Now that Jason Stellman has become a Roman Catholic and Peter Leithart has moved his blog to the predominantly Roman Catholic First Things website, can round two be far away?
Now that Jason Stellman has become a Roman Catholic and Peter Leithart has moved his blog to the predominantly Roman Catholic First Things website, can round two be far away?
Old Life 
What would they have to argue about? Rome’s tent is way bigger than the PCA’s tent.
LikeLike
Stellman thought that the bush-cheney war was something to be guilty about. Perhaps Leithart would not disagree with that, but he surely has a more Constantinian future in mind. The old Constantine waited way too long to be baptized and was reluctant to embrace the possibilities of Christian empire. Not so Leithart (or First Things, which seems to think no america means no church)
LikeLike
I still think beards for the sake of patriarchy are gay, surely that should count for something.
LikeLike
But, Jason, what about goatees and soul patches? And bow ties, speaking of gay.
LikeLike
Yea, I was thinking hipster soul patches were a halfway move as far as gayness goes. And the room is starting to spin from all of it.
LikeLike
Soul patches may also be gay, but at least they’re being gay ironically. There’s no irony in Moscow, Idaho.
LikeLike
There’s a difference between gay and metrosexual. You can’t moisturize a beard.
LikeLike
There’s also a difference between gay and gay. The weather up here is totally gay, but not because clouds get it on with other clouds of the same gender.
LikeLike
Thankfully OL doesn’t get many out-and-out trolls like CN.
LikeLike
@mikelmann: I am no troll; I am just like you in that “I prefer to keep my name out of search engines as much as possible.” That said, I have followed this site since its inception, commenting here no more than 4 times on matters that strike me and I even used the contact form once. To be sure, I commented once or twice on JS’s site along the same lines as this comment, though not as pointed. But Jason, being a too full of himself, blew me off then just as he has blown off his betters since his fall, which is no surprise because he as predictable as Pavlov’s dog.
These facts aside, as an attorney you should know better than to advance an ad hom.
LikeLike
CN, I don’t care to know your name. All I see is mean-spiritedness in your comment above. I just think human beings should treat human beings better than that.
LikeLike
@mikelmann: As you know, “mean-spiritedness” is an altogether different subject than an “out-and-out troll.” Further, I have not treated JS with any disrespect and in my view I have treated him with much more respect than he receives from Scripture.
LikeLike
What in the world does becoming an atheist have to do with “turning to men and boys for pleasure”? I do think someone who is going to make those kind of accusations needs to do so under their real name if they are going to be taken seriously, at least if they are talking about “honor and principle”.
Does CN stand for “Currently Nuts”?
LikeLike
CN, it usually doesn’t end well for self-appointed prophets of wrath. I hope you’re just a young guy who is under the unfortunate influence of harsh books and teachers. Civility and principled conversation aren’t cowardice and compromise.
LikeLike
Well, I was going excoriate CN for his comments but then I thought; ‘Jason can fend for himself’ but upon further reflection MM is right, CN your comments are unacceptable. I have a number of problems with Jason’s public and unseasoned apology for Rome, but your rhetoric is inappropriate and unbecoming and unhelpful and terribly unrepresentative of commenters at this blog.
LikeLike
@Erik Charter: Please read the whole comment in context. The point is that JS’s trajectory can only end at one place — licentiousness, which is symbolized by men and boys. If that’s too much for you, I apologize. You’re free to replace it with “sex and drugs,” though I don’t think it’s too much given his obvious pattern.
Regarding “honor and principle”: I could care less if you take me seriously. I resolved long ago to ignore ad homs and those who advance them.
@mikelmann: People usually change the subject and do not address point when they have no answer. I suspect this is the case with you, since you have changed the subject twice. And when you write, “it usually doesn’t end well for self-appointed prophets of wrath,” are you writing as a self-appointed prophet of wrath or are you just floating an opinion based on your life experience, as I did when I commented about JS?
LikeLike
This is tame considering what went on between debaters during the reformation. But violence broke out during the reformation too. So, maybe the civil route is the better route to go. The early years of the reconstructionists and theonomists were quite colorful in their comments to those whom they debated too.
LikeLike
CN and M&M, I deleted CN’s comment that started this exchange. It was over the line in attributing self-centeredness to Stellman. Here (unlike at home) I (along with Muether) make the rules.
LikeLike
@Dr. Hart: Off point, but when I used your contact form it did not work, which is the only reason I remember using it. This was about two years ago, plus or minus.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: What in the world does becoming an atheist have to do with “turning to men and boys for pleasure”? I do think someone who is going to make those kind of accusations needs to do so under their real name if they are going to be taken seriously, at least if they are talking about “honor and principle”.
RS: Erik, in Romans 1:18 you can see that God turns people over to hardened hearts and to sin. One of the things He turns them over to is idolatry as they suppress the knowledge of Him and become fools. On down the line they are given over to homosexuality. I am not sure that is CN’s point, but it actually is a point that is in Scripture.
LikeLike
CN wrote:
Ironic much?
LikeLike
Ironic much?
In that we continue the ‘hail fellow, well met’ charade, if not engage in jovial banter without answering the question DGH asks in the post, yeah. It is ironic.
LikeLike
CN, I hear you.
LikeLike
@Richard Smith: That is precisely my point. However, I predicated my argument on this assumption and pointed to JS’s trajectory, which was my primary point. Nevertheless, as noted, I have treated JS much kinder than Scripture treats him.
@Jason Stellman: An ad hominem argument is not always a fallacy and I did not ad hom you. I simply observed that you have a well-established pattern of rebranding yourself that is clearly evident to anyone, and I noted further that you left yourself very few choices for your next remake. You might disagree but (here comes the ad hom) you have a vested interest in disagreeing with me.
Then again, you once had a vested interested in the Reformed gospel, just as you now have a vested interest in Rome, which all began with a vested interest in an Arminian gospel. As I asked in the now-deleted comment, “What’s next?” Please don’t bother to answer because it’s a rhetorical question. You see, most grown-up men your age have figured out these vexing questions that have suddenly forced you into this premature midlife crisis. But don’t take my word for it, look at this post, which I noticed you ignored (which is part of the pattern — you ignore points you can’t answer but love to play cutesy on benign posts, such as this). Oh, there I go again ad homing you. (Memo to self: don’t float ad homs even when they’re not fallacious.) I’m reasonably sure that the pastors who’ve had to clean up your mess don’t think you’re cute and I’m equally sure that more than one sheep in your previous flock isn’t amused by your behavior. But I could be wrong.
I would write more but I am sure I have pushed our host’s patience to the limit.
LikeLike
A lot of atheists actually have pretty good morals, even by Christian standards. Surely you men know some. There are also Christians who behave quite badly. Let’s not be simplistic.
It’s one thing to say that Stellman’s quest could end with atheism — I agree, it could because of QIRC. What that might look like is another question.
LikeLike
Jason Stellman quoting CN: To be sure, I commented once or twice on JS’s site along the same lines as this comment, though not as pointed. But Jason, being a too full of himself, blew me off then just as he has blown off his betters since his fall, which is no surprise because he as predictable as Pavlov’s dog.
These facts aside, as an attorney you should know better than to advance an ad hom.
JS: Ironic much?
RS: Irony is at times in the eye of the beholder. The WCF thinks of the Pope as the anti-Christ. The Scriptures would describe those (not using the precise names I will) who leave the Gospel of grace alone for Rome (does not teach a true Gospel of a true grace) as those who have fallen from grace. Galatians 1 is quite clear that those who preach a false gospel are to be eternally cursed. Whatever line anyone here may or may not have crossed, those verses still stand. Going to Rome is no game regardless of how much attention one obtains by it. Going to Rome is leaving the Gospel of grace alone for a false Gospel. All the scholarly works in the world cannot save a soul. Only Christ can do that and He works through grace alone. Rome, on the other hand, if full of works and idols though they go by other names. Pick at irony and ad hom arguments, but those things can hide the real issue and the real Gospel of the heart.
Regardless of all the arguments that one can hide a lost heart behind, Jesus was very clear that a person must be born again to see the kingdom. He did not say that one must read centuries of scholarly books, but that one must be born again. He did not say that one must submit to a pope or anyone else, but instead bow with a broken heart that has been emptied of pride to Christ alone. The way of Rome is opposed to the way of Christ. Notice that there are no ad hom arguments that one can hide a deceived heart behind.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: A lot of atheists actually have pretty good morals, even by Christian standards. Surely you men know some.
RS: No atheists or non-believer can have good morals because all they do involves enmity to God and idolatry. I assume, however, that you are referring to outward behavior. However, let us not leave the atheist or Romanists an out on this. Nothing is good unless it comes from God and is done out of love for God.
Erik C: There are also Christians who behave quite badly. Let’s not be simplistic.
RS: We might want to say that there are many professing Christians that act quite badly, though some true Christians don’t always act the best.
Erik C: It’s one thing to say that Stellman’s quest could end with atheism — I agree, it could because of QIRC. What that might look like is another question.
RS: I would argue that he is already in a form of practical atheism. When one denies the true Gospel by going to Rome, idolatry in how one views God occurs. False doctrine is not bad just because it is false, but because it involves wrong ideas about God. After all, what do the Scriptures primarily teach us? What we are to believe about God.
LikeLike
Is this a project to wed Reformed biblical theology to Roman Catholic Systematic theology? The first podcast is up and it sounded like I had heard most of it somewhere before…apart from the supposed participation in the “work of Christ.” Participation in the Christ who worked? Definately. The mission of the church informed by participation (ala Bilings)? sounds about right. Participation in the redemptive work itself? never.
http://www.creedcodecult.com/podcast/
LikeLike
Under what authority does Stellman make this podcast? Is he a priest now or just a freelancer? Why should I care what a Catholic freelancer has to say? If I want to know about Catholicism I’ll go to a Catholic priest.
LikeLike
It’s only a matter of time. Has he made an appearance on EWTN yet? It would be interesting to do a comparison between PCA and OPC Pastors who went Roman. How did their previous backgrounds inform what they did when they got there…
LikeLike
It’s an interesting study to do. I’ve been reading off and on the arguments that he is working through over at his site. There really is nothing new under the sun, or at least at ground zero between Rome and Geneva on the differences on soteriology. The debate from a BT perspective puts a premium on perfection of the law or not, differing working principles between sinai and the NC or not, courtroom or family room on justification, strict justice in the garden or not, etc.. He’s doing some jumping through the 3rd use of the law, but even from the reformed side the better exegetes have pointed to it’s catechetical value over it’s strict adherence to Paul’s use of nomos. Still there is room for criticism from a BT perspective for the ham-fisted way the law sometimes gets handled in reformed churches. Compared to the biblical obstacles that must be overcome to go to Rome however, including a devaluing of the scriptures themselves in relation to tradition and the magisterium, it seems inconsequential in comparison. It’s pretty tough to make a case for roman soteriology using Rom 8, while ignoring the clear connections to Rom 5, Rom 3, Rom 7, even if your pushing the ‘therefore is now no condemnation’ forward to introduce the rest of 8. Condemnation, for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, righteous requirement of the law, for us, are all forensic categories and speak to substition and obligatory fulfillment(debt paid, penalty paid) it’s courtroom language. It’s 2nd Adam fulfillment. So, we can have that fight but then the question gets asked and has to be answered did God demand perfection? Rome says no, Geneva says yes. Spotless lamb without blemish, the pactum salutis, one without sin, failure in the garden leads to the SENTENCE of death. What the law could not do weak as it was through the flesh God has done in his son(2nd Adam-pactum salutis). I have no idea how you ever get through Hebrews and substantiate the priestcraft or the mass. It’s an uphill battle if you’re gonna go sola scriptura, which is why Rome DOESN’T. But, it’s interesting to watch him try.
LikeLike
“It would be interesting to do a comparison between PCA and OPC Pastors who went Roman. How did their previous backgrounds inform what they did when they got there…”
I would imagine most of them end up selling insurance…
LikeLike
Sean- Nice update & recap. Thanks for that.
LikeLike
The only previous OP pastor that comes to mind is Scott Hahn. There have been a few EWTN appearances, books, a teaching curriculum, speaking tours, and a journal. Is this Stellman’s goal as well? Hahn went into academics. Stellman’s site does state that his hopes are that this site will be the means for him to “continue doing what he loves” (i.e., speaking, teaching, and publishing). How long will it be until we start seeing books from him with the Roman stamp of approval? Hopefully they are better titled than, “Rome Sweet Home.”
LikeLike