# CTC interview with Jason Stellman



## matt01 (Nov 18, 2012)

It is old news that he went to Rome, but I thought some might be interested in this interview that he just recently did: How the Church Won: An Interview with Jason Stellman. I listened to it today, and do not understand the move to RC even considering the change in view regarding Sola Scriptura/Fide...


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Nov 18, 2012)

As evident by the tone of this quote from the interview, it seems that he keeps getting a little more puffed up, and each move -CC-Reformed-Rome- makes him feel a little more special. Its pretty sad that he is being deceived. I pray that God would humble his heart and bring Jason to repentenance.


"So for SS to be true, the pastor of the church in Corinth would have had to make the announcement: “Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Church of Corinth. For you visitors, be sure to grab some coffee and a doughnut after the service. Bit of bad news, I’m afraid: our beloved Paul has died. Now you’ll notice a drastic change in the way we celebrate the sacrifice of the Eucharist today—I mean, the Lord’s Table. You see, all his countless hours of instruction must be collectively forgotten by all of us from now on, and we must limit ourselves to his two letters he wrote. What’s that? You’re asking why we’re only going by two of the three and discarding the first letter? Well, funny story: in a few hundred years there’s going to be this thing called ‘the canon’ which will tell people which books are inspired and which aren’t, and by that time we’ll have lost that first letter! Sounds crazy, I know. But trust me, our utter confusion will be long forgotten in about 14 centuries.” - Stellman


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 18, 2012)

I think we should follow Pastor Gordon's advice:

~THE GORDIAN KNOT~: The PROBLEM OF THEOLOGICAL NARCISSISM--STOP GIVING JASON STELLMAN ATTENTION, PLEASE!


----------



## Unoriginalname (Nov 18, 2012)

I am just speaking in general but why does it seem that in the age of the internet, in christian circles people seem to go from new convert to greatest apologist on what seems like every issue. I do not know about you but I feel like someone who has held to a view for more than a month is a better person to be the spokesperson. Furthermore I feel like someone who has not had two about-faces in 15 years is a reliable source.


----------



## Rufus (Nov 18, 2012)

Unoriginalname said:


> I do not know about you but I feel like someone who has held to a view for more than a month is a better person to be the spokesperson.



Dr. James White said the same thing when he dissected this interview with TurretinFan recently on the Dividing Line.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 19, 2012)

R. Scott Clark said:


> I think we should follow Pastor Gordon's advice:
> 
> ~THE GORDIAN KNOT~: The PROBLEM OF THEOLOGICAL NARCISSISM--STOP GIVING JASON STELLMAN ATTENTION, PLEASE!


Indeed, brother! Why anyone thinks these folks are worth engaging on matters related to RCC dogma escapes me; after all it is clear these men failed at understanding the very dogma they once held before swimming the Tiber.

AMR


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 19, 2012)

Like Sean made reference to, I suggest also listening to James White's and TurretinFan's analysis of the interview.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 19, 2012)

Am I allowed to say that I cannot help but think that Stellman is the Kim Kardashian of the religious world?


----------



## Curt (Nov 19, 2012)

SolaScriptura said:


> Am I allowed to say that I cannot help but think that Stellman is the Kim Kardashian of the religious world?



Yes.


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 19, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > I think we should follow Pastor Gordon's advice:
> ...



While I understand the worry about giving him too much attention, I also understand that "forewarned is forearmed." Knowing his specific reasons (which I was not fully aware of until hearing snippets of this interview) will better equip evangelicals on how to deal with the related theological questions when they come up.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 19, 2012)

I know there are noetic effects of sin but his critiques are sophomoric. I would have expected more from a man with an MDiv. James White's critique (along with Turretin Fan) were spot on.


----------



## mvdm (Nov 20, 2012)

Stellman was often highlighted in our circles when he was was an R2k blogger and "Dual Citizens" author. Now that he has made the move to Rome, there is a natural urge to just say "nothing to see here folks, let's just move along". 

We should not be afraid of examination for we all face these dangers in our spiritual struggle against principalities and powers.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 20, 2012)

James White's impassioned work here should give us all pause, especially his plea at about the 44:00 minute mark of the November 15th "Dividing Line". As Dr. White says, if this becomes just because an academic exercise where we examine the points divorced from the reality that Jason Stellman is an apostate marked for Hell, then, we need to find a different line of work because we do not really comprehend the gravity of this situation.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 20, 2012)

The ISSUES should be engaged. I've been doing that on the HB. Responsible representatives of the Roman church should be engaged but not everyone speaking up just now meets that test.


----------



## mvdm (Nov 20, 2012)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Responsible representatives of the Roman church should be engaged but not everyone speaking up just now meets that test.



Stellman didn't just suddenly turn stupid and unworthy of being engaged. He was previously celebrated, linked to, and promoted as a serious theologian. But as T-Fan mentioned in the podcast, he was already seeing problems with Stellman back in 2009 already. Carl Trueman thought it worthy to publicly discuss Stellman's theology and its connection to his eventual trip to Rome. James White certainly found Stellman as passing a "test" of worthiness to engage him.

It could be some folks operate with a different standard of "worthy to engage".


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 20, 2012)

mvdm said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Responsible representatives of the Roman church should be engaged but not everyone speaking up just now meets that test.
> ...



I'll let Scott speak for himself, but I agree with the idea that we would be wise to simply ignore him. Stellman is unstable. Like a wave blown and tossed to and fro. He presents himself as one who is all too eager to be 100% gung-ho about whatever it is that presently has his eye. Like a smart-alec who has a "been there done that, I was an insider so I *KNOW* what I'm talking about" smirk, most of what I read (or heard) from him seems pretty sophomoric upon inspection. The RC communion has been intelligently engaged by Protestants since the time of the Reformation. I suggest that we would do better to continue interacting with RC proponents who are deeply settled and whose integrity and commitment are unquestioned. Then you might get somewhere. 

When I wrote that he seems to me to be the Kim Kardashian of the religious world, I meant it. He thrives on attention. While I do not claim prophetic insight, I nonetheless declare that I will not be surprised if after a year or two - after the hubbub has died down and after he realizes that Rome views him as just another cog - he moves on. Maybe to Constantinople. Or perhaps he'll become "Hitchens reborn." Who knows. But either way, I won't be surprised.


----------



## mvdm (Nov 20, 2012)

SolaScriptura said:


> Like a smart-alec who has a "been there done that, I was an insider so I *KNOW* what I'm talking about" smirk, most of what I read (or heard) from him seems pretty sophomoric upon inspection.



He was a sophomoric smirking smart alec *before* he went to Rome. But then he was OUR sophomoric smirking smart alec.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 20, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> James White's impassioned work here should give us all pause, especially his plea at about the 44:00 minute mark of the November 15th "Dividing Line". As Dr. White says, if this becomes just because an academic exercise where we examine the points divorced from the reality that Jason Stellman is an apostate marked for Hell, then, we need to find a different line of work because we do not really comprehend the gravity of this situation.



Agreed. Although his arguments are not compelling, I stated (when this first arose) that this is not ultimately who has the keenest arguments. We know Christ by Revelation as the Father pleases. It should be a reminder for humility.


----------



## Zach (Nov 21, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> James White's impassioned work here should give us all pause, especially his plea at about the 44:00 minute mark of the November 15th "Dividing Line". As Dr. White says, if this becomes just because an academic exercise where we examine the points divorced from the reality that Jason Stellman is an apostate marked for Hell, then, we need to find a different line of work because we do not really comprehend the gravity of this situation.



Thanks for this reminder, Pastor Glaser.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 22, 2012)

R. Scott Clark said:


> The ISSUES should be engaged. I've been doing that on the HB. Responsible representatives of the Roman church should be engaged but not everyone speaking up just now meets that test.



_Jason might not be considered one who meets that test. But he is one who is being noted. He is worthy to be dealt with just as the Papists that Calvin dealt with in his time._
_Having watched Jason do what he did I have to say that I can understand why some people get mixed up sometimes. At least Jason has the integrity to voice his understanding. Is he cocky? Maybe. I know many of our kind who have been accused of being ungracious and know-it-alls also. Okay, my hand can be raised on that also.
_
_I have had a few friends cross from the Presbyterian side to Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and the New Paul Perspective due to a struggle with trying to understand Covenant Theology in relation to law and gospel (or grace). Some of you might not remember or know but I use to moderate another theological forum that was a split off from the PB. I use to Moderate the Reformation Super Highway and the PB at the same time. The RSH was a home of things departing from what it means to be Reformed. I didn’t understand why they were doing it. It was hard for me since I was a Reformed Baptist. Law and Gospel were opposed but then I wasn’t as sure how it all worked out. I understand it a bit more now I think……. Well, maybe….. I can honestly say they all abandoned a form of Lutheranism or various dichotomous views of Law and Gospel which have been formulated based upon an interpretation (hermeneutic) concerning the Mosaic Covenant. I believe it is a view that the Westminster Divines rejected as it was a Minority view when they were constructing the Biblical Confession. I also believe that some of this wayward confusion could have been prevented if these persons learned the Westminster Confession’s position on Chapter 7.5,6 a bit more. I could be wrong. (BTW, I don’t sense that all Papists or deceived people are going to Hell. That is just my estimation) I also don’t feel it is right to give a free pass to those who deny the Westminster on this point. Especially when they are by name attached to Westminsterian theology and Institution. Some people are doing that in my estimation. It is confusing a lot of people. I also believe it is part of the problem. I am patiently waiting to see how this issue is going to turn out as it is being brought to the forefront more and more daily. I do know men who have Doctorates, are Professors, Teachers of History and Systematic Theology, whom I have conferred with and with whom I agree that this issue has a root problem. I believe it stems from a poor understanding of the Mosaic Covenant and dichotomizing Law and Gospel too much.
_
_I was recently reminded that the Law / Gospel dichotomy issue was what helped me see this issue initially. So maybe…. Just maybe… It will do the same for others. This issue is like watching a pendulum of a Grandfather clock to me. The pendulum has swung one way (Federal Vision, NPP, etc.). It swung hard away from it (Klineanism). Now it is going back the other way again. It saddens me. The Divines at the Westminster Assembly got it right and rejected the minority view, Roman Catholicism, and Antinomiansm. This swinging of the pendulum just needs to stop and we need to listen to the Westminster Divines in my estimation. They had to deal with it also. Oh yeah, and Bavinck also does a good job when he discusses the Reformed doctrine in comparison to the Lutheran doctrine (not necessarily Luther’s doctrine) of soteriology._
_I am positive that I don’t meet the test to discuss issues in some people’s eyes. I fully understand why. I do know good men who are, have, and will meet the test. Orthodoxy leads to Orthopraxy There are many good laymen and Trained men who are capable.
_
_As a side note. I am not fearful of Jason’s departure. I am saddened for him, His physical family, and His Church family members. As for addressing those who are competent on Roman Dogma….. Didn’t Calvin take on Roman Dogma by using the Church Fathers that the Papists claimed? The Papists back then were refuted by Calvin. Why not use Jason the same way? His distortions can be reproved and shown for what they are. Just like the Papists were refuted when Calvin confronted them by quoting their Church Fathers back to them in context.
_
_A turning to Idolatry is never a good thing. Anyone who wants to be deceived by love for icons, Popish Ceremonies, or carnality are going to be. We have idolatry growing all around us. My advice is read Gillespies’ book Popish Ceremonies, try to discuss it calmly with them, then hand them a copy hoping that they will read it. Love them as your friends. That will go farther than getting upset with them and claiming they are brain dead and unfit for discussing it._
_Randy_

Sorry if this sounds like a bunch of rambling. I am trying to get caught up tonight. I have been gone all week and will be gone some more. My deer stand calleth and I am having the most difficult time seeing a deer. I am really wore out by the whole thing. LOL


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 26, 2012)

The Diving Line from November 20th is a must listen for this discussion. It shows that Jason Stellman is an untrustworthy person and should not be engaged.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 26, 2012)

Ben, where is the link to listen?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 26, 2012)

I don't think it is available from the AoMin website. I download it from itunes.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 26, 2012)

Excellent Joshua. Thanks!


----------



## mvdm (Nov 26, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The Diving Line from November 20th is a must listen for this discussion. It shows that Jason Stellman is an untrustworthy person and should not be engaged.



Define "not engaged". 

Does this mean one should not engage in direct public conversation with him? If so, I could understand why one might see it as a waste of time given his confusion and shifting positions. Yet, I would hope that folks that know him continue to engage him *privately* as an object of evangelism.

Or do you mean not "discussing" him at all publicly. If so, I would disagree, for I think he provides a useful warning and learning experience for all of us. That seems to be the point of the Dividing Line podcast.


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 26, 2012)

The two Dividing Line programs on Stellman may be downloaded here:

The Treacherous Waters of the Tiber: TurretinFan and I Review Jason Stellman's Slide into Romanism

TurretinFan joins me today on The Dividing Line


----------

