Jason Stellman (right side of image) of course is all over the place at the Called to Communion site these days – he’s the equivalent of a Roman Catholic Convert anti-hero. And the good guys, James White and Turretinfan take on this Jason Stellman interview in a two-part (and more-to-follow) series of their own:
Part 1 (approx. 30 minutes).
Part 2 (approx. 90 minutes).
About the image: My wife and I have been watching through the “Breaking Bad” series. To “break bad” evidently is to turn and start being evil instead of good. The anti-hero of that series is a man named Walter White (left side of image), and the main character is someone who certainly becomes evil over the course of time.
When I had the CTC site up on my monitor this morning, Beth noticed the resemblance immediately. [And how do we know that Stellman isn’t purposely trying to look like this character?]
Breaking Bad is about a chemistry teacher who, on finding that he has lung cancer, seizes upon the side job of “cooking” crystal methamphetamine – known as “meth”. So the connections seem obvious to me. Stellman, in his own way, has been “breaking bad”, in his case selling something called “cath”.
On the word “catholic”, as it was used in the early church, meant that the church was “universal”, that is, encompassing those who professed faith in Christ throughout the world. Rome, of course, has twisted that meaning with its oxymoronic usage, making the “provincial” “Roman” to be the sum and center of “the church that Christ founded”, when really, it is, well, quite provincial. Calling the Roman church “catholic” is as much a misnomer as saying “crystal methamphetamine makes you feel good”.
Interestingly, the crystal methamphetamine wiki site notes that long term usage of “crystal meth” “develop a long-lasting psychosis resembling schizophrenia after stopping methamphetamine. The condition persists for longer than 6 months and is often treatment resistant”. It will be interesting to see where these guys are in a few years. Andrew Preslar is already on record saying that “Catholicism is like a marriage, in which romance does not reduce to sentimentalism, nor prescind from difficulty and pain, but rather flows from the realities of a life shared together, come what may”.
To be sure, there will be difficulties.
At any rate, if you’re interested in following the Jason Stellman saga from a safe distance, James White and Turretinfan provide an excellent analysis of the things Stellman is saying, and it seems as if more is to follow.
Are we sure Cross and Stellman aren't an old time radio ventriloquist act? I got the distinct impression...hmm
ReplyDeleteUnrelated (but not completely!) I came across this earlier. It made me laugh anyway. The writers of Father Ted were involved in it, if you're familiar with that show.
(Be warned, there's some coarseness at the end)
Andrew, you may be right about the ventriloquism act. I'll give a look at the link when I get a chance.
DeleteIf church fathers using the word "catholic" prove that Rome is the One True Church, then church fathers using the word "orthodox" should also prove that the Eastern Orthodox is the One True Church. Also, church fathers referring to baptism prove that Baptists belong to the One True Church.
ReplyDeleteI think Baptists are the one true church: John the BAPTIST came first, and Jesus was baptized by him. So if we are "in Christ", we are all Baptists too.
DeleteI was about to say "take that, Presbyterians" but then a "presbyter" is just a bishop (I think). So any church father talking about bishops also proves that Presbyterians are the One True Church (although not as true as Baptists >_> )
DeleteYou mean, "John the Baptizer" don't you. The One True Church doesn't believe that John was a Baptist.
DeleteMike, if I recall, he was a Baptist before a Baptizer. That was the early 60's though, and I may not have been properly catehized.
DeleteJames White and TurretinFan are having some great discussions while they go through the audio of the interview. Recommended for anyone interested in hearing arguments for/against sola ecclesia.
ReplyDeleteJordan Cooper also responded to the CTC podcast: http://justandsinner.blogspot.com/2012/11/responding-to-jason-stellman.html
ReplyDeleteNicholas, thanks for the link.
DeleteI've noticed that the 2nd audio link is now dead. I don't know if that's on purpose. Other people might want that second file. Here's the link I got from the Alpha and Omega Ministries website http://aomin.org/podcasts/20121120.mp3. I think the link will be good for the next few months.
ReplyDeleteThanks Annoyed, I've fixed the second link.
DeleteThere's no need for anyone to read this following rant. I just have to say it.
ReplyDeleteI've listened to both audio and I have to say that if I were Mr. Stellman I'd be really embarrassed and ashamed. I don't know how someone who has a Seminary degree could have made such a massive theological shift without evenly listening to the best of both sides. On the one hand he's claiming that Protestantism can't escape the problem of "Solo Scriptura" (to be distinguished from Sola Scriptura), namely the "me and my bible alone in the woods" isolationism. The point being we need the accumulated wisdom of the Church and others more knowledgeable than use to help us form and inform our opinions. Yet on the other hand, I get the sense that he delayed and limited his exposure to the best defenders and arguments that Protestants have to offer. He barely interacted with Dr. White, not to mention (if he interacted with them at all) TurretinFan, the folks at the Beggars All blog, the folks here at Triablogue et cetera. BY ALL MEANS, listen to the best of what Catholics have to offer. But do the same with the Protestant side.
I confess I didn't do that when I left Catholicism at the age of 13 and that I left for mostly wrong reasons. BUT I WASN'T A SEMINARY GRADUATE! Pride should have kept him from leaving for another theological paradigm before really studying up on the issues; lest he embarrass himself. But now that he's done so, pride may keep him from re-thinking his conversion. Human nature is such that he might now just seek to justify his decision (whether consciously or unconsciously) rather than look at the evidence objectively.
By the power of God's grace, he can return to the truth at any time in the future. However, from a human perspective, the longer he stays in Catholicism the more he'll ossify and try to find face saving justifications. May God tenderize his heart to re-examine the issues by giving a fair hearing of both sides.
Also, seminary professors have their place/expertise/specializations, but they aren't apologists who encounter rubber-meets-the-road objections and questions so they aren't the ones one should expect to get the best arguments from.
Same thing with popularizers. For example, I have GREAT esteem/respect towards R.C. Sproul, but as a popularizer, he wouldn't know how to adequately answer the technical objections and arguments made by the folks at Called to Communion.
Also, if there was one thing I could tell Mr. Stellman it would be this. That before the closing of the Canon, the principle of Summa Scriptura was in operation, even if Sola Scriptura wasn't. Even during the times when public inspired and inerrant Revelation was being given and added to by God to (and through) OT prophets, Jesus or NT Apostles (whether it be verbal, written, visionary, or via dreams or angels), it WAS ALWAYS THE CASE THAT the then currently recognized Scriptures were the highest authority in the community of faith such that any other further alleged revelation had to not contradict it and in some sense be confirmed by it.
ReplyDeleteEven Jesus, who could and did at times "pull rank" by appealing to His own inherent authority never did so against Scripture. Instead, for the sake of His listeners, He often went out of His way to try to authenticate His message by appealing to Scripture ("It is written...", "Have you not read...", "Ye search the Scriptures [imperative or indicative, it doesn't matter]....these are they which testify of Me... [cf. Luke 24:25-27]".
The apostles did the same thing (cf. Acts 17:11; 1 Cor. 15:4; possibly 1 Cor. 4:6). They didn't automatically think that just because they claimed to be Apostles they were beyond examination (cf. Rev. 2:2; Gal. 1:8). They were accountable to their Apostolic peers, and they AND THEIR PEERS were subordinate to the Scriptures. Their ultimate standard was always Scripture even if other things like tradition informed their doctrine and worship.
I have another response here;
ReplyDeletehttp://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-irony-of-jason-stellmans-conversion.html
thanks to Nicholas Leone for the link to Jordan Cooper and his response.
@John Bugay and Ken
ReplyDeleteNo problem. Here is part two of Jordan Cooper's response:
http://justandsinner.blogspot.com/2012/11/response-to-jason-stellman-part-2.html