At any rate, he's got his game face on. Apparently it didn't help him in the fight.
I received the following email, which was a response to one of Jason's blog posts on his own blog, about his decision to leave the PCA. So evidently the CTC article was up long enough for people to start commenting on it:Jason,Hi there. This is Nathan, the Lutheran who commented on your "Called to Communion" post "I Fought the Church, and the Church Won", which has since been taken down. Of course, you can understand I am pretty curious about that. I didn't have internet access since I commented and so have no idea about what might have happened.Anyways, God's blessings to you. If you'd like to talk more about what I said there, let me know.+Nathan As of now, about 9:08, the "Nothing found" page is still up and blank.
Turretinfan has the lowdown, and I am behind the curve on this one.
I am told it was taken down at Jason's request.
John, would you happen to be aware of a serious Evangelical critique of Robert Sungenis' book "Not By Faith Alone" that you would recommend?
Annoyed, honestly, I've never read it. If you're looking at simply comparative treatments of justification (which includes a Roman Catholic view), you might check out the Beilby and Eddy volume "Justification: Five Views". John Fesko's work "Justification" is an exceptional overview of the Reformed view of justification; it addresses lots of different comparative issues, including chapters on Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views. McGrath's "Iustitia Dei" (now in its third edition) offers a fairly sweeping history of justification over time, and you'll find the RC view offered in a non-polemical context. I agree, we need to have some "serious evangelical critiques" of some of these things; I tend to think that Protestants, though, tend to put the RCC in a box, and they say and believe "that's a bad box"; they never consult it until things like this come up.
thanks for the recommendations. The Beilby and Eddy volume "Justification: Five Views" looks especially interesting.
I tend to think that Protestants, though, tend to put the RCC in a box, and they say and believe "that's a bad box"; they never consult it until things like this come up.Nice way of putting it.
Two days and the post has still not returned. Weird, weird, weird. But I've seen weirder.
Hey Triablogue folks,This is the Nathan who commented on Jason's post at C2C. John, how did you get it by email? In any case, the post was up for an hour or so at least - several folks had commented on it (I was no. 11).I actually have a copy of the post, but if Jason doesn't want it shared, perhaps I should respect that. I wish I had a copy of my short comments to, which I thought were pretty good (they dealt with the meaning of necessary in Acts 15:28 he referenced - necessary for what, do we think? Salvation? Or to help keep the unity that exists firmly before God but only in a more fragile sense between believers, particularly Jewish and Gentile Christians! [after all, Paul elsewhere says we are free to eat food sacrificed to idols, but for the sake of the weaker brother....]). I'm guessing I didn't shake him up enough to be the main reason for having the post removed, but maybe... : ) I also linked him to this post: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/update-on-my-humble-contributions-to-honest-ecumenical-dialogue/, after I asked him if he had seriously considered confessional Lutheranism en route to Rome.+Nathan
Hi Nathan, welcome to Triablogue.I'm subscribed to that thread. I'm not sure where the comments go, or if they appear, but there's been a somewhat steady stream of comments still coming in through email. Evidently Turretinfan saw the blog article as soon as it was posted, grabbed the text, and responded to it. So he probably got all of it. Regarding Acts 15:28, the CTC folks seem to regard that as evidence for churchly "infallibility". Jason is (or was) commenting on the Green Baggins thread. Bryan Cross had told me on another comment thread at CTC that they removed Jason's article at his own request. It seems at least possible to me that he's getting cold feet.
John,Thanks for the note. I do hope he is getting cold feet! The issue seems important enough that I decided to post on it myself: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/rc-convert-jason-stellmans-perception-of-lutheranism/In that post, you'll see I link to another blog post that had a screen capture of the article and several comments (some 40, I think), so all of that is available to. I was excited to see that Jason had responded to me. Thanks for the hospitality. I've heard of you guys - many years back. +Nathan
I was able to find my comments:It seems to me this verse is pretty key to your argument: http://bible.cc/acts/15-28.htm“Necessary” in what sense? In the sense that if you do not submit to this you are in certainly in danger of excluding yourself (or you automatically exclude yourself?) from the Church and Christ? Really? That seems unlikely to me. Or is it more about being respectful of those with Jewish sensibilities so the unity of faith that already had been given and existed between Jewish and Gentile Christians did not get strained (leading first to schism, *then* heresy)? If it was the first option, when were these commands rescinded? To my knowledge, we don’t say all of them must be followed now (or does Rome)? Didn’t Paul say that we could eat food sacrificed to idols but we dare not do so if it means harming a brother who was weak in faith? Where in verse 28 does it say this was an: “authoritative and binding pronouncement that was bound in heaven even as it was on earth”? I understand words like that as regards God’s pastors granting forgiveness or withholding forgiveness based on their evaluation of whether or not a person is penitent, but not in this context.Jason – I’m curious as to whether or not you considered Confessional Lutheranism (Chemnitz’s view of Sola Scriptura is quite different, and Lutherans do not absolutely insist that the 27 NT books are all of the same authority: for more see “round 1″ referenced here: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/update-on-my-humble-contributions-to-honest-ecumenical-dialogue/ ) and if not why not?+Nathan
Given Calvinism's commitment to conditional eternal security, what would you conclude (if anything) about Mr. Stellman's regenerate status should he convert to Rome?