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
Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Response to Jason Stellman
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
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
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"
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.
It is sad that the idolatry we have in our hearts just wants to arise and destroy the truth and simplicity found in Christ.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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."
If they are right? Which? They make exclusive authority claims. Why would you need an assurance from anybody that they are not correct?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
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.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.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.
"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."
'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)
'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.'
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?
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.
Either the ECF's are inerrant in all their views OR they are disregarded as cowards who smuggle in pagan ideas.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.
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.
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."
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?