, at the earliest, really until Leo I (440-461). Episcopacy, yes, but not Roman Catholicism, which some would argue does not take anything like the kind of shape that we know it until after the fall of the Empire in the West (476) and with the bishopric of Gregory the Great (590-604), early in the Middle Ages.

Sorry, to be so quick and blunt but I saw many things here that concerned me and as a historian thought that I should make some response.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Jeremy McLellan

Dr. Strange,

Thank you, I look forward to reading that tomorrow. I haven't been sold anything besides Litfin's Kindle book, I assure you! Do not revoke my Genevan passport! I have never asserted any uninterrupted ecclesiological/doctrinal development of Roman Catholicism from the Apostles. I merely noted that this is something that the RCC and OC assert, and _*if they are right*_ that would be a very compelling case for their particular hermeneutic, out of which all the other things they believe would flow. 

But you assure me that are not right, and even provided me a book to read, so thank you!

Peace,
Jeremy


----------



## J. Dean

Dr. Strange,

But doesn't the fact that the early Church fathers come so soon after the apostles lend credence to what they said? The fact that they were so close to the apostles in time at the very least would warrant examination. I'm not necessarily saying they were right in all of their assertions, but being one generation apart from Peter, Paul, etc., does strike me as a bit more credible than if it had been seven or eight generations away.


----------



## py3ak

Jeremy McLellan said:


> Like I keep saying, the reason they ask "What say the Apostolic Fathers, or the college of cardinals, or the Pope?" is that they assert a way of understanding Scripture and Tradition, the latter being central to their assertion of a very seamless transition from the Apostles to the Apostolic Fathers. *If* it's true that the Apostolic Fathers (even while John and Mary were around) presented a fairly unified Roman Catholicism that continues uninterrupted to this day, that's a pretty compelling reason to become Catholic. If nobody on this board has any resources to combat their narration of the first two hundred years of church history, I can request it elsewhere, but I hoped y'all would.



Yes, they do assert a way of understanding Scripture and Tradition - but it's a way of understanding that Scripture itself opposes. That has to be the first point. If my understanding of tradition functionally denies the unique place Scripture claims for itself, well, it certainly shouldn't be Scripture that gets revised or reinterpreted. It is an interpretation of Scripture that is opposed by the very text being interpreted. John 21, while John is still alive, already has to correct an oral tradition that was going around the churches.

"Seamless transition" and "fairly unified Roman Catholicism" are pipe dreams. You had errors, divisions, and heresies while the apostles were around: you had people denying Paul's apostolic credentials, and assuming preeminence even in a church which John oversaw. You had people hybridizing Christainity with Judaism, gnosticism, and what have you. That is what elicited most of the NT! Nothing was seamless, and in a quite early epistle Paul can write that the mystery of iniquity is already at work. If you take the deliverances of Trent or Vatican I or II, or the writings of a doctor of the church, like de Sales, and compare them to Polycarp, Ignatius, the epistle to Diognetus, and other early writings you will find a hodgepodge: agreements, disagreements, developments, distortions, omissions.

"Uninterrupted to this day" is a ridiculous fantasy: the church of Christ is uninterrupted, but the papal succession can only be defined as "uninterrupted" if "uninterrupted" means "eventually resumed after long breaks with murky doubts about legitimacy and succession that are incapable of resolution." A doctrinal and spiritual succession cannot be maintained (for the sake of argument, contrast the Apostle Peter -not that he was a pope in the Roman sense, but they think he was- and Innocent III); an organizational and physical succession cannot be maintained (the accession of Martin V illustrates that rather well); even a geographical succession cannot be maintained (the time the papacy spent in Avignon).

To briefly summarize, I think there are three vital points. First, "early" does not mean "right". Second, the claims for what is "early" are often wildly exaggerated. Third, as Calvin summarized Paul's teaching in Colossians, if someone is otherwise big with heaven and earth, but does not hold on to Christ and hold Christ out to us, they are to be rejected. Now I deny that Rome or Constantinople are big with heaven and earth, though they certainly claim to be: but even if they were, it makes no difference - I dare not fall into the condemnation of those who do not hold the Head.

Jeremy, I'm not Dr. Strange, obviously, but you have to distinguish. Someone who had known the apostles would obviously have a better recollection of them than someone who was only born after they died (though again see John 21 for a clear illustration that this has its limits); but if we are talking about interpreting their writings, that advantage doesn't necessarily carry over. The question returns to this: do we believe that God inspired a written record of what we needed to know that is uniquely authoritative and sufficient for its purpose? Or do we believe that it must be supplemented from another source? It doesn't matter what that other source is: tradition, new revelations, philosophy, what have you. There is a dividing line between those who accept Scripture as Christ's unique method of communicating his will to his church, and those who believe that something must be added to it. Obviously there are inconsistencies on both sides, and no one practices their belief perfectly, which may make the division between individuals less easy to notice; but there is still a clear distinction in the positions themselves.


----------



## Marrow Man

py3ak said:


> the papal succession can only be defined as "uninterrupted" if "uninterrupted" means "eventually resumed after long breaks with murky doubts about legitimacy and succession that are incapable of resolution."





Quote of the year from the Bat.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jeremy McLellan said:


> Dr. Strange,
> 
> Thank you, I look forward to reading that tomorrow. I haven't been sold anything besides Litfin's Kindle book, I assure you! Do not revoke my Genevan passport! I have never asserted any uninterrupted ecclesiological/doctrinal development of Roman Catholicism from the Apostles. I merely noted that this is something that the RCC and OC assert, and _*if they are right*_ that would be a very compelling case for their particular hermeneutic, out of which all the other things they believe would flow.
> 
> But you assure me that are not right, and even provided me a book to read, so thank you!
> 
> Peace,
> Jeremy


If _they_ are right? Which? They make exclusive authority claims. Why would you need an assurance from anybody that _they_ are not correct?

At the end of the day, the soul needs to rest in one authority. Either:
1) You trust, implicitly, in an uninterrupted ecclesiological/doctrinal tradition in the Roman Catholic Church.
2) You trust, implicitly, in an uninterrupted ecclesiological/doctrinal tradition in the Greek Orthodox Church (or Georgian or Russian or ...).
3) You trust in yourself and your apprehension of historical theology. You remain a member of a visible congregation (pick your stripe) but you neither really are _of_ any Church because authority rests alone in you.
4) You trust, implicitly, that the Holy Spirit works through the Word, which is the only infallible and unbroken tradition amidst the clear historical testimony of fallible, sinful Church men more or less being obedient to its authority. As I've stated over and over to my brother, a father does not need to be infallible to have authority over his children. Let God be true and every man a liar. The Church is not merely a disposable appendage because it makes mistakes but a healthy Church recognizes that it was called out and formed by the Word an not the other way around. It consequently heeds the warnings of the Scriptures themselves that it be not haughty because, if the Lord does not spare the natural branches, he doesn't _owe_ it to us who do not hear His Word daily and depend upon Him for strength.

_Sola Fide_ - you either believe that man is saved by the simple act of trust in the righteousness of Christ alone and turning away from all self-righteousness and, by this act, he is united vitally to Christ and all His saving benefits for such was the will of the Father that we should believe and walk in all its fruits.

OR

You believe that a form of Pelagianism really is true. Man is fallen for sure but not so fallen that the Church can't infuse an amount of grace and wash away enough sin to permit man to cooperate with grace that he might be perfected by a mixture of his faithfulness and the Church's sacraments or, conversely, destroy that grace and be in danger of hellfire.

_Sola Gratia_ - Either you believe that man was dead in His sin and trespasses, hopelessly enslaved to sin, that none could come to the Son because He was loathsome in their sight, _unless_ the Father draw them and, because we have peace with God through Christ, the Father will not cast out His friends because He who began a good work in us will continue it to the end.

OR

A form of Pelagianism is true after all. Man is not so sinful that God is able to give a little bit to man and, so long as he cooperates with it, he may be assured he is saved from hell fire. Today that is. Tomorrow is a new day where you may destroy that grace. You were not a slave after all and you chose, with some help, to become a Christian and so you may destroy that grace and receive all the wrath that is due. Tis the greatest heresy of the Protestants that a man may have assurance of salvation.

_Solus Christus_ - Either Christ Alone and His righteousness saves you to the uttermost. His sacrifice was not only sufficient to put the penalty of sin to death but its power as well. His resurrected, indestructible life sanctifies us to the uttermost because He has all power and authority so to do. His sacrifice is once for all and we _have_ bold access into the throne room of God's very presence through the veil of Christ's flesh.

OR

Christ's righteousness is but one of many sources of grace which may be dispensed by sacrifices that never save or sanctifiy. Christ's sacrifice is not finished but must be re-presented and can never accomplish the sure salvation of any it is given to.

_Sola Scriptura_ - either God's Word alone is θεόπνευστος. It is the final authority in all matters because it, alone, has the Divine imprimatur as reflecting the mind of God. We, who are fallen, and do not even know our own deceitful hearts, stand in need of it for the eyes to see the Kingdom and, properly, the world around it.

or

A form of Pelagianism is true after all. The Church does not consist of sinful men but an infallible collective with the Bishop of Rome as its Prince. It not only cannot err but determines what the Word is and its very Words are to be taken authoritatively. Christ's condemnation to the See of Jerusalem in His day or Paul's warning that even an Apostle is to be judged by the Word does not apply because there is no authority by which any can judge the declarations of the Church.

_Soli Deo Gloria_ - Either God alone is glorified for your salvation because you realize that you were dead in your sin and trespasses and that even your faith, among all the other Evangelical graces, is a gift from God.

OR

You participate in your salvation and may, in fact, participate in another's salvation if you exceed the merit needed for your own salvation.

Consequently, let's turn aside from the absurd notion that this question turns on whether or not we can perform historical theological study to determine what men said in the past.

Either your heart beats with life as you consider the Gospel and all its benefits or it runs cold and such things are tentative until you figure out whether or not either the Roman Catholic or some form of Eastern Orthodoxy have the claim to the historical/doctrinal record.



J. Dean said:


> Dr. Strange,
> 
> But doesn't the fact that the early Church fathers come so soon after the apostles lend credence to what they said? The fact that they were so close to the apostles in time at the very least would warrant examination. I'm not necessarily saying they were right in all of their assertions, but being one generation apart from Peter, Paul, etc., does strike me as a bit more credible than if it had been seven or eight generations away.


I've spet a lot of time on this thread so let me simply point out that the Galatian heresy occurred within the lifetime of Paul. We err if we do not engage in dialog with our forefathers from the past and assume we're the first to speak about Christ but we likewise err if we assume that if we just found what a Church believed as close to the Apostles as possible that we'd have an orthodox faith. The irony is that a good portion of our New Testament is Paul correcting error. I think what that tells us (and explicitly so in his charge to Timothy) is that our hearts are prone to wander and that we ministers need to remain fixed upon the Apostolic tradition that was once and for all delivered to us.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Semper Fidelis said:


> Originally Posted by J. Dean
> Dr. Strange,
> 
> But doesn't the fact that the early Church fathers come so soon after the apostles lend credence to what they said? The fact that they were so close to the apostles in time at the very least would warrant examination. I'm not necessarily saying they were right in all of their assertions, but being one generation apart from Peter, Paul, etc., does strike me as a bit more credible than if it had been seven or eight generations away.
> 
> 
> 
> I've spet a lot of time on this thread so let me simply point out that the Galatian heresy occurred within the lifetime of Paul. We err if we do not engage in dialog with our forefathers from the past and assume we're the first to speak about Christ but we likewise err if we assume that if we just found what a Church believed as close to the Apostles as possible that we'd have an orthodox faith. The irony is that a good portion of our New Testament is Paul correcting error. I think what that tells us (and explicitly so in his charge to Timothy) is that our hearts are prone to wander and that we ministers need to remain fixed upon the Apostolic tradition that was once and for all delivered to us.
Click to expand...


Exactly, Rich. The Galatian heresy, the libertinism of some Corinthians, the asceticism of others, the problems with the churches of Asia Minor, are all problems that immediately affected the church, just to name a few. To be sure the Apostolic Fathers combatted most of these problems: think of Ignatius combatting docetism. Is it surprising, however, that the radical need for grace and the nature of that grace (particularly as they were in the middle of such an immoral culture, which always tempts the godly to moralizing) was missed? 

You can see many right things in the AP and those that followed-- Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, to name a few--but the touchstone for all of them is the Word of God. Canon formation was still in process, a whole other matter, during the time of the AP. They quoted the Apocrypha, e.g. (though those that knew Hebrew, like Origen, Jerome, Melito of Sardis, et al., didn't), assuming that it was a part of the old canon, though Jews never considered it a proper part of the Hebrew canon. My point is that the AP had nowhere nearly the clarity that we do with respect to the NT canon and if you read their writings, which I assume that you all have given your comments, you'll see for youself how different they are in sound and feeling from the NT. Why? The NT is the infallible Word of God and there is a clear demarcation between that and all the writings that follow. I also assume you know that the Apocrypha was not declared deutero-canonical until Trent.

Bottom line: the Word is the touchstone by which all are to be judged, including the church fathers. We do not read the Scriptures through them, though with them, together with the church throughout the ages. Rather, we are to read history through the lens of Scripture. I realize that the RCC recoils at this and considers it ecclesiastical anarchy. This is because its trust is in Mother Church to tell me what the Scriptures mean. My trust is in the Holy Spirit who, does indeed, work in the church, through the means; but the object of faith is God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) not the Church, such implicit faith being no true saving faith. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## moral necessity

This story reminds me a little of the Robert Robinson story, the guy who wrote Come Thou Fount. It's amazing to me how feeble and dependent upon God we are as to our faith's perseverance. Works-righteousness is our default position whenever the Lord withdraws his hand. I pray, for Mr. Stellman, that it is only for a season.

Today in 1790 – Robert Robinson Died « Wordwise Hymns


----------



## Semper Fidelis

As an aside, if you stop and think about the way life is and the way people around you act and think and the way things are misunderstood even in our own times then it helps to avoid some of the excesses of relying on historical theology as the foundation for doctrine.

We assume that these were somehow men unlike us. I also think there is a tacit assumption that, since these writings survived, that they're the only voices that existed at the time. Imagine, for instance, if only one PCA TE is studied 2000 years from now and he happens to be Joseph Pipa. Somehow, everything crashes and only his works survive. Would anyone agree with the Church historian's conclusion that the PCA, as a whole, is represented by Joseph Pipa. I'd actually like something close to that but my only point is that the Church has never claimed inspiration for these men whose letters have survived and even if we assume they represent the best we all know that there are many things going on all over the place.

I think what many of these ideas of "the Church has always believed" is a suspension of disbelief. We're transported into a magical land of the past where men didn't have differing opinions and where they made no mistakes or that even the best of us didn't have blind spots. We're transported back into the place where jelly bean fields yeild their delicious fruit and men remained untainted by the thoughts of this world even though we can't find any uniformity like that today.

The more I get in contact with God's Word, the more our frailty doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is the relative peace and purity we _do_ enjoy in some Churches because it comes at extraordinary effort through men who are committed to God's Word and who are dependent upon His Spirit. Even with that, we don't arrogantly assume we're there but see the small (or major) disagreements among us and it causes us to cling to Christ even more for faith in the face of the difficulties we face as saints who are _simil justus et peccatur_.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Right, Rich.

Another way of putting this is that it's about Him and not about us. Frankly, the RCC make the faith as much, if not more, about the folk in the church rather than the one who is the Lord over the church. Here's Jason Stellman over at Hart's blog about my post on this thread (#42, above):



> "As Dr. Strange demonstrated to you on the Puritan Board, the Reformed sometimes find themselves in the position of having to say that the early fathers, almost immediately after the death of the apostles (and in some cases even sooner), began distorting Paul’s message of grace and smuggling in pagan ideas and practices into the church. The problem with this theory (one of them anyway) is the fact that these were the very same men who were so conservative as to refuse to light a candle to Caesar, choosing horrific deaths instead of capitulating to the world. Are we really to believe that these men were simultaneously willing to die for their faith, despite deliberately distorting it?
> 
> If you think about it, this position is only a hair’s breath from the liberalism that says that Jesus preached a good message that his disciples corrupted (think Jesus Seminar). But rather than the first generation blowing it (Peter, James, and John) it was the second generation who mucked it all up (Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus). It just seems much more plausible to me that Jesus handed on a message to the Twelve, who handed it on intact to those who succeeded them."



Did I accuse the AP of "deliberately distorting" the faith? I don't think that for a second. And I don't think that Jason thinks I do. "Smuggling in pagan ideas and practices?" We do that all the time in the church and our lives. It's called idolatry and we ever have to put it to death. He acts as if the AP got everything that Paul was teaching. Did Peter? I am not clear that he did. A good deal, no doubt, but he still has to be corrected about what this Gentile inclusion thing is really all about. The Ebionites certainly didn't get it, along with all the other Judaizers. And I am not saying that the AP were Judaizers, but they didn't get grace as it taught in Paul. And because men died for their faith--and thank God for those martyrs--does that mean that they understood it in all its implications? Do we? I think that we apprehend God's grace quite poorly most of the time and we are supposed to have it right in theory after all these years.

And then the implications of his second paragraph are even more chilling. Yes, chilling. Think of the comparison. What I did is like the Jesus Seminar. Why? Because the writings of the AP are apparently on a par (how else might one interpret this?) with the Apostles. There you have it. The low view of God's Word that leads men into the Roman communion. 

Was the message handed on intact? Yes. Does this mean, "The message of Paul was handed on intact and everyone understood and interpreted it correctly?" No. It doesn't. Did the AP deliberately distort it? No, but read them for yourselves and see if their teaching is always consonant with the NT soteriological emphasis. They were just hearing this momentous stuff. Did they know enough for their souls' salvation? Sure. Did they know enough to become our teachers and set us straight on everything? No. No more than did the children of Israel better understood the Torah (it was given directly to them, after all) than the prophets who came later. This is the kind of seemingly sound but actually specious reasoning that is Rome's stock-in-trade.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## louis_jp

It needs to be added that even Rome doesn't think the ECF's got everything right, as they routinely have to 're-interpret' or dismiss the parts that don't agree with them.


----------



## a mere housewife

> 'My sheep *hear my voice, and I know them*, and they follow me.'





> 'Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?" And then will I declare to them, "*I never knew you*; depart from me you workers of lawlessness."
> 'Everyone then *who hears these words of mine and does them* will be like a wise man . . . ' (Matthew 7:21-24)


 


> ‘For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, *whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life*. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.’ (John 5:21-24)



Not only will being known by the Judge be everything on the great day of judgment (& not any number of works done 'in His name'),_ it already is_. And He says that the distinguishing mark of those He knows is that they hear His voice -- the voice that raises the dead: they have already heard it and come to life, and passed through judgment in knowing and being known of the Judge.



> '*Blessed is the one who listens to me*, watching daily at my doors.
> For whoever finds me finds life, and obtains favor from the LORD.'



His voice in Proverbs 8 cries directly to me -- to the simple, to the foolish, to the children of man -- in plain words, all of them righteous, nothing twisted or crooked in them. 

Why do I need these plain, righteous, pure, words crying directly to me to be interpreted by a church whose words have so often been perverse and corrupt and deceitful, the fruit of which (and by their fruits we shall know them, Christ said when He warned us to beware of wolves, Matthew 7:15-20) is to teach me to give the honor that belongs to God to many other people besides the Son, and to tell me I cannot actually hear His voice, and I cannot know that I have eternal life? 

I'm not going to listen to that stranger. I hear my Shepherd in Proverbs, in John, in Matthew, in the Psalms where I have walked with Him in the worst times of my own life and His, in Deuteronomy from which He quoted when He was tempted -- 'man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God'.

If someone does not hear Him in Scripture, making up for that lack with the church's voice is surely no substitute. It is the voice of the Judge, Wisdom who created all things, God the Son, that makes all the difference; and He says, 'Him that comes to me (not to the church, or Mary, or some other saint) I will in no wise cast out.' 

How could anyone think that my salvation hinges on my (simple and foolish person as I admittedly very much am) ability to trace a very thin, wavering, at times altogether lost, and at times impossibly tangled, line of interpretation through centuries of history and decide which church to join accordingly -- when Christ has said that everything hinges on my hearing His voice, living as a member of His body and walking in His way accordingly? Why would anyone ignore His own words in their immediate hearing for a convoluted argument about a long line of historical succession whereby some other mere mortal can (at least in about ten passages) infallibly tell them what He meant when He addressed us? Does His voice raise the dead or not? 

It would seem the Roman Catholic church (for all its claims of the miraculous) doesn't think so, for it prefers that tangled, thin, frayed, and sometimes simply disappearing thread of the muffled voices of men.


----------



## SolaGratia

Jason Stellman, asked for resources about the Church Fathers here in the PB back in 2009. By the looks of it, I don't think Stellman converted to RC because he did not righty understood the ECF as a Protestant. 

See Stellman's comments here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/resources-early-church-fathers-54092/


----------



## louis_jp

a mere housewife said:


> Why do I need these plain, righteous, pure, words crying directly to me to be interpreted by a church whose words have so often been perverse and corrupt and deceitful, the fruit of which (and by their fruits we shall know them, Christ said when He warned us to beware of wolves, Matthew 7:15-20) is to teach me to give the honor that belongs to God to many other people besides the Son, and to tell me I cannot actually hear His voice, and I cannot know that I have eternal life?
> 
> I'm not going to listen to that stranger. I hear my Shepherd in Proverbs, in John, in Matthew, in the Psalms where I have walked with Him in the worst times of my own life and His, in Deuteronomy from which He quoted when He was tempted -- 'man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God'.
> 
> If someone does not hear Him in Scripture, making up for that lack with the church's voice is surely no substitute. It is the voice of the Judge, Wisdom who created all things, God the Son, that makes all the difference; and He says, 'Him that comes to me (not to the church, or Mary, or some other saint) I will in no wise cast out.'
> 
> How could anyone think that my salvation hinges on my (simple and foolish person as I admittedly very much am) ability to trace a very thin, wavering, at times altogether lost, and at times impossibly tangled, line of interpretation through centuries of history and decide which church to join accordingly -- when Christ has said that everything hinges on my hearing His voice, living as a member of His body and walking in His way accordingly? Why would anyone ignore His own words in their immediate hearing for a convoluted argument about a long line of historical succession whereby some other mere mortal can (at least in about ten passages) infallibly tell them what He meant when He addressed us? Does His voice raise the dead or not?



Heidi, that was excellent! Amen!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Alan D. Strange said:


> Did I accuse the AP of "deliberately distorting" the faith? I don't think that for a second. And I don't think that Jason thinks I do. "Smuggling in pagan ideas and practices?" We do that all the time in the church and our lives.



Roman Catholics commit the Either/Or Fallacy, as a common "apologetic" for their position:


> Either/Or – a claim that presents an artificially limited range of choices.
> 
> An either/or fallacy occurs when a speaker makes a claim (usually a premise in an otherwise valid deductive argument) that presents an artificial range of choices. For instance, he may suggest that there are only two choices possible, when three or more really exist. Those who use an either/or fallacy try to force their audience to accept a conclusion by presenting only two possible options, one of which is clearly more desirable.


Either the ECF's are inerrant in all their views OR they are disregarded as cowards who smuggle in pagan ideas.

Beloved, do we need any greater exhortation to encourage one another to remain fixed upon Christ? As noted earlier, how many times do we need to see someone who once understood how our views are formulated jump to a new position and present the position in a light we cannot even recognize? Is he being deceitful? I don't think he's actually cognizant that his egregious 9th Commandment violation stems from a new party spirit. Lord protect us all for we know our own hearts!

Once again, the light of nature itself demonstrates the folly of this view. I am a sinful man. That which I will to do I often do not do and never is that more apparent than with my children. Yet, for all my faults, when I admit to my children that I'm so sinful they seem incredulous at the notion. Why? Because I'm their father and they respect me. They don't need a sinless, inerrant father to train them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. They don't need a sinless, inerrant father to obey the 5th Commandment any more than I need sinless, inerrant fathers in the faith to obey the 5th Commandment in heeding their wisdom and rule.

You see, the peace I have, even when my Church makes decisions that leave me scratching my head, is that Christ is ruling His Kingdom here on earth. I submit to my fellow elders not out of a sense that our collective decisions reflect an infallible ruling on an issue but I trust Christ Who loves His Bride and continues to perfect her and pursue her even when she is whoring. The pride of man prevents some from even considering that Christ perfects His bride in spite of herself. 

How can we think so highly of ourselves when we see God speaking with such hot anger at His people in the Scriptures only to turn in tenderness toward her and call back a whore to His bosom? It breaks my heart to think that a Church that calls itself Christ's no longer looks like the bride He continually fights for and subdues not because she is perfect but because of His lovingkindness unto her.


----------



## Unprofitable Servant

Jeremy McLellan said:


> Like I keep saying, the reason they ask "What say the Apostolic Fathers, or the college of cardinals, or the Pope?" is that they assert a way of understanding Scripture and Tradition, the latter being central to their assertion of a very seamless transition from the Apostles to the Apostolic Fathers. *If* it's true that the Apostolic Fathers (even while John and Mary were around) presented a fairly unified Roman Catholicism that continues uninterrupted to this day, that's a pretty compelling reason to become Catholic. If nobody on this board has any resources to combat their narration of the first two hundred years of church history, I can request it elsewhere, but I hoped y'all would.



Try this document.

It's a decent starting point.


----------



## Jeremy McLellan

Justin, 

"We're sorry but it appears the page you are looking for has been moved or does not exist. Please click here to return to our home page."


----------



## JoannaV

Jeremy McLellan said:


> Justin,
> 
> "We're sorry but it appears the page you are looking for has been moved or does not exist. Please click here to return to our home page."



http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/WAS_PETER_THE_FIRST_POPE.pdf


----------



## Jeremy McLellan

Rich,

Not sure if you're giving me the benefit of the doubt here--or if anyone here is. You're using a sledgehammer to set a tack. I affirm all the Solas and subscribe to the WCF as the clearest (though fallible) summary of Christian doctrine. If you have spotted a delinquency in doctrine or life, I can give you my Session's address. 

I do think history matters, though. It can never vindicate one's beliefs but at the very least it can belie the claims of others to represent a linear development. Do you never react to something like Open Theism with "nobody has ever thought that before!" even as you base your rejection of it on Scripture and the small-t tradition of argument about Scripture? Most on here do seem eager to rebut RCC claims of unbroken doctrinal development, as did the Reformers. I don't see how something that features so prominently in Catholic apologetics can be ceded to them, even as we view history, tradition, and authority as authoritative only insofar as it is formed by the Word.


----------



## Marrow Man

Jeremy McLellan said:


> Do you never react to something like Open Theism with "nobody has ever thought that before!" even as you base your rejection of it on Scripture and the small-t tradition of argument about Scripture?



OT is probably not the best example for you to use, as they repeat some of the same errors as the Socinians. There is nothing new under the sun. 

As far as an article, this one is rather lengthy, but it might be helpful to you.

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/02/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and.html


----------



## Unprofitable Servant

Joanna-

Thanks for picking up my slack. I fixed the link.


----------



## Poimen

Alan D. Strange said:


> I've commented here before about the dangers of an overly objective view of the Christian faith and Church, one that downplays the ministry of the Holy Spirit, an ecclesiology that swallows up soteriology--this and other matters are involved in such defections.



Thank you for pointing this out brother. It reminds me of something Herman Bavinck wrote in his work "The Certainty of Faith": 



> There is no room for [certainty] in Rome's system, for it does not see salvation as assured in Christ and sealed in the heart of the believer by the testimony of the Holy Spirit


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Brothers and Sisters of the PB:

It is the case, in the nature of things, that when someone leaves the Reformed faith for the Roman Catholic Church that such a person has come to find the Reformed faith inadequate and unsatisfying. 

This is even more so when the one departing is a minister of the gospel. He is someone who has been trained in the Reformed faith particularly and the Christian tradition more broadly. Thus when a Reformed minister leaves, he does so rejecting the Reformed faith, having for some reason(s) found it inadequate and unsatisfying. He may say, “I do not find it true” or “I find greater comfort in Rome,” or the like, which is to say, he may give any number of reasons for departing. 

Since it is our conviction here that the Reformed faith is essentially Christianity come into its own, we believe that for someone to know the faith, at least intellectually, to the degree that a minister has, and then to depart from it, is to be in error—we would say “serious error.” We wonder, as Reformed Christians who have found the gospel of grace so true and satisfying (with respect to our sin and Christ’s remedy for it, especially), why would someone leave it? Why would someone reject the truth as we know it and turn to something quite at variance with it? Why does the one who departs find, in other words, the Reformed faith inadequate and unsatisfying?

There are two answers from our perspective: he is unconverted or misguided. If he is not converted, he has been handling the truth of the gospel while remaining a “natural man” who has not “received the things of the Spirit of God” (I Cor. 2:14). His restless heart has never truly rested in God and he can no longer confess something that he does not truly believe. 

The issue here, then, is one of faith. Faith is knowing, believing, and trusting in Christ and in Him alone. The Holy Spirit is the one who gives faith and if someone who professes the true faith does not truly believe it and trust in the Lord, it is unsurprising that, at some point, he turns from it to something else.

One may, on the one hand, turn away from any form of Christianity altogether. Or one may, on the other hand, turn away to something that professes to be the Christian faith, that indeed has within it a remnant of the true faith (as does Roman Catholicism), but has (as had Judaism at the time of Christ) amalgamated the true faith with many other things and thus become a form of idolatry. Rome particularly, while confessing many core Christian beliefs, presents a religion not of faith but of sight, an idolatrous form of Christianity. 

This presents the second possibility: someone turns from the Reformed faith, from Christ, to Rome, because they are misguided, deceived by and about the claims of Rome. Somehow he has become blinded to what the truth really is, to what the Reformed faith really holds, and imagines in the idolatrous claims of Rome that he will find the truth and there be satisfied. Idols do afford some comfort—this is why our Jewish fathers turned to them—but only for a season. At some point, the misguided will be delivered from their delusions and return to the pure gospel. And those previously not converted may be truly converted—we are so thankful for this—and turn to the true gospel.

The answer for all is the gospel of God in our Lord Jesus Christ, presented in its purity in the Reformed faith, though sadly corrupted and compromised by Rome. Here is our comfort: “Nevertheless, the foundation of the Lord standeth sure, having this seal: ‘The Lord knoweth them that are His,’ and ‘Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity’” (I Timothy 2:19). 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## py3ak

Thank you, Dr. Strange, for that excellent statement. At this point, prayer, self-examination, and meditation on the Scriptures referenced are probably the best responses we can make to this situation and the discussion of it. Any additional questions about Roman Catholicism, church history, etc., can be tackled on new threads devoted to that purpose.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jeremy McLellan said:


> Rich,
> 
> Not sure if you're giving me the benefit of the doubt here--or if anyone here is. You're using a sledgehammer to set a tack. I affirm all the Solas and subscribe to the WCF as the clearest (though fallible) summary of Christian doctrine. If you have spotted a delinquency in doctrine or life, I can give you my Session's address.
> 
> I do think history matters, though. It can never vindicate one's beliefs but at the very least it can belie the claims of others to represent a linear development. Do you never react to something like Open Theism with "nobody has ever thought that before!" even as you base your rejection of it on Scripture and the small-t tradition of argument about Scripture? Most on here do seem eager to rebut RCC claims of unbroken doctrinal development, as did the Reformers. I don't see how something that features so prominently in Catholic apologetics can be ceded to them, even as we view history, tradition, and authority as authoritative only insofar as it is formed by the Word.



I do not believe I used a sledgehammer where a tack needed to be driven. The point was that the focus on debating "who owns the ECF's" can obscure the real issues and I was reminding you of the fundamental issues that led to the Reformation. I'm well acquainted with Church history. I don't claim to be a scholar but have interacted with Rome's anachronistic use of the ECF's as well as their selective use of not only the ECF's but also their dogmatic statements of the past that they have taken back up to declare new dogmas that are not only to be believed and held but presented as if it has always been the case that the Church has believed and held the things they dogmatically define.

I have affirmed the value of studying Church history (and I think you need to read more carefully if you have missed this clear point) and nowhere have I stated that we give up the stage of Church history for their claims of uniformity.

That said, one of the things that Christ's ministry (and later the Apostles' ministry) demonstrates is that when historical theology becomes the basis by which we _begin_ our understanding of the Word, there is a veil that forms that eventually blinds those engaged in historical theology from even going to the Scriptures to keep the theology of the Church from shifting its foundation to the improper ground. There is a reason why King's and Webster's books are entitled _Holy Scipture: The Ground and Pillar of our Faith_ and that is because the temptation is always to "quote the Rabbi" to the point that the Church gets to the point where a Teacher in Israel is being rebuked by Christ because they don't know the Scriptures.

Sure they have the Scriptures memorized and can tell you what the Scriptures say but, over time, the meaning of the Scriptures is not determinied by a hermeneutical principle that is grounded in the belief that our hearts wander and that God's Word is eternal but in the belief that successive commentaries and teachings on what the Scriptures say eventually control the reading of the text.

When Paul was rebuking the Galatians, he did not present them with a historical-theological argument to demonstrate the line of Rabbis that agreed with his reading about the Messiah through the centuries. In large measure he expressed amazement that people who once would have been willing to give him their very eyes because they loved the hearing of the Gospel so much were turning aside from it.

I grew up Roman Catholic. I was very devout and even read my Bible and prayed often. I still have family who are very much devout and pray and meditate on the Scriptures daily. I'm not speaking as one with no knowledge of the Church nor as one with no love for those within the RCC. Can I engage the historical argument? Yes. Have I? Of course.

But at the end of the day, it's not really demonstrable that one will find a line of historical thinking one way or another that will "seal the deal". History, again, is too complicated and even historians, at best, can provide us some general contours but they can't hope to really express all the thoughts and intentions of men in any era. Men are too complex for systems of thought. We can generally classify what many believe but, even within my own denomination and time I know well, I could not hope to properly characterize any person with great accuracy. Even within my own congregation I have to spend much time to get to know people to understand what they understand and I can only exhort what the Scriptures teach and let God be the one who performs the work that He reserves to Himself.

Consequently, while I don't cede the historical argument to either the RCC or the EO, at the end of the day my plea to men was as the Apostles was. I strike the chords of the Gospel and the announcement of a finished work and trust that the Holy Spirit will work through those means so that men and women resonate to its beauty. The Solas of rhe Reformation are not merely a polemic toy but draw a stark dividing line so that we can get to the ground of what we're really saying the Scriptures teach about men and their salvation. It is good, after all, to be pursued for a good thing and I want my pursuit to be for the Gospel and not that men would be deceived by a fictitious account of historical uniformity that they might be confirmed in their idolatry. I want men to come to a saving knowledge of Christ and press in daily lest they be deceived by flattering and empty deceit.

I would also encourage you to consider that many disciplines come to bear in these kind of issues. As I said earlier, men have long twisted the Scriptures and it is not a matter of them consciously doing so in most cases. The basic hermeneutical ground is where a man or woman goes to determine the grid through which all Scripture is to to be understood. If the starting point is that the doctrine is correct then the Scriptures are bent to a hermeneutical rule that allows for Solomon's mother's request to be a picture of the mediatorial work of Mary. Paul's admonition to preachers of the Word concerning our worthless pursuits in this life and the refining fire of the Lord is used as demonstration of the fires of purgatory. This is but one of many disciplines of the theological sciences that are corrupted by _a priori_ commitments and so I watch and pray, even for my own soul, that I would putting sin to death in my members and that my own heart (prone to idolatry) would not be led astray by seemingly plausible arguments.

At the end of the day, it is not a matter of whether or not we need a bit of spackling or a few "tacks" to round out our theology but the Christian must be desperate for the perfected work of Christ to keep and perfect him. We must never be so prideful as to think that we'll each remain committed to a body of doctrine but the Christian life is a race, with all of Christ's saints here on earth, encouraging and exhorting one another because the trials are severe and the temptations to shrink back are ever present. Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as in the days of rebellion. We're not called to meditate day and night upon what our forefathers of the faith said about the Scriptures (as valuable as it is) but to meditate day and night upon the Scriptures themselves.



Alan D. Strange said:


> David Jolley:
> 
> Where have the members of this board transgressed with respect to Jason Stellman? Where has there been a lack of kindness and respect?
> 
> I certainly do not claim sinlessness with respect to my interaction with anyone. My sinful self, my only shame, to be sure. I, too, deeply care for those in Rome and want to see them delivered from that confusion into the clear light of the gospel. I appreciate your desire to interact in a loving way. I, too, want to do that, as well as speaking the truth. I want to speak the truth in love.
> 
> I may well have missed something, but I have heard no one here doing anything but speaking the truth in love. This is a very important matter. If someone here has clearly transgressd with regard to this, I think that we would like to know where so that we can make it right.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Thank you Alan. I believe this to be the case as well. My very first post in this thread was to note a concern that we remain, each of us, fixed upon evangelical graces as our anchor and not upon our own strength. I have been careful as well not to call out any one man. Even if this was precipitated by a blog entry we are fools to attack a single man as if he is of a species we do not recognize in our own hearts was not the power of Christ through His Word keeping us. My prayer is that men and women will see not in us an attempt to set ourselves apart as more intelligent or more wise or better men because of the theological choices we have made but as beggars who have laid hold of a perfect Savior and as simply saying: "Come to Christ! Cast off your heavy burdens. His yoke is easy and His burden is light."


----------

