Mr. Jason Stewart was an OPC pastor. According to a letter provided by his (now former) presbytery:
Whereas the date Mr. Stewart entered into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church (January 10, 2011) evidences a studied commitment to that church’s doctrine and practices while he remained a minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, andOne wonders whether his new-found comrades at the Roman blog, Called to Communion, are aware of the facts of his conversion experience. In his account, he characterizes the events as: "Our decision to leave Presbyterianism for the Catholic Church surprised many." I'll say!
Whereas, in contravention of his ordination vows (FOG XXIII.8. (1-4)), Mr. Stewart did not disclose his change of convictions to his Presbytery until March 10, 2011, thus deceiving both the Presbytery, and the congregation of Trinity, Easton, and
Whereas Mr. Stewart has refused to be dissuaded from his course,
Therefore, in accordance with Book of Discipline V.2.b (1), Presbytery erased his name from its rolls, recorded the circumstances in its minutes, and communicated this action as a form of discipline (BOD V.2) to the congregation of Trinity, Easton with exhortation and encouragement toward a godly response to these events and to Mr. Stewart.
We will pray for repentance and restoration of Mr. Stewart (the erasure by Presbytery is de facto deposition and excommunication). Until that time, however, he ought to consider himself outside the visible and catholic church, and under threat of eternal judgment.
The reason for posting this point publicly, of course, is to draw attention to the issue of deception alleged by his former presbytery. I don't expect that this will matter to the Called to Communion team, but it ought to matter to seekers of truth. It helps to demonstrate the principle announced by the apostle, that they went out from us, because they were not of us. It also helps to qualify the credentials that are being used to promote his "conversion story" ("OPC Pastor ...") - yes, he managed to infiltrate the presbytery - but his manner of departure shows the sort of person he was.
-TurretinFan
55 comments:
I really don't understand why Beckwith & Stewart decided to do this. Why would anyone remain in their former churches while secretly entering into communion with another one? & furthermore, why didn't the Roman Catholic Church discipline them & "force" them to quit membership from their former churches??? Do they want to infiltrate the evangelical, protestant & orthodox churches to "see" what their "enemies" are up to? I don't know of any evangelical or protestant church that would tell or let one of their members remain in their former churches while secretly attending theirs. It's crazy.
So when might we expect the former Rev. Stewart to show up on EWTN, chewing the fat with Marcus Grodi on a Monday night?
I imagine he will make it there in due course. He does not, however, have any clerical office or title any more.
If Stewart was continuing to receive a paycheck for those two months (not to mention the previous time during which he already decided that Rome was for him) ...
There just seems to be a ring of Truth in these Words of Truth written a long while ago by the Apostle Paul:
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
1Ti 4:2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
1Ti 4:3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
This man's departure could just be the tip of the ice berg being foretold by Paul seeing deceitful spirits abound and abound today; and they shall be destroyed some day so we can take consolation in that, sad as it is, as is indicated here:
1Co 15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
The old saying "out of sight, out of mind" is apropos here in my view in light of the fact that behind the scenes Christ in fact is on the war path fully mandated by God to both give life and destroy and He certain can and will destroy every rule and every authority and power not His!
This indeed is a sad read and nothing to rejoice about for either side. The loss is apparent and it just may be he is now going to go through the experience of eternal judgment if God does not intervene and bring him back to repentance from dead works and back to the Faith Once delivered to the Saints!
And, to the Roman Catholic faithful, I would only say, "beware" because he left under the influence of a deceitful spirit or two and joined with them and so there will not be found any rest for his soul there with them!
Also, now, as I am concluding my remarks about this here these Words come strongly to post as well with regard to this man:
Jud 1:12 These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;
Jud 1:13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.
The strong sense was the phrase "waterless clouds," in verse 12!
There are enough rings of truth in Paul's writings to provide a whole suit of chain mail!
Let's see what the RCC will do with him. I am sure he will be on EWTN for sure. That's what they do all too often for a number of protestant converts and will try to milk it for with him since hes a former presbyterian minister. :(
Over on the Called to Communion website, Mr. Stewart says his tenure as pastor was completed at the end of 2010. There is no reason to doubt his account. He entered the Catholic Church after his time at Easton was done, in January 2011. He also says he did not immediately announce his reception into the Church so as to spare Easton any scandal. These strike me as sound pastoral decisions and the accusation of "deception" by the Presbytery as sour grapes.
TurretinFan, you should also apologize for this thinly veiled innuendo that the men at Called to Communion are not "seekers of truth." Or is an expression of frustration that you have not been able to defend Protestantism in your many posts at the Called to Communion forums?
a) I don't "defend Protestantism." I'm a Reformed apologist.
b) I have extensive interactions with the CtC folks, and plan more to come.
c) I don't have to apologize for having or expressing a low opinion of the character of the men there.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/returntorome/2012/02/another-beckwith-like-apostasy-to-rome-a-misrepresentation-of-my-reversion-to-catholicism/
Brian Lee, supporter of White Horse Inn and URC pastor in Washington, DC, had this to say to Jason:
"Regarding the Sacraments (Dave, 38), I’m not a baptist, or a Zwinglian. I do think they both have serious problems with the text of Scripture. I don’t get squeamish as a Reformed Christian when I read of baptism saving us, or Christ being present in the bread and wine of the supper (though I do struggle to see the aristotelian construction of transubstantiation taught in the text, or the fathers)."
Why would he say that? (Especially about baptism?). Maybe I should ask him.
Drmuzic,
Reformed ministers are members of their Presbytery, not their congregations. Even if he had ceased his pastoral duties at Easton, he was still under oath in the Presbytery. If his conversion represented a "studied commitment" to RC doctrine, as it should, there was an obligation to reveal that long before actually converting, let alone two full months after. And that's besides the fact that his conversion was likely in process while he was still pastoring.
Pete: Thanks for the link. It's sad to see that Beckwith himself shows such inability to grasp the parallel: each man converted slyly, failing to tell those who he had a moral obligation to tell.
I followed Peter's link to Mr Beckwith's blog.
Just in case he does not allow my comment to go through over there I will post it here seeing he has taken great care to publish your thread here, there:
Me:
"Mr. Beckwith,
I do not know you and you do not know me. I would stand with TurrentinFan in his response and comparison between you and Mr. Steward.
You are a sinner defining and justifying your actions, which in my view are equally deceitful.
Your own words above betray you on this regard.
What does it matter that just days before you swam across the Tiber you resigned your pastorate? What was going on all the time leading up to you converting where you were in your pastorate?
You easily justify your actions before men. So be it. It is not men I would be concerned with.
And this word generally applies to Mr. Steward as well seeing I see he has chosen to make his own comment in here, too."
Dear "turretinfan",
a) What evidence do you have to question the moral character of the men at CtC? You're right you do not have to apologize if you have a sound basis for your accusation. If you do not, I would suggest you display a deficit of charity as a Christian - you know, that "clanging cymbal" thing.
b) Why do you hide behind the anonymity of a screen name? I know the real name of every CtC contributor.
I don't answer to you, DrMuzic. Thanks for stopping by.
Fascinating, the difference in tone over here in Turretinia. Thanks for an instructive encounter.
Knowing TF is a big boy, ........ ah ...... I would say for myself "why" I call into question the moral character of the men at CtC, TF, myself and every single living human being.
The Word of God.
How about these verse, Drmuzic?
Jer 17:5 Thus says the LORD: "Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD.
Jer 17:6 He is like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see any good come. He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness, in an uninhabited salt land.
Jer 17:7 "Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose trust is the LORD.
Jer 17:8 He is like a tree planted by water, that sends out its roots by the stream, and does not fear when heat comes, for its leaves remain green, and is not anxious in the year of drought, for it does not cease to bear fruit."
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
Jer 17:10 "I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds."
As they say, so I say, the fruit of his deeds don't fall far from the limbs that bore them.
Mr. Turretinfan, some people are having a feast at your expense at Francis Beckwith's site. Have you not noticed or do you simply avoid appearing where you will be exposed/challenged? I wish you had the courage to muster even a feeble defense when and where it matters. Make your clan (Protestants) proud; have the courage and say something meaningful where you are being called out; will you? It is unfortunate that you hide in the "neighborhood" here and act like a local "strongman" but lack the courage to step out and defend your magisterium of one.
Dozie,
what you request is not necessary basis your terms.
The Servant of the Lord doesn't need to strive with men. Who cares about personal reputations as your request implies? Is your request from the Lord or from your own personal opinion?
TF has demonstrated here and at other blogs the ability to be courageous for the Lord and courageous on the Lord's Terms, not his or other men.
The warning I shall give to you also as to those who think it is at TF's expense Francis Beckwith might expend, is this, "do not touch the Lord's anointed". When you do, you have touched the Lord Himself and the Lord has told me He is currently on a war path going about destroying every rule, power and authority not His own.
You might reconsider what you asked, if you have read and understand this post by me today?
"Mr. Turretinfan, some people are having a feast at your expense at Francis Beckwith's site."
They have their reward.
"Have you not noticed or do you simply avoid appearing where you will be exposed/challenged?"
a) If I wanted to avoid appearing where I would be challenged, I wouldn't post on the Internet.
b) I haven't noticed any particular challenges in the comment box at Beckwith's site. If there was a serious challenger, I imagine that they would find their way over here.
"I wish you had the courage to muster even a feeble defense when and where it matters."
If wishes were camels, you'd be a rich man, Dozie.
"Make your clan (Protestants) proud; have the courage and say something meaningful where you are being called out; will you?"
Your premise that I've been "called out" remains unestablished.
"It is unfortunate that you hide in the "neighborhood" here and act like a local "strongman" but lack the courage to step out and defend your magisterium of one."
a) It's amusing to hear about a "magisterium of one" in the comment box of a post describing presbyterian church discipline.
b) "Hiding" on a public Internet page is rather like "hiding" in the middle of a busy intersection.
c) I appreciate that you think I'm strong. Thank you for that, at least.
Peace be to those who serve Christ alone in sincerity of heart,
TurretinFan
"Fascinating, the difference in tone over here in Turretinia. Thanks for an instructive encounter."
It is amazing to me that people think that I would believe on the one hand that Rome is a snare to souls and proclaimer of the gospel, but simultaneously hold in high regard those who make it their purpose to promote the Roman communion and especially to proselytize those in godly churches.
I'm guessing that they don't really think about it.
Nevertheless, we can and do have discussions with them that do not depend on either of us having a high opinion of the other, but rather that address the issues. We can have a civil conversation, and we have done so on many occasions.
"If wishes were camels, you'd be a rich man, Dozie."
At least you have the capacity to be very funny. The point has been made however- you have the tendency to pontificate but none for meaningful engagement. You post only where you can safely hide from serious challenges to what you write. Honestly, I really want to see you engage knowledgeable Catholics, something you don't do while setting yourself up as the guardian of orthodoxy. You should ocassionally come out of the dark alleys of Turrentinfan blogspot and AOMIN and into a space where you can't hide so easily.
Well, since you prefer your seclusion, here are recent comments directed at you over at the already named site:
“In mentioning “the visible and catholic church,” TF unintentionally invites us to consider just what this alleged entity is, in his Reformed ecclesiology. He cannot provide a principled and objective basis for determining its boundaries such that he remains within it, and Jason now lies outside of it. That’s why he cannot list all the denominations / bodies that belong to it. So he is merely stipulating, without any authority, that his interpretation of Scripture determines the boundaries of the visible and catholic Church. When we unpack his ecclesial semantics we find him to be saying merely that Jason is no longer a member of the set of persons who believe in the solas…”
Here’s another one:
"I supposed we ought not expect further reply from the man who calls himself ‘Turretin Fan.’ You see, one of his friends (Mike/Michael/Nata) has identified him as God’s annointed so this excuses him from explaining himself or apologizing".
Pretty much what I have noted about you. You don't respond when it matters. You may continue to hide, but you must be aware that your inability to respond is equally eloquent.
Dozie:
Thanks for relaying the comments. I don't have anything to say about the strange remark about my friend NatAmLLC's comments. As for the other comment:
The comment seems informally to engage in a variety of fallacies. All that is really necessary to demonstrate that Mr. Stewart is outside the visible and catholic church is that he is not under the authority of any elders of any church that proclaims the gospel and practices biblical discipline. It's possible to conclude that without knowing all 7000 of the names of the men who haven't bowed the knee to Baal.
It's sort of like the way that I can tell that Miss Smith is a single lady (because she's not under the authority of a husband), without knowing the names of all the bachelors in town.
As for hiding in seclusion, I do wish I had more time to "get out there" and interact in other places. Still, I have done over a dozen live, moderated, recorded debates, so I think that counts for something.
-TurretinFan
Hi Dozie.
I am right here. I can respond to your comments, too.
What is the problem?
Really, why are you picking up a comment made by Sean Patrick at Beckwith's blog and posting it over here?
TurretinFan has a King he bows too. His King has personally revealed Himself to him. I happen to believe his King is mine as well and don't find the issues you are raising about him nearly as important, rather tangential instead.
Apparently it is of some importance to you?
I would say, for what it might be worth to you, if you are so inclined to apply some worth to it, that a non-response is just as important to a response or inquiry from another.
And having followed TF for fair amount of time now, when he doesn't respond to someone, for me at least, resonates as much or more so than a response. Sometimes silence is golden, don't you think?
Anyway, I would be happy to engage in dialogue with you on this particular topic about the question, "of Mr Steward's duplicity and deceitful ways leaving the Faith to join with the RCC communion?" As I indicated already, for me, Mr. Steward may just be a waterless cloud and one of those who will suffer the second death?
please provide Biblical and ONLY biblical basis for your statement " it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to deny the Catholic faith; it is a mortal sin for us to take "communion" outside the Catholic mass". I used to be a very faithful catholic and believe me, no faithful catholic will ever be able to provide a biblical basis for such ridiculous statement. Sin is sin, its wages is death. Nowhere in the Bible is the mass found as such or the catholic faith found as such, and every faithful catholic knows that. & one of the reasons why I left the Roman Catholic Church was precisely because of that. Because you work your salvation not as the Bible teaches but as the Vatican imposes, believing you should collaborate in your salvation with your "good works".
I don't need prayers to "return to Rome". The Holy Spirit took me out of there. And I'll never turn back so thank you but no thank you :)
I'll let pgepps resend to your specific questions, but the meantime, could you provide me with Bibilical and ONLY Biblical support for sola scriptural?
Blessings to you
Sorry for the typos. Resend = respond.
It's "cooperate" anon. And it goes all the way back to the Council of Orange (AD 529), which you can find on this Reformed website: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_orange.html Here's what the Council states:
"According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness."
Now, the Council of Trent (mid-16th century) (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html ):
"The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient [Page 33] grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God."
Pretty much the same: the ant-Pelagian Council of Orange, influenced by St. Augustine, sounds a lot like the hated Council of Trent. And yet, the Reformed guys post Orange. Go figure?
I asked first, dear.. :)
Anon - I'm starting a separate thread from yours with pgepps. Will you reply to the sola scripture question I posed to you (since you required that pgepps use Scripture and Scripture alone)?
What if the tables were turned on it taking place within the RCC with regard to a Priest who converted to Reformed beliefs and yet did not say a word and decided to remain there for a period of time ? Would you be alright with this ? TF is right on what he posted. It has nothing to do with being sour grapes at all. It is about being responsible and honest with one's beliefs as it relates to whatever church they are part of with respect to it's doctrinal standards.
please forgive my typo above, I did not intend to say "you are Catholic," but rather "you once practiced Catholicism" or words to that effect. No implicit argument or offense intended.
thanks for your insightful non-answer to my question, but frankly, I couldn't care less. I'm only asking for biblical answers, not councils :) Thanks for not answering, though
nice way of twisting scripture and not answering my real question. Not surprised, though, cause I know "catholic apologists" & their sneaky, tricky way of defending their faith. Even though you tried really hard to answer these questions, any Holy Spirit lead person will notice non of these verses ever say that "it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to deny the Catholic faith; it is a mortal sin for a catholic to take "communion" outside the Catholic mass". No matter how you try to twist it, it's not there. If you were a biblical christian, you'd realize it's not there. But I know I can't lead you into God's revelation if you haven't opened your heart to the Holy Spirit.
Hmmmm. I've used my name; you haven't. I've offered Scripture; you haven't. I didn't tell you how you had to interpret Scripture; I told you what I understand and offered you the text. I didn't grab my own special translation; I offered you the one I used last time I taught Sunday School in a conservative evangelical church, the one I used when I was a professor at a conservative evangelical Bible college. I could find a short list of pastors and professors, and a long list of students, none of them Catholic, who could attest to my teaching the Scriptures with conviction. You may note I've even linked to my credentials, in case you wonder whether I've made it all up, the way someone sneaking around anonymously online might do. I speak as a fool; you have compelled me. You must be right; I caught you with guile. The Lord judge between me and thee.
Sola scriptura (meaning the Bible is the only authoritative source for doctrine, faith, moral & practice of any christian. It doesn't mean we can't have "traditions" it just means we can't have unbiblical or anti-biblical traditions & it means that the traditions we may have should not be more important than the Bible) is not directly in the Bible, and unlike a catholic apologist when defending their faith, I can and I will acknoledge that it isn't directly in the Scriptures. But it is indirectly shown. 2 Timothy 3:15-17 says the Scripture is "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". If the Bible's "not enough" and if we needed oral tradition it's clear that it wouldn't be useful for teaching correcting, rebuking, etc. We would need oral teaching or "tradition". The Scriptures have all the information you need to be made "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus", again, otherwise the Holy Spirit would have said we needed oral, extrabiblical teaching. John 20:30-31 says there are many other signs that Jesus performed that aren't in the Bible. BUT it says "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name". There's nothing else that needs to be said. There's nothing else that needs to be added so that a christian may know Jesus and have eternal life. It's all in the Bible. All you need to know about Jesus and about salvation is in the Bible. Galatians 1:6-8 says oral teaching can never be different from the Scriptures, otherwise it's a false gospel.
Moreover, Jesus never refered to any tradition. He always spoke the words of the Scripture, of the Father. He couldn't have cared less about human traditions, all of His teachings came from the Bible.
The only way we can truly know Jesus and the plan of salvation is in the Bible. Oral tradition is unstable, can be easily twisted and changed through decades and centuries and it's many times anti-biblical or even unnecessary. Why add to the Word, when the Word says "don't add" (Prov 30:5-6; Rev 22:18-19)?
Again, as I said before, I'm not enforcing this truth on anyone. If you're not opened to the Holy Spirit as I see you're not opened, you won't understand or accept sola scriptura.
"he ought to consider himself outside the visible and catholic church"
I hate to be the one to break the news to you; your current campaign against the Catholic Church ends up proving one point - talk is cheap and anyone, including fools, can get up/sit down and mouth any amount of nonesense. The recent HHS mandate to religious organizations provides ample ,opportunity for your brand of "visible and catholic church" to stand up and be counted, make some noise, or shake some shrubs in the bush. We are waiting for anything that looks like visible catholic church to emerge from your end and respond in a unifed manner to the threat posed by the mandate. It very proper to ask; "where in the world is Mr. Turrentinfan's visible and catholic church? Indeed, where is any other church? On the other hand, everyone, including "fools" knows that there is a visible Catholic Church that has strongly and in a catholic sense responded to the HHS manadate. When you go to a public place and talk about the catholic church, no one will ever imagine the imaginery visible catholic church that Mr. TFan is trying to conjure up.
The fact remains that in the end, the Catholic Church, in its visibility, fights the tough battle, the benefits of which Mr. TFan and his ilks end up enjoying. I wait for your conversion story although I would be saddened if it makes any kind of story/news.
"I am right here. I can respond to your comments, too"
Perhaps you've not figured out why I usually do not respond to your rants and endless quotes. In the years I have seen your posts, I am yet to see anything written by you that makes sense. Sometimes, I can't even tell if you write in English or some other language. This is FYI just so you do not expect responses from me.
I wrote: "he ought to consider himself outside the visible and catholic church"
Dozie responded: "I hate to be the one to break the news to you; your current campaign against the Catholic Church ends up proving one point - talk is cheap and anyone, including fools, can get up/sit down and mouth any amount of nonesense."
It's a campaign for the gospel of Jesus Christ, Dozie. Your church is just one of the gospel's opponents - and not the largest any more.
"The recent HHS mandate to religious organizations provides ample ,opportunity for your brand of "visible and catholic church" to stand up and be counted, make some noise, or shake some shrubs in the bush."
Considering that Biden and Pelosi (members of your church) promoted the mandate, I'm sure a lot of us in the visible and catholic church were glad to see other members of your church opposing them.
"We are waiting for anything that looks like visible catholic church to emerge from your end and respond in a unifed manner to the threat posed by the mandate."
You are expecting the visible and catholic church to look something like your church. It doesn't.
"It very proper to ask; "where in the world is Mr. Turrentinfan's visible and catholic church? Indeed, where is any other church?"
Your kingdom is of this world - we are pilgrims and strangers here.
"On the other hand, everyone, including "fools" knows that there is a visible Catholic Church that has strongly and in a catholic sense responded to the HHS manadate."
They promoted it, and they opposed it. Which side should we applaud?
"When you go to a public place and talk about the catholic church, no one will ever imagine the imaginery visible catholic church that Mr. TFan is trying to conjure up."
That proves that your ultra-sectarian institution is the catholic church, the same way that the same standard proves that the cultists are really the witnesses of Jehovah and really latter day saints. It is a pity that so many people call Rome "catholic," but it is not really proof of your catholicity.
"The fact remains that in the end, the Catholic Church, in its visibility, fights the tough battle, the benefits of which Mr. TFan and his ilks end up enjoying."
When Biden and Pelosi are proposing and some of the bishops are opposing, it's fun to watch the show (And we rejoice that Satan is divided against himself) - but it's hardly a matter of real consequence.
"I wait for your conversion story although I would be saddened if it makes any kind of story/news."
I can set aside that fear. I have loved and served Christ many years now. I have no plans to set that faith aside for a little political power.
-TurretinFan
"You are expecting the visible and catholic church to look something like your church. It doesn't."
Maybe so; but where is your visible catholic church? When christian action is required in society, how does your catholicity manifest?
In any case, sensible people would expect when a church is described as visile and catholic that in reality the church should not appear as something that is contrary to how it is described. Again, if a church is described as "visible and catholic", one would expect a churh that is visible and catholic before any other attributes can be added or subtracted. To play the dodge game of explaining away what visible and catholic can also mean is to be dishonest.
"They promoted it, and they opposed it. Which side should we applaud?"
Catholics follow the teaching authority. I can almost swear you know what that authority is called in the Catholic Church; maybe you don't!!
"It is a pity that so many people call Rome "catholic," but it is not really proof of your catholicity."
Ok, apart from bemoaning the Catholic Church; what is the proof of your catholicity?
"Your kingdom is of this world - we are pilgrims and strangers here."
I can almost hear you make an appeal to an invisible catholic church. As silly as that may seem, it is in fact a better argument than your claim of belonging to a "visible and catholic church".
I understand that Protestants have this problem rigthly called "the scandal of the mind"; one hopes it is not so obvious.
"Maybe so; but where is your visible catholic church?"
All over the world. The OPC (which Stewart left) was one part of that church.
"When christian action is required in society, how does your catholicity manifest?"
See the sermon on the mount, for example.
"In any case, sensible people would expect when a church is described as visile and catholic that in reality the church should not appear as something that is contrary to how it is described. Again, if a church is described as "visible and catholic", one would expect a churh that is visible and catholic before any other attributes can be added or subtracted. To play the dodge game of explaining away what visible and catholic can also mean is to be dishonest."
Being visible is about having elders and people who are watched over by them.
Being catholic is about having the doctrine that was once delivered.
I wrote: "They promoted it, and they opposed it. Which side should we applaud?"
You wrote: "Catholics follow the teaching authority. I can almost swear you know what that authority is called in the Catholic Church; maybe you don't!!"
If the only "Catholics" who are real "Catholics" are those who follow the teaching authority, then your "visible" church is suddenly defined invisibly - and it's defined in such a way as to exclude most of the actual members of your church. Look at the birth rates in Italy, for example. A significant percentage of the people in your church there are contracepting or aborting. And it's not just Italy.
I wrote: "It is a pity that so many people call Rome "catholic," but it is not really proof of your catholicity."
You wrote: "Ok, apart from bemoaning the Catholic Church; what is the proof of your catholicity?"
The proof catholicity is adherence to the catholic faith, which can be discovered in Scripture.
I wrote: "Your kingdom is of this world - we are pilgrims and strangers here."
You replied: "I can almost hear you make an appeal to an invisible catholic church. As silly as that may seem, it is in fact a better argument than your claim of belonging to a "visible and catholic church"."
Perhaps you would find it less silly if you read the Bible more.
- TurretinFan
pgepps wrote: "Hmmmm. I've used my name; you haven't. I've offered Scripture; you haven't. I didn't tell you how you had to interpret Scripture; I told you what I understand and offered you the text. ..."
Of course none of that self-rigteousness really addresses the objection that you haven't really answered the question posed.
What I am amazed at is the way in which the common thread of these conversion stories always seems to center around Sola Scriptura. Have we really done such a poor job at training our pastors and laypeople at how to defend Sola Scriptura that it seems to always be the tread running through these stories? Or is it just that Sola Scriptura becomes something that converts hate, because it challenges the ultimate authority of the Church? Or is it a combination of the two? Sometimes the defense falters at the simple level of definition! I can't tell you how many converts I have read who didn't even define Sola Scriptura right, much less be able to defend it! This is something that should get pastors to explain what Sola Scriptura is, and why we as Protestants hold it. As far as I can see, it is the denial of Sola Scriptura that is central to Romanists being able to insert the church's words into God's mouth. Without this gagging of God, Catholicism simply cannot stand.
The problem is that the average evangelical (yes, I include Presbyterian pew-sitters, yea, even the OPC) no more practices "sola Scriptura" than the average Catholic does. When they say "I believe the Bible alone" they mean "I think the Bible teaches whatever I remember from Sunday School, or whatever my favorite preacher says it does." When they say "no creed but Christ" or "no creed but Scripture" they mean "whatever I believe the Bible says is true, whether you agree or don't." And when they're losing the argument, they appeal to the Holy Spirit. (like a relative of mine who refused to believe Jesus made actual water into actual wine, whose clinching argument was "My Jesus was no drunkard!")
Three links for you. Connect the dots.
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2012/02/another-beckwith-like-apostasy-to-rome.html#comment-436214542
http://www.esvbible.org/search/2+cor+11%3A16-12%3A16/
http://www.esvbible.org/search/matt+5%3A11/
So--I'm having a great day! :-)
pgepps,
There is a certain sense in which I agree with what you said. People tend to want the fast food approach to exegesis and theology today. Often times their exegesis tells us more about them than it does about the text. Yes, I would argue that this is even in the OPC, since there are people who argue that the scriptures can never correct the confessions, and that we must read the scriptures through the lens of the confessions. In my mind, this is a step back to Rome.
However, I think you are right. The reason why people deny Sola Scriptura is because it takes due diligence to "rightly handle the word of truth" [2 Timothy 2:15]. People refuse to put that diligence, and, as a result, they read themselves and their own backgrounds into the text, or they end up running off to Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy. Rightly handling the text of scripture is hard work, and it seems like people today are too lazy to do it. And, of course, traditionalist Roman Catholics are more than happy to oblige their laziness. Therefore, this laziness simply must stop.
"Where then is the truth and the authority of what Christ taught; look at the number of Jews who actually followed him. The bible records that on several ocassions, the disciples stopped following him."
The above should have been written as:
Where then is the truth and the authority of what Christ taught; look at the number of Jews who actually followed him. The bible records that on several ocassions, some disciples stopped following him.
It is vital union with the person of Jesus Christ is what is most important rather than The Pope and Roman Catholicism. It is through union with the Lord Jesus Christ that all of God's elect are complete in Him. ( Col. 2:10 ) . It is the RCC that wants to deny Christians the right to test the doctrine of the church or bishops yet we are told to test teachings ( 1 Thes 5:21; Acts 17:11 ) . That calls for private judgment by believers on those who teach.
If you want to deal with Sola Scriptura and the issue of the Canon than read DISPUTATION ON HOLY SCRIPTURE Againist the Papists especially Bellarmine and Stapleton by William Whitaker. Roman Catholicism is not the Catholic Church. The simple fact is historically the word was never used exclusively Western Christianity only but rather of all Christians all over the world regardless of their location. The most you can claim is that the RCC is one part of the Catholic Church.The Catholic Church started in Asia Minor and not in Europe or more specifically the church of Rome.The last time I check the RCC was still in schism with Eastern Orthodox in 1054ad.The RCC has a false Gospel and departed from Biblical Christianty with it's many false doctrines and therefore lost all rights to be considered part of the Catholic Church presently. The common feature between the RCC, Mormonism, Jehovah Wittnesss and Adventist is their attack on Scripture and their individual claim of an infallible teaching authority. The RCC will deny any councils of the church has commited doctrinal error and will deny the fact there are Popes of the past who commited formal heresy in the claimed " Chair of Peter " . Vatican I provides its own spin of reality and dishonesty of church history.
I'm happy to concur with you that "laziness simply must stop," in that Catholics and Protestants/dissenters must continue to increase in their ability to treat the Scriptures carefully, as the authoritative written revelation that they are. In saying this, I'm speaking with the Tradition, not against it. (consider what Pius XII had to say on the subject of interpreting Scripture in http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html -- or what was condemned by Pius X over a century ago in http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm -- or what the current Holy Father says in http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html )
I would caution that there is a risk of treating divine revelation as a grace given only to the hard-working and the linguistically gifted; I would urge that God's grace is given to each by a measure God establishes, by a means God establishes. Whatever gifts we are given, though, we are obligated to turn to account (and we are shown to be resisting, rather than receiving, God's grace when we fail to do so). Again, in this I speak with the Tradition, not against it.
The book I recommended for this purpose, which I still think states the need for an understanding of Biblical authority well (though I think its characterizations of Catholic teaching slightly inaccurate, now), is J. I. Packer, 'Fundamentalism' and the Word of God. It is still one of the most compact, tightly-reasoned books on the subject; I am prone to consider it required reading for anyone who wants to be party to an informed discussion of the role of Scripture in the life of the individual believer and the Body of Christ.
Here are a few choice lines about Scripture:
"The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. [...] To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more. [...] Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."
(source: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#105 )
(Obviously I disagree with the assumptions you're making about Catholic faith, and several of your characterizations of history, from your second sentence on.)
"It is instructive to know that the OPC, whatever that means, is no longer part of "that church", whatever that church is supposed to be (definitely not part of the catholic faith)."
Was and is and, Lord willing, will continue to be.
"Example of what? I suppose every Protestant is supposed to fill in the gap as he sees fit."
Example of how Christians live in this world.
"Ok, we are supposed to take your word for it or are you getting this definition from any place other than the "magisterium of one"."
This conversation has become sufficiently tendentious that I'll content myself in simply pointing out that you don't have to take my word about what the Bible teaches, you can read it for yourself.
"Where then is the truth and the authority of what Christ taught; look at the number of Jews who actually followed him. The bible records that on several ocassions, some disciples stopped following him. "
The truth of what Christ taught is in Scripture, of course. He spoke with his own authority, and with the authority of the Father and the Spirit, three in one.
"What then are the contents of this catholic faith? Can you make your claim from scripture while demonstating that your erroneous beliefs have any sort of pedigree in antiquity?"
I can and on many occasions have. But is antiquity really the standard you want? Transubstantiation, the Bodily Assumption, and Papal infallibility were unknown to the ante-Nicaean fathers.
Moreover, the Bible is still more ancient than the early church fathers. If it was antiquity you truly wanted, you would follow the Scriptures.
"Anyone can make any sort of claims, including the lousy claim to catholicity. Even a muslim can and do make the claim of being the successor religion to the faith once delivered to the apostles. The challenge is to trace your teachings and office holders to the apostles. It is boring talk and egg-headedness to make a claim of some feet planted in thin air."
The Muslims must reject the Scriptures - at least they do so more honestly than you do (by claiming to affirm them, but denying their sense).
- TurretinFan
Dozie said: "On the other hand, everyone, including "fools" knows that there is a visible Catholic Church that has strongly and in a catholic sense responded to the HHS manadate."
TF said: "They promoted it, and they opposed it. Which side should we applaud?"
Methinks "Catholic" is a rather envied word.
@TF: Notwithstanding the Protestant adaption of the term "catholic ", the common man knows what *The* Catholic Church is. It brings me great relief to observe that, even by non-Christians including secularists, despite their explicit and deep-rooted hatred of Her, the Catholic Church is shorthandedly understood as "the Church". I also appreciate how, though on occassion they stylistically employ the term "Roman" as a preface, they do not do so under the pretext that there is an essential difference between "Roman Catholic Church" and "Catholic Church" -- (they realized that they can omit the word "Roman" without affecting meaning) -- upon the sheer suggestion that there is, they would rightly recognize the distincintion to be illusory.
Yes, cafeteria Catholics will promote the HHS counter-reproductive services mandate, as they will do abortion and same-sex "marriage".
But, if you are implying that the presence of these willful dissenters (and the phenomenon of dissent is nothing new under the sun, we've had to deal with it for two millenium) undermines the claim that the Catholic Church opposes the mandate, then I would be most curious to see what the reaction would be if you were to leave a comment on a liberal secular news site (e.g. RH Reality Check) and state that the Catholic Church promotes and supports the HHS mandate per the voices of Pelosi, Sebelius and company.
"Methinks "Catholic" is a rather envied word."
Obviously so.
"Notwithstanding the Protestant adaption of the term "catholic ", the common man knows what *The* Catholic Church is."
I already addressed this in this thread. The common man knows who the Latter Day Saints are and who are Jehovah's Witnesses. These, like "Catholic" applied to your church are all misnomers.
It gets worse too. Everyone knows which churches are "Orthodox." But that's not your church. Does that mean your church is heterodox? Surely you don't buy that bologna.
"It brings me great relief to observe that, even by non-Christians including secularists, despite their explicit and deep-rooted hatred of Her, the Catholic Church is shorthandedly understood as "the Church"."
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
"I also appreciate how, though on occassion they stylistically employ the term "Roman" as a preface, they do not do so under the pretext that there is an essential difference between "Roman Catholic Church" and "Catholic Church" -- (they realized that they can omit the word "Roman" without affecting meaning) -- upon the sheer suggestion that there is, they would rightly recognize the distincintion to be illusory."
Yes, I'm sure that secularists do not understand theology well.
"Yes, cafeteria Catholics will promote the HHS counter-reproductive services mandate, as they will do abortion and same-sex "marriage"."
I'm sure they have their own insulting labels for your sub-sect of your religion.
"But, if you are implying that the presence of these willful dissenters (and the phenomenon of dissent is nothing new under the sun, we've had to deal with it for two millenium) undermines the claim that the Catholic Church opposes the mandate, then I would be most curious to see what the reaction would be if you were to leave a comment on a liberal secular news site (e.g. RH Reality Check) and state that the Catholic Church promotes and supports the HHS mandate per the voices of Pelosi, Sebelius and company."
Pelosi, Sebelius, Biden ... and is there actually a De Fide teaching on any of those things? No. What Ecumenical Council or ex cathedra papal statement says that Pelosi, Sebelius, and Biden cannot hold the (despicable) views that they hold? You can try to appeal, like the CDF, to the "universal and ordinary magisterium," but that can be easily overturned when opposition to artificial contraception goes the way of opposition to natural contraception and the way of slavery, and burning heretics at the stake.
You remind me of the Jesuits who defended the use of all-Latin masses in English-speaking countries. If Bellarmine could see your church now, the smoke would billow from his ears. But you are not scandalized by the native-language masses and by NFP, but by the battles that your church has already lost amongst the laity.
The 98% statistic may be inaccurate, but it's not that inaccurate.
Post a Comment