Jason and the Callers' Worst Day

Pope Francis denies the rationale for Called to Communion:

“Our shared commitment to proclaiming the Gospel enables us to overcome proselytism and competition in all their forms,” Francis said. “All of us are at the service of the one Gospel!”

Although Francis has repeatedly called on Christians to invite others to the faith, he has also condemned “proselytism” on multiple occasions, by which he means coercive or aggressive missionary techniques.

The pope said that by answering the call to spread the Gospel, different Christian denominations will find a privileged setting for greater cooperation.

Christian unity, Francis said, won’t be achieved by subtle theoretical discussions in which each party tries to convince the other of the soundness of their opinions.

“To understand one another, and to grow in charity and truth, we need to pause, to accept and listen to one another. In this way, we already begin to experience unity,” Francis said. . . .

“A fruitful exchange of experiences,” Francis said, “can prove beneficial for the vitality of all forms of religious life.”

“To plumb the depths of the mystery of God,” said Francis on Sunday, “we need one another, we need to encounter one another, and to challenge one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who harmonizes diversities and overcomes conflicts.”

But John Allen thinks Francis is really singling out Pentecostal proselytism among Roman Catholics in South America. Even so, it’s the targeting of groups that seems to be behind the pope’s remarks:

Here’s something to think about: When Pope Francis blasts “proselytism,” he really may not be talking about, or to, Catholics at all.

In that regard, it’s important to remember that Francis’ primary frame of reference is as a Latin American pastor. There’s no part of the world that’s seen more organized and aggressive campaigns of proselytism in the last quarter-century or so, and for the most part Catholics have not been the architects of those efforts.

Instead, they’ve been more akin to the targets.

Arguably the most dramatic religious realignment of the late 20th century was the transition in Latin America from an almost homogeneously Catholic continent to a flourishing spiritual free market, with Evangelicals and Pentecostals posting massive gains.

Does make you wonder, though, if Francis knew about CtC would he be pleased? So the good news for us is that Jason and the Callers aren’t even on the pope’s global map. The bad news for them is that they’re out of sink with the officer who gives them the superior paradigm. Audacious. The pope doesn’t even care about them.

Word of advice to Jason and the Callers: indiscriminate Protestants prefer alliances to communion:

A high-profile alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelical Protestants is set to issue a sweeping manifesto against gay marriage that calls same-sex unions “a graver threat” than divorce or cohabitation, one that will lead to a moral dystopia in America and the persecution of traditional believers.

“If the truth about marriage can be displaced by social and political pressure operating through the law, other truths can be set aside as well,” say the nearly 50 signers of the statement, which is to be published in the March edition of the conservative journal First Things.

Advertisements

586 thoughts on “Jason and the Callers' Worst Day

  1. I’m getting excited already for what post-Francis Roman Catholicism will look like. The reign of Francis starting March 2013 (has it really been almost 2 years?!?) has been quite the roller coaster ride, the next vicar will have large shoes to fill..

    Like

  2. Jimmy akin has already destroyed this post.

    1) What’s being claimed?

    It’s being claimed that Pope Francis said the Church doesn’t need apologists or crusaders.

    2) Where did he allegedly say this?

    In a speech to the Congregation for Bishops.

    It isn’t yet online in English, but it’s in Italian here.

    3) What did he say?

    According to the Washington Post:

    He exhorted them to find “authentic” pastors who display “professionalism, service and holiness of life.”

    Bishops, he continued, should be “guardians of doctrine, not to measure how far the world lives from the truth it contains, but to fascinate the world, to enchant the world with the beauty of love, to seduce it with the free gift of the Gospel.”

    “The church doesn’t need apologists for their own agendas or crusaders for their own battles,” he added, “but humble and faithful sowers of the truth.”

    4) Why is that not a diss on apologists?

    Because he wasn’t talking about apologists. He was talking about bishops.

    Specifically, he was talking about the attitude that bishops should bring to their jobs.

    He said that bishops should be “humble and faithful sowers of the truth” rather than “apologists for their own agendas” or “crusaders for their own battles.”

    In other words, they should focus on sowing the truth rather than getting caught up in personal agendas.

    5) Has that sentence been translated another way?

    Yeah. As you’ll see it in some places, it’s been translated:

    The Church does not need apologists for her causes or crusaders for her battles, but humble and trusting sowers of the truth, who know that it is always given to them anew and trust in its power.

    The difference is whether the “causes/agendas” and “battles” are those of the bishops or the Church.

    The Italian original is:

    La Chiesa non ha bisogno di apologeti delle proprie cause né di crociati delle proprie battaglie, ma di seminatori umili e fiduciosi della verità, che sanno che essa è sempre loro di nuovo consegnata e si fidano della sua potenza.

    Either way, he’s not talking about apologists. He’s talking about bishops who act like apologists for particular causes.

    6) Don’t apologists defend the faith? What is this talk about “causes” or “agendas”?

    The word “apologist” is used more than one way. In some circles, it’s used to refer to a person who defends the faith, but it also has other uses.

    For example, if you watch political shows, you will often hear the word “apologist” being used (negatively) for a person who defends a particular political cause (often to the point of using deception).

    Here Pope Francis is using the term in something like the latter sense: a person who defends a cause or agenda with great zeal, not a person who defends the faith.

    He’s using the word “crusader” the same way. He’s not talking about the guys who put on chainmail and sailed for the holy land. He’s using it the way people today talk about a “crusading activist.”

    7) So what’s he really saying?

    He’s saying that the Church needs bishops who are focused on humbly spreading the truth—not agenda-driven activists.

    8) Can you offer evidence that Pope Francis supports apologetics?

    Sure. He’s talked about the importance of defending the faith any number of times:

    The word “Confirmation” then reminds us that this Sacrament brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace: it unites us more firmly to Christ, it renders our bond with the Church more perfect, and it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith… to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of his Cross [General Audience, January 29, 2014].

    How many of you pray for Christians who are being persecuted? How many? Everyone respond in you heart. Do I pray for my brother, for my sister who is in difficulty because they confess and defend their faith? It is important to look beyond our own boundaries, to feel that we are Church, one family in God! [General Audience, 25 September 2013].

    9) I won’t believe he’s not dissing apologists unless you show me a quotation where he actually uses the word “apologetics” in a positive sense! Can you do that?

    Yep:

    Proclaiming the Gospel message to differ­ent cultures also involves proclaiming it to professional, scientific and academic circles. This means an encounter between faith, reason and the sciences with a view to developing new approaches and arguments on the issue of credibility, a creative apologetics which would encourage greater openness to the Gospel on the part of all [Evangelii Gaudium 132].

    Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-pope-francis-just-diss-apologists-9-things-to-know-and-share#ixzz3QchF317d

    Like

  3. He exhorted them to find “authentic” pastors who display “professionalism, service and holiness of life.”

    If the Superior Paradigm isn’t producing these pastors in my local parish, does that mean I’m golden joining a Presbyterian church with elders who display professionalism, service, and holiness of life?

    Like

  4. Kenneth Winsmann
    Posted February 2, 2015 at 4:00 pm | Permalink
    The appropriate sound effect for daryls post.

    Wow, well, now I’m convinced. Kenneth, where do I sign up?

    Like

  5. Speaking of…I’ll try to have my blow-by-blow up tomorrow:

    “Drunk Ex-Pastors Podcast #28: Yoga Pants, Gay Husbands, and Incest”

    “In this episode of Drunk Ex-Pastors, Jason and Christian talk about yoga pants. Naturally, this brings up many more topics such as when candy had its zenith, exactly what it means to covet your neighbor’s ass, and what it would be like if women catcalled men. They then talk about gay men marrying women and whether or not that will make god happy finally. A caller asks why a father shouldn’t marry his daughter, which leads to Jason being confused about how reproduction works. Jason is biebered by overly conservative people, and Christian is biebered by having to keep quiet until he has everything figured out.

    Also, Jason advocates for straight men getting gay-married…again. Hmmm.”

    Like

  6. O.K. – We’ll go blow by blow.

    Jason mocks the idea that advocates for the poor who are in tough financial straits themselves should not go on cruises.

    Since Christian paid, I’ll concede the point is probably moot.

    We’ll see if they consider extenuating circumstances next time they pile on “the rich”, though.

    Like

  7. Christian admits to watching porn to “get off” and Jason agrees that this is not as bad as actually lusting after a live woman in the flesh.

    Excuse me while I step away from the computer to throw up.

    O.K., I’m back.

    Jason refers to his genitals as his “wiener”.

    Need to step away again.

    Like

  8. @ Kenneth:

    I’m not so sure you’re right. Akin seems to be correct that the pope was criticizing bishops who are apologists for their own agendas. Presumably, that would include non-bishops who are apologists for their own agendas, yes?

    And certainly CtC has a particular agenda: To harness philosophy in the service of papal positivism.

    Francis would presumably oppose such a move. Or would he? Kinda hard to understand those papal pronouncements.

    Like

  9. Erik, I had never heard of resting b**ch face, either. My wife was impressed when I asked her if she knew what that was. You’re making me look good, bro. And I don’t have to listen to their podcast, given all your efforts. As always, your services are more than welcome.

    For my part, comment away!

    Like

  10. Giving them a bit of a pass in the comments section:

    Erik Charter
    February 2, 2015 at 4:08 PM

    “Basically, anything that comes out of California Christianity from…well…ever, needs to be taken with a grain of salt – from Azusa Street to Sister Aimee to The Jesus People to the Crystal Cathedral — pretty much everything but Westminster and the decent Dutch Reformed folk who spawned her. It’s amazing you & Jason made it as far as you did. California goofs just about everything up — Christianity included.”

    Half-way in they’re sounding like Dr. Ruth and/or Dr. Phil and Jason is already tipsy. This may be a lost episode. More later.

    Like

  11. Erik:

    If Francis knew about CtC?

    You’re saying he’s not calling Bryan for advice?

    Have you ever wondered why you never see popes Benedict and Francis together?

    Maybe it’s be Francis is really Benedict playing the “drunk ex-pope”.

    Like

  12. loser ken, this is above your pay grade, speaking for THE speaker. For shame.

    In a nutshell, The performative flaw par excellente in the superior papal paradigm.
    Are the babblers listening?
    Come on, you already knew they weren’t and never expected them to.
    Bryan would have to ask Jase to give his boss a recommendation for work and be second billed on the podcast.
    Not Going To Happen.

    Like

  13. D. G. Hart
    Posted February 2, 2015 at 4:55 pm | Permalink
    loser ken, this is above your pay grade, speaking for THE speaker. For shame.

    This is your most brilliant refudiation of the Catholics yet, Dr. Hart. Your supporters here must be so proud.

    Bob S
    Posted February 2, 2015 at 9:34 pm | Permalink
    loser ken, this is above your pay grade, speaking for THE speaker. For shame.

    In a nutshell, The performative flaw par excellente in the superior papal paradigm.
    Are the babblers listening?
    Come on, you already knew they weren’t and never expected them to.
    Bryan would have to ask Jase to give his boss a recommendation for work and be second billed on the podcast.
    Not Going To Happen.

    Exactly. Darryl, you must be so proud of your flock as well. Old Life Theological Society is cutting a triumphant swath of theological excellence right through Christendom. BobS should be invited to speak at your church on Sunday. In fact, you should fly “Erik Charter” in and make a day of it.

    Like

  14. Does anyone pay attention to Catholic apologists? Most Protestant-to-Catholic converts I’ve met seem to have a screw or two loose. We’re probably better off without them. Maybe we can convince Kloosterman to swim the Tiber.

    Like

  15. Re: the upcoming screed against same-sex marriage…

    I guess the folks at the Manhattan Declaration must be short of funds. They need to get one more round of fundraising in before the Supreme Court obviates this issue…and before the group’s donor base is overtaken by dementia.

    In some ways, evangelicals (and conservative Catholics) are a lot like Italian public officials: The louder they complain, the more you’re free to ignore them with impunity.

    Like

  16. In a nutshell, The performative flaw par excellente in the superior papal paradigm.
    Are the babblers listening?

    They are not.

    Robert
    Posted January 9, 2015 at 5:59 pm | Permalink
    By going full-on papalist, you run the risk of making yourself and your “ministry” irrelevant. The CTC approach was irrelevant before it even started, even before Bryan et al were born. V2 guaranteed that. The Magisterium simply doesn’t care to press the issue that they are the one, true church anymore. Sure, they’d like to see some kind of visible unity around the Vatican, but one gets the distinct impression that no one in Rome believes it will ever happen, and they’re just fine with that. You’ve got the odd bishop who might still care, but the key word there is “odd.” They’ve become liberals in the matter of ecclesiology. Invincible ignorance will cover a multitude of sins.

    When you are supposed to do and say as the Magisterium does, and the Magisterium doesn’t seem much interested in proving itself to Protestants to be the church Christ founded, then you aren’t being a good RC anymore. CTC and Roman apologetics in general seems to be utter exercise in futility. Bryan et al have two choices—1. Admit that the Magisterium is wrong in this (but then you lose your “principled means”) or 2. Go with the current Magisterial flow and admit that Protestants are not really lacking anything important for being out of the Roman communion

    Like

  17. Andrew citing Robert:

    Bryan et al have two choices—1. Admit that the Magisterium is wrong in this (but then you lose your “principled means”) or 2. Go with the current Magisterial flow and admit that Protestants are not really lacking anything important for being out of the Roman communion …

    There is a third choice here, which is to “make believe”:

    From a Catholic point of view, we never assume as part of our theological methodology that a prima facie contradiction within the Tradition is an actual contradiction. Out of humility toward the Tradition, we instead assume as a working hypothesis that the appearance of a contradiction is due to our own ignorance or misunderstanding. So from a Catholic point of view, if we have at hand an explanation that integrates the apparently conflicting pieces of evidence, we already have a good reason to accept it rather than conclude that there is an actual contradiction…

    What provides this good reason is faith, faith which denies ecclesial deism, and affirms the authority, unity, and continuity of the Tradition according to our belief in the guidance of the Holy Spirit dwelling faithfully within the Church until Christ returns. Within a Protestant perspective in which ecclesial deism and the discontinuity of the Tradition are presupposed, that good reason is not available. So, this denial on your part, …, presupposes a Protestant paradigm.

    Like

  18. “In some ways, evangelicals (and conservative Catholics) are a lot like Italian public officials: The louder they complain, the more you’re free to ignore them with impunity.”

    Bobby, that’s great. Another good one is “the bullets fly but Mussolini remains!” You should try to get something done quickly at the Post Office in South-Central Italy. Wow!

    It’s nice to see you write “we’re” better off without them. I’m with Muddy, stay yourself but stay in Church. People, even we who are part of the “cognitive commons,” grow to respect courage and integrity. You’re also likely to find we aren’t even jealous, we admire the cognitive elite, provided they’re really elite and sane. And we’re not easily fooled, Biden, Kennedy, Dodd are sweat hogs and we know it.

    Like

  19. I feel sorry for Jason. He’s ensnared now or at least friendless and going, in the phrase of A.Ensolen, subsane.

    Somebody who used to be a friend ought to reach out to him.

    I think the most telling thing that Francis has said is that he thinks the people of God are infallible. That seems to me to be a Mazzini-Francis tag-team hit to P. Pius IX. An Acton group.

    He doesn’t want to change words, he wants to change behavior by changing understanding thereby creating theology through practice: Come si pratica e come se crede.

    I disagree with Francis some but I’d like him a whole lot more if he were a deep thinker.

    Like

  20. Bobby – Most Protestant-to-Catholic converts I’ve met seem to have a screw or two loose. We’re probably better off without them. Maybe we can convince Kloosterman to swim the Tiber.

    Bobby – They need to get one more round of fundraising in before the Supreme Court obviates this issue…and before the group’s donor base is overtaken by dementia.

    Erik – LOL. Not going to happen with Kloosterman. Do you know how irrelevant fluency in Dutch is for a Catholic?

    Like

  21. Tom, you say DGH must appreciate me doing some yapping for him.

    If you understood, you’d realize he has written mannnny books, the start of which I was like 10, watching Star Trek as a kid. His service to Christ’s Church is invaluable to someone like me, and you, who realize that we in the OPC are part of the holy catholic* church.

    *catholic historically has meant “universal.”

    Like

  22. Andrew,

    I can’t pray for him because I don’t know him, I only know of his antics. I know that sounds off but I don’t mean disrespect by it.

    Those who know him should pray for him. Their petitions have meaning and mine would not.

    P.S. I think my Italian is off. I think it should be come si crede.

    My parents are gone, I was the only kid whose Italian was pretty good. And now it’s fading because I don’t have anyone to speak Italian to.

    Like

  23. MLD – Somebody who used to be a friend ought to reach out to him.

    Erik – When you blow through religions every 3-4 years its hard to accumulate lasting friendships. That’s why you revert to your lifelong friend who is now an agnostic.

    The people I sincerely feel badly for are the wife and kids. If I heard from them or from their pastor that anything I am doing is causing them pain I would stop immediately. They are the victims in all this. After you are married with children is a terrible time to launch a journey to find yourself.

    Like

  24. Andrew,

    It his antics that make me feel sorry for him. I think they give something away of him but that’s not like knowing him.

    To give a better example, Lane K at Baggins knows him. Do you see what I mean?

    Like

  25. Erik,

    Point taken about his fecklessness but someone who knows him, who cares about him, can be the bigger man, no? And I’m not implying you’re to be that man. I’m just saying.

    I can’t imagine being his wife.

    A lot of converts have wives that have converted because they know that the husband’s conversion could spell marital doom. So they newly believe because he newly believed.

    I wouldn’t be able to do that and I admire Jason’s wife for what seems strength to me.

    Like

  26. MLD, or DGH could, since he drank white Russians after watching The Big Lebowski while at Seminary.

    Erik, I was going more for Jimmy and Bunk, the old good cop/bad cop routine. Being a deacon, I always get the easier of the two jobs.

    I dig your dog analogy. Woof.

    Like

  27. MLD, why does Francis need to be a deep thinker when so many think his thoughts for him? I’ve never seen so many interpreters of the one who has the authority to interpret. Sort of like Protestants with the Bible.

    Like

  28. “MLD, why does Francis need to be a deep thinker when so many think his thoughts for him? I’ve never seen so many interpreters of the one who has the authority to interpret. Sort of like Protestants with the Bible.”

    Because, like when it’s all about you, this is all about me. He’s Italian, it’s embarrassing. Yes, that’s tribal; sue me.

    Hasn’t every Pope needed his interpreters? After all, however important (self or not) his only medium is still words. Even facts need interpretation.

    I can’t speak on behalf of Protestants, DGH. I have enough troubles of my own to tend to. And speaking of pay grades? It’s way above mine.

    Kind of like our President and McCain in the two-on-one with the heavy-set Pastor w/the Purpose Driven Life (can’t think of his name) when he asked them when life began: PO said it was way above his pay grade and when McCain answered, at conception, and if memory serves, Obama’s team said that McCain was fed the answer through a mic or secret tunnel or something like that. Apparently, McCain’s numbers went up because his answer was a humble one.

    I miss De Regno Christi, that was a good blog. If you ever speak with Pastor Chellis, tell him that Mary Louise says hello and hopes that he and family are well.

    Like

  29. MLD,

    Hasn’t every Pope needed his interpreters? After all, however important (self or not) his only medium is still words. Even facts need interpretation.

    You wouldn’t get that sense from reading Bryan Cross and the gang at CTC. They seem to think he is perspicuous as God’s Word. Although I seem to remember a discussion with them where they ended up saying that there is at least he possibility of asking yes or no questions of the Magisterium. I think that is how they get around the whole endless chain of interpretation criticism of Rome that is raised whenever they start talking about their “principled mechanism.”

    The problem, of course, is that even “yes” and “no” answers have to be interpreted.

    But one thing’s for sure. Keep pressing them on it and you will finally be accused of begging the question for not sharing their presupposition that Rome is the one true church.

    CTC=Roman Catholic presuppostionalism without the critical self-awareness found in someone like Van Til.

    Like

  30. Speaking of all things feline, for anyone following along (all) about Bart (not Simpson, per the image, rather, the Cat), we may have an ugly custody battle on our hands:

    <blockquote cite=""."If we have to go to court, we have to go to court," Hudson said. "I don't think it's right for me to lose my cat."

    Saying a prayer for Bart,
    Andrew

    Like

  31. Robert,

    I went to confession once telling the priest I was having a hard time accepting certain parts of doctrine. He began to ask me to confess acceptance, when I couldn’t he told me he couldn’t forgive my sins. He didn’t give me the chance to say, I have no desire to rail against it. I didn’t think too much of it because I had known the priest’s style. I just said okay and left. He was a very good homilist in that he knew a lot about personal, papal history and could weave that into his sermon. I like history and the use of it in sermons about the life of Christians and the progress of Christianity

    After that, I went to the parish of my youth to confess my doubts and the priest said, as long as you believe that Jesus is God and that he rose from the dead, leave the other doctrines be if they’re troubling your faith. I told him also, that I had already confessed to another priest and that he wouldn’t forgive my sins. He didn’t comment. But his advice to me, his treatment of me, was correct.

    It wasn’t the first time I had confessed doubt. The priest who wouldn’t forgive my sins recommended in the fist bout that I read Aquinas. But what I needed was someone to explain, in plain words, some things to me or to be like the priest who wanted to keep me from losing my faith out of despair. When I went to Aquinas the first thing that begins to seem off is his description of evil by likening it to a man born without an eye. But evil marches, I thought. So I didn’t go on because that basic seemed so off.

    I though myself an unbeliever and what convinced me that I’m really just a sinner is that in my last confession I told the priest that I prayed to God that he let me know if I really didn’t believe. Do you see what I mean? Then, I thought of Adam and thought, my goodness, if he didn’t believe or called God a liar, and walked with God, there’s hope for me.

    It is one thing to say, we have preserved the earthly life or the journeys of the communion of saints, as best we know how. We do know Clement and Augustine and Aquinas, intimately and dutifully. Here we stand, we can do no other. That’s my attachment to Rome, Robert, that’s how I see her, the whore who did, along with my parents, form my knowledge of and love for Jesus Christ.

    Like

  32. Convey to Ken that many of us see his name and 1500 words beneath it and scroll down in a picosecond to the next post that isn’t his….

    Like

  33. I offer Jason an olive branch and Christian gets all snarky and offended:

    Erik Charter
    February 3, 2015 at 11:00 AM

    Jason,

    Are you still one of Called to Communion’s “team of contributors”? Bryan the Stubborn still has you listed on page 1, even though you haven’t written anything since the end of 2013. If you’re not and you can get him to stop claiming you are I’ll leave you alone. The chasm between what you peddle here and we he peddles there is vast.

    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/10/called-to-communion-welcomes-jason-stellman/

    Christian
    February 3, 2015 at 11:06 AM

    Erik, be sure to mention your obsession with this during your next therapy session.

    You may want to see if DG and the rest of your cohorts at OL want to call in for that session as well.

    Erik Charter
    February 3, 2015 at 11:11 AM

    Are you ever coming back to Old Life or was your running away in tears your final appearance?

    Like

  34. The Drunks are debating the vexing question of whether or not fathers should be able to marry their daughters.

    Calvary Chapel High School set these guys back AT LEAST a decade…

    Like

  35. yofaking on reddit/christianity is a fan, tho:

    [–]yofaking 1 point 1 month ago
    If you’re looking for something in between, checkout Back to Red Podcast. If theology is important to you and you’re of the more Calvinist mindset check out Reformed Pubcast. I also recently found another one about two ex-pastors that is interesting, Drunk Ex-Pastors

    It’s gotta mean SOMETHING when you get reddit attention like that, yo..

    Like

  36. My sincere review: “Larger criticisms aside, this entire episode was retarded. Seriously, you need to sh*tcan it and record a new #28. Just awful in comparison to the early episodes. You guys are running on fumes and need to either turn the ship around or pack it in.”

    Like

  37. Erik, like the alcoholic who needs to get to “rock bottom”, it seems as if the “drunk ex-pastors” need to explore those bottom areas before they realize there’s a serious problem that they need to deal with.

    Like

  38. Are you ever coming back to Old Life or was your running away in tears your final appearance?

    Erik,

    When did this happen? I gotta see this!

    Like

  39. I go all Ann Landers on Jason:

    “The point that Jason continues to miss is that, if you’re not reasonably certain that you’re going to continue believing what you believe, don’t seek to be a leader in X movement. Don’t be a Calvary Chapel missionary, don’t accept ordination as a PCA minister, don’t prosecute Peter Leithart, don’t go on TV announcing your conversion, don’t become a Catholic apologist overnight contra the group you just left, and don’t start a freaking “Drunk Ex-Pastors” podcast. Just keep your head down and mind your own business like 98% of the population. You make yourself a public person, so you have no one to blame but yourself when people notice. Quit whining or get the flip out of the spotlight. It’s just plain narcissism.”

    Like

  40. Catholic Speakers: Jason Stellman

    Apologetics
    Convert
    Theology

    Travels from Seattle, Washington

    In addition to being a former Presbyterian minister and missionary, Jason Stellman is an author, speaker, and popular blogger who has been teaching Scripture and theology on a regular basis for the past two decades.

    His career as a Bible teacher to poor African villagers, European university students, and wealthy American suburbanites has enabled him to communicate deep truths to diverse audiences with credibility and understanding, in ways that are simple, clear, and engaging. He was featured as a keynote speaker with Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft at the 2013 Defending the Faith conference in Steubenville, OH, and will be appearing on EWTN’s “The Journey Home” later this year.

    With over 20 years of Protestant pastoral ministry under his belt, Jason is comfortable speaking about a number of topics. Areas of particular expertise and enjoyment include expounding the New Testament and showing how gospel-related issues like the cross, faith, worship, and the sacraments bear upon the everyday lives of Catholics in the twenty-first century. And as a convert, he absolutely loves to explore the issues that separate Catholics and Protestants (since those are the very issues with which he wrestled extensively before resigning his ministry and seeking full communion with the Church).

    “Jason Stellman is a committed disciple of Jesus Christ, a fantastic speaker and a man of great integrity who has embraced the Catholic faith at great cost to himself and with inspiring courage. He is thoughtful, funny, and a serious thinker whom I am proud to call a friend.” – Mark Shea

    “The last time I heard Jason Stellman speak, 1,500 people erupted with a standing ovation. They knew what others are quickly learning, that Jason is a true gem. His many years as a preacher, his great erudition, his winsome humor, and his admirable courage and integrity make him the complete package. If you’re looking for a speaker to knock the ball out of the park, Jason’s your guy.” — Brandon Vogt, author, blogger, speaker

    Like

  41. Erik, I wouldn’t write up that much phony butt-kissing for the person who risked life and limb to pull me out of a flaming car-wreck just before it exploded.

    Like

  42. They need to go to an Evangelical revival night where 12 recent immigrants get up and praise how God is good because they just cashed a commission cheque from real estate/sales/whatever worth $250,000 or more.

    Like

  43. With over 20 years of Protestant pastoral ministry under his belt, Jason is comfortable speaking about a number of topics.

    Yeah, no s**t.

    But seriously, I’m going to guess that in his 20 years of Protestant pastoral ministry Jason didn’t talk much about gay Mormons, yoga-pants-clad buttocks, ass-coveting, The Delights of Porno, incest, or Mark Driscol’s penis. Salvation, grace, and Jesus Christ just pale in comparison.

    Christian (and agnostic) freedom, yo.

    Like

  44. Seth – With over 20 years of Protestant pastoral ministry under his belt, Jason is comfortable speaking about a number of topics.

    Yeah, no s**t.

    Erik – LOL

    Meanwhile, Jason’s taking the high road, refusing to engage me in my scurrilous accusations.

    No arguing with any facts I’ve stated, notably.

    Like

  45. Erik Charter
    February 3, 2015 at 11:00 AM

    Jason,

    Are you still one of Called to Communion’s “team of contributors”? Bryan the Stubborn still has you listed on page 1, even though you haven’t written anything since the end of 2013. If you’re not and you can get him to stop claiming you are I’ll leave you alone.

    Good luck. The only man that can tell Bryan what to do on his little playground CalledtoCommunion is this man.

    Everyone else? Well, that would be begging the question, yo.

    Like

  46. DGHART,

    this is above your pay grade, speaking for THE speaker. For shame.

    I am not speaking for the speaker. Just exposing yet another one of your gaffs. The Pope wasn’t speaking to apologists or to apologetics. He was speaking to agenda driven bishops. Nice try though. (Not really. Embarrassingly awful)

    Kent,

    Just know that when I type more than a paragraph the intended audience is limited. I know most of you have the attention span of a goldfish. Still, there are one or (maybe) two people around here worth talking with from time to time. Its an old game with Robert and I at this point…. but its better than playing crossword

    Like

  47. Link for Erik’s Stelly blurb. Has picture of that time Jason stole Ed McMahon’s clothes.

    Reminds me of the episode when Crazy Joe Devola kicked Kramer in the head and dented his helmet.

    Like

  48. Good luck. The only man that can tell Bryan what to do on his little playground CalledtoCommunion is this man.

    Yup, and if this one died and then the next one said something totally opposite the next minute, Bryan would nod and say both were the whole truth….

    Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee…..

    Like

  49. CW, that’s a snappy angle to an intro.

    And we have done 100s of hours of homework.

    Yes, a few of your fellow students did indeedy-do a close reading of that boring poem taken up in class today.

    Like

  50. Unlike pope moonflower, k-love says all-a-yall or goin’ to hay-ull:

    “Thus, from the Roman Catholic perspective, protestant theology is never the means of ones salvation. A protestant can be saved, but only in as much as he or she can escape from his denomination through ignorance and (at least) an implicit desire to join the true Church. In a sense, it could be said that christian education and study actually work against a protestants relationship with Christ. However, even when a protestant is invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church, this would still not necessarily entail that they were in a state of grace. Said person might still be culpable of other mortal sins and may still be damned on that account.”

    http://www.coffeehouseinquisition.com/brothers-in-christ/

    Like

  51. Erik Charter
    February 3, 2015 at 1:31 PM

    Christian, The name is only part of it. It’s the bad language, the lewd comments, the choice of topics (like this episode). Not stuff befitting a healthy, growing, orthodox Roman Catholic. It is fitting a former Christian, now agnostic, though. This is why I say if you’re truly a friend to Jason you would be helping him more than you are, even if his choices are different than yours.

    Christian
    February 3, 2015 at 1:39 PM

    You understand that not everyone shares your paradigm about life and religion, right? You say things so often that make me think you have a difficult time grasping that.

    Erik Charter
    February 3, 2015 at 1:57 PM

    Christian,

    If Jason is truly a Roman Catholic him and I should agree on the moral issues in question. If him and I disagree on those, he also disagrees with Bryan Cross and the good Catholics at Called to Communion, which renders his being on the masthead there ridiculous. If Catholic morality is not an objective thing, then one of Jason’s primary reasons for converting is rendered void — the fact that he had discovered a Church that Christ himself founded that is objectively true and stands apart from fractured Protestantism.

    I don’t claim you and I agree on much, if anything. The sheep and the goats. You know the story.

    Like

  52. Brandon Addison
    February 3, 2015 at 1:23 PM

    Jason,

    You don’t need me telling you how to run your life, but I have to admit that I’m a bit befuddled by where you are. In one sense, it isn’t any of my business and you don’t owe me (or any former Protestant) anything. At the same time, in the 2.5 years since your conversion have appeared in the following:

    1. You announced your conversion in June and were engaging in debate as earlier as August 11th here: https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/list-paradigm-versus-agape-paradigm/#comment-101682

    2. You blogged at a Catholic Apologetic site initially in August, but then the link was removed and then reinstated in September (that timeline may not be completely accurate, but I believe the article was published initially in August before being pulled down and subsequently reposted): http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/09/i-fought-the-church-and-the-church-won/

    3. You continued to blog over at Creed Code Cult about this issues: http://www.creedcodecult.com/on-faith-hope-and-love/

    4. As you continued blogging you were speaking at apologetics conferences about your conversion with “prominent” converts like Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft. You were dubbed a “keynote” speaker at that event and you spoke about your conversion. Mark Shea recalls the conference here: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/what-i-saw-at-defending-the-faith-in-steubenville

    5. As of 10 months ago (April 2014) you were in the process of writing a book entitled, “I Fought the Church (and the Church Won).” and you even released an excerpt: http://www.creedcodecult.com/likelihood-plausibility-and-sola-scriptura/

    6. As of May 27th, 2014 you noted you’d no longer blog because you had a book deadline but you wanted to keep the site up because of all the traffic it received and the good work it was doing: http://www.creedcodecult.com/big-announcement-from-creed-code-cult/

    7. On August 1st, 2014, you post your first Podcast on “Drunk Ex-Pastors.” and in subsequent episodes we hear you cursing, drinking, sounding rather progressive (at least from where the PCA is and where the perception of those at CtC is), etc., on a podcast with your agnostic best friend.

    To be clear, I’m not calling you to defend your actions. I don’t know a single detail about your day-to-day life and I’m not entitled to it. You may have changed your mind on some things and you may even regret the way you acted in the wake of your conversion. Things and people change and there is nothing wrong with that. Shoot, from now since August 2014 is a lot of time for someone to change their thinking, so maybe you’re in a different place than when you started the podcast.

    The fact is though that you haven’t distanced yourself from same Jason writing a book about Catholicism and your conversion in May 2014. If there was some sort of explanation about that I think it would be helpful because as it stands those of us who have followed you are left wondering what is going on. You certainly don’t owe me that explanation (trying to overemphasize that), but I think if you really stop to think about the course of events, you’ll realize why those of us in your previous camp are perplexed and point out what we perceive to be the utter hypocrisy of Jason the Drunk Ex-Pastor and Jason the book writing, conference speaking, Catholic blogging, apologist.

    Like

  53. Kenneth, what exactly is it you want to talk about?

    Because honestly, you come off as an internet troll.

    You say things like

    I dont think that the conversations at Old Life should be the litmus test for the blogosheres “general environment”. That place is uniquely nasty on the comment boards and only appeals to certain personality types.

    https://oldlife.org/2015/01/hedging-the-call/#comment-283817

    And how you just want to jerk people around who, in your mind, have not done their homework, and you are surprised no one wants to have a real theological discussion with you?

    Are you for real?

    Like

  54. Exactly, Andrew, I’ll do the jerking around on here of those who haven’t seen the light of solid Christian Reformed doctrine.

    Like

  55. Kent, I wake up in the morning, make a cup of coffee, and just hope that Kenneth is around OLTS to jerk me and Darryl around, as he continues to display his utter lack of self-awareness.

    Someone, please call his priest and tell him that Kenneth isn’t doing the Catholic religion any favors. For his sake.

    I’m out.

    Like

  56. Kenneth –

    Kent,

    Just know that when I type more than a paragraph the intended audience is limited

    Erik – Intended audience: 1?, Effective audience: zero to negative 3

    Like

  57. Christian,

    In your fervor, you’re missing what I’m doing. I’m merely pointing to one group of Catholics at Called to Communion and another Catholic, Jason, and pitting them against each other. My piety or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. An atheist could be making the same points I’m making. Certainly a logician of whatever stripe could be making it. It’s extremely easy pickings.

    If Jason’s Catholicism is of a liberal variety, one that allows him to say “fuck” at will and to talk about whatever he wants, there are liberal Catholic groups out there. By all means, align with them. The group he is currently aligned with, at least as of an hour ago, is not that group, though. It’s hypocrisy for them to align with him and for him to align with them.

    Like

  58. If Jason is a car he’s careening down the road, swerving from left to right, knocking over mailboxes, scaring cows, uprooting gardens. It’s not too much to ask him to go back and mend a few fences, replant a few flowers, put things in order. That’s all I’m doing.

    And this is therapy.

    Like

  59. Andrew,

    Oh, Puh-lease. When was the last time I addressed a comment in your direction? Your creepy obsession with me is only rivaled by Eriks creepy obsession with Jason.

    Must be something in the OPC grape juice e. I don’t “here you around” or address comments in your direction because you have never contributed anything interesting to the convo. Just endless belly aching and whimpering when OL peeps reap what they sow. If you want to have a hard ass blog, cool. But don’t cry like a baby when other people are down to play ball. Grow a pair

    Like

  60. Grow a pair

    Christ honoring comment, much?

    I get it, I’ve got under your skin with my latest comment. But what’s funny is not only are you out of step with your papi. You are out of step with Jason regarding my testicles:

    Say what you will about its relevance or lack thereof in the culture, the OPC has the stones to say, “Look, we don’t give a frak about how small we are, we’re maintaining fidelity to our confessions, whatever the cost.” Agree or not, you gotta give props to the OPC for their audacious lack of interest in success as defined by their transformationist peers. And for their bow ties.

    Uhm, you are the one who has a creepy obsession with Darryl, I’m afraid. How many years posting here?

    Go ahead, keep trolling away. I won’t get in your way, you’re helping our cause, bud. You really are clueless, as Darryl says. I’m sorry for you.

    Peace.

    Like

  61. Kenneth,

    Have you been able to hook Jason up so he can make $10k the first week while barely working at overcharging old people, the poor, and the government for drugs?

    Like

  62. loser ken, how do you know what the infallible pontiff was intending? I’ve learned much from Jason and the Callers and it is that the pope has the final say. So why do you presume to speak? Pay, pray, obey, losery kenny.

    Like

  63. Erik,

    Power chair market!!!! Lol! We don’t pedal viagra. We don’t target old people. Mainly do business with the military. I’m sure Jason will kill it.

    DGHART,

    Because I can read what he said….. In context. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist

    Like

  64. DGH, I just wonder who said anything about policing charity?

    I just wondering if Winny bringing up my nads in a theology discussion was honoring to Christ?

    Like usual, he is radio silent. katniss doesn’t talk to me b/c he has nothing to say. Again.

    Don’t mind me while I do this, ms. Katniss Everdeen.

    Like

  65. I can’t help but note the irony that the Romanists who post here tell us that if we read Francis in context he clearly doesn’t mean what we think he means but then they go all skeptic when Protestants insist that such can be done with the Bible. And so the Roman Church always remains more perspicuous than the biblical text. Simply amazing.

    Like

  66. Robert,

    I’m sure you understand that there is a difference between reading a speech, said in our own day and age, and synthesizing over 60 books, written in an ancient language, with no original manuscripts, in numerous genres, and no table of contents page signed off on by the author.

    Simply amazing that you don’t see the difference

    Like

  67. Kenneth,

    I’m sure you understand that there is a difference between reading a speech, said in our own day and age, and synthesizing over 60 books, written in an ancient language, with no original manuscripts, in numerous genres, and no table of contents page signed off on by the author.

    Simply amazing that you don’t see the difference.

    What is amazing is this statement, which assumes that God cannot be perspicuous in His revealed Word but can be in the statements of 2,000 years of church history when Tradition has never been identified (i.e., where’s the “table of contents” for that), conflicting theologies of salvation are allowed (Monism vs. Thomism), neither liberals nor conservatives are excommunicated, and so on.

    Simply amazing that you think Trent’s view of Protestantism can be reconciled with V2’s.

    Like

  68. The pope isn’t even sure what he means. He doesn’t even try to close the loop, the whole point is to put it out there and ‘see’ what God does with it. The prot-cath’s are so fundy about their papal interpretation. They have absolutely no reference for the ‘movement of god among the people of god’.

    Like

  69. Robert,

    We aren’t discussing any of your pet topics. You didn’t comment on molinism, discipline, or Tradition. You said that scripture was just as easy to understand as this speech delivered by Pope Francis. Clearly false.

    Like

  70. Creepy Kenneth loving The Drunks on Incest:

    Kenneth Winsmann
    February 4, 2015 at 7:32 AM

    This thread was awesome before it got hijacked by the loud insignificant minority.

    I thought the podcast was just as good as all the others. Better, because there was less in this podcast about the podcast and the topic of you two podcasting.

    I had a laugh out loud moment when Jason figured out where Christian was going with the incest thing. Pure gold.

    For what it’s worth I didn’t really understand what the problem was with brothers and sisters procreation. If you hold to the (near death) neodarwinism or creation, either way the first few humans had no alternative but to inbreed and get the species going.

    Jason was (imo) incorrect about brothers and sisters sleeping together being “disordered” by nature. God’s law in this case would not flow from His or our nature. Sleeping with a sibling does not frustrate our natural ends or final causes in the same way homosexuality, masturbation, or sleeping with a parent does. It’s a law of consequence IMO due to genetic defects.

    Just my two cents.

    Like

  71. Brandon Addison
    February 4, 2015 at 7:49 AM

    Jason,

    You said,

    While I am writing a book, I am not a “conference speaking, Catholic blogging, apologist.”

    Exactly, but you *were* all of those things at one time, roughly a year ago.

    The Jason giving his emotional journey to Rome is now dropping the F bomb on the regular on a public podcast and saying that he is “bad Catholic” and a “a marginal Catholic.” What happened to the man so assured of his Catholicism that he was on the apologetics trail with the creme de la creme of Catholic apologists (that not even Bryan speaks at)?

    It doesn’t add up. You can pretend that you never wanted to be an apologist or that it was only a one-time thing, but your history contradicts that . You’ve only been a convert 2.5 years. You were writing a memoir apologetic as late as May 27th, 2014. You appeared in a recent apologetic documentary about converting to Catholicism. You were teaching classes at your local parish and posting them online before that.

    Listen, if you want to make the shift I don’t blame you, but you were speaking at events *less* than 2 years ago (it was actually around 18 months ago). To try and side-step it by saying you haven’t done Catholic apologetics “in a long time” is a stretch. It may feel like a long time because you’ve emotionally moved on from some of those activities, but won’t you admit 18 months is really a short-term time frame for being an apologetic conference keynote speaker?

    Point is, there is a pretty stark contrast between Creed Code Jason and Drunk-Ex Pastor Jason, and I think you know that. If you can embrace that and admit that you’ve moved on from your old apologist persona, great. You don’t have to explicitly do that, either, but then you’ll have people that point out the hypocrisy of Jason the apologist and Jason the Drunk Ex-Pastor.

    And BTW, I’ve listened to a bit of the podcast to get a sense of it. Sounds like the sort of conversations I would have in college or when I’m letting my lips flap in the security of close friends and closed doors. I won’t pass judgment on what you talk about, but I do sincerely question the wisdom of a man posting these conversations in a public forum.

    Like

  72. The Drunks are finding their audience:

    “Stephen Beam: Author of the visionary and the strange. Pragmatic anarchist, artist, & reader. Following Jesus into dangerous places.”

    Stephen Beam (@demosthene1)
    February 4, 2015 at 8:26 AM

    “Can you block Erick? He is like the description of the contentious woman in Proverbs.”

    Like

  73. Kenneth,

    We aren’t discussing any of your pet topics. You didn’t comment on molinism, discipline, or Tradition. You said that scripture was just as easy to understand as this speech delivered by Pope Francis. Clearly false.

    Oh please. As if Rome allows anyone to read any statement by any pope in isolation from everything every other pope has ever said (except of course where there are clear contradictions, then he wasn’t speaking ex cathedra). I’ve been told specifically on more than one occasion that you can’t read a document like Unam Sanctum according to its authorial intent apart from everything the church has said since then. If this is so, and it is clearly the Roman position that the statements of the past mean whatever Rome says they mean today, then we’re all well within our rights to criticize you for thinking that the pope’s statement is so much clearer than the Bible. Your own RC hermeneutic shouldn’t even be allowing you and Jimmy Akin to give your interpretation of what Francis said in any meaningful way. Neither one of you are the pope.

    If you don’t think this statement is irrelevant to apologetics, you’re not paying attention. What about those bishops whose agenda is driven by proselytizing Protestants? Oh wait, maybe they’re aren’t any, which just goes to show Hart’s point that this pope’s statement and nearly everything he has said undermines the entire point of Roman Catholic apologetics, particularly the whole CTC project.

    When your pope is heralded as man of the year by every radical leftwing outfit out there, he’s either not supporting the Roman apologetics project or he’s far from being perspicuous.

    Like

  74. Robert,

    What you have described above is the hermeneutic by which we interpret the various organs of the Magesterium. The Pope giving a speech does not fall into that category. We read those words just as we read any others. People who are not the Pope can obviously still interpret a papal speech. It’s disheartening how little you understand even after all this time. The level of dialog you bring to the table has become greatly diminished by your question begging table pounding assertions. You used to be good at forming arguments. Go back to the old Robert.

    Like

  75. Ken: “Millions? Probably more like a couple thousand….. Granted that’s more people than are even in your denomination…. But still”

    So Ken thinks it’s a big funny joke that children were molested by priests and the church covered it up?

    Dude…

    Like

  76. Kenneth,

    What you have described above is the hermeneutic by which we interpret the various organs of the Magesterium. The Pope giving a speech does not fall into that category. We read those words just as we read any others. People who are not the Pope can obviously still interpret a papal speech. It’s disheartening how little you understand even after all this time. The level of dialog you bring to the table has become greatly diminished by your question begging table pounding assertions. You used to be good at forming arguments. Go back to the old Robert.

    Care to point me in the direction where the pope or Magisterium has infallibly defined the hermeneutic for approaching a papal speech vs. a papal encyclical such as Unam Sanctum?

    Like

  77. Kent, like I’ve said before k-love is easy. If you dig a hole he we will fall into it. A couple of thousand? If the current, active number was as few as 300,000 (size of my denom) I’d be surprised.

    Like

  78. To try and side-step it by saying you haven’t done Catholic apologetics “in a long time” is a stretch.

    Well Brandon, when Roman apologetics is a stretch to begin with – Bryan has told us that we prots can never truly know anything about religion, it’s all just opinion for us – guess what? It’s all a stretch and that’s all it will ever be. No conflict there. It’s just our opinion that (Romanism and) its apostate apologists don’t make sense or ever contradict themselves. Woohoo, that was easy.

    On top of that our very own resident skeptic, TVD – The Veronian Disciple and lapsed or Jack Roman Catholic – is not happy with the two principiums of CTC being characterized as: Rome is the infallible church Christ has founded and the Pope/Magisterium is the infallible perspicuous – and ongoing – voice of the same.

    Particularly in light of the flak that Francis is taking for speaking his mind, which seems to be as open as the comments around here and maybe just as empty as some of them. (ICU2 MC N unnerstan UR pane/diskust at the purerile prot prattling.)

    Neither does Kenneth seem to understand that prots – following the ancient church fathers – were there first, when it came to claiming perspicuity for their epistemological justification and authority and on top of it, prots have an objective content to the same, i.e. the Old and New Testament Scriptures.

    All the while the perfect church inconsistently appeals to Scripture for their tradition of the perfect pope, but it’s crickets when it comes to even a ToC for either the Lost Apostolic Oral Traditions or the Infallible Ex Cathedra Teachings of Popery. (No, the 1994 Catechism doesn’t count on either count.)

    My guess is prot religious opinion is not up to the strain of accommodating the kind of implicit, invincible and ignorant faith that washes away whatever stains of unbelief and inconsistency the holy water and the Sacred Heart of Your Favorite Patron Saint Badge won’t touch. Of course, the respective mileage/time in purgatory might vary.

    Last but not least, our token religiously liberal Cognoscenti Elitist opines about screeds on same sex marriage, the Supreme Court obviating the demented conservatives and imputing fascist(?) qualities to both impunious evangelicals and Romanists. Obviously our better(s) knows something we don’t.

    And that’s a good thing.
    Not that he knows what it is either, but hey let’s not sweat the details.
    The Romanists don’t, so why should he?
    cheers

    Like

  79. I’m honestly befuddled by the way in which a lot of the RCs around here, such as Tom and Kenneth, bring it down to a “we’re big, numerous, and influential, and you Presbys are small and insignificant.” In what way are the millions of RCs in this country influencing the country toward traditional Christian moral stances on human sexuality and abortion? Around the world for that matter?

    Like

  80. Robert, I think the point is supposed to play well to American DNA, i.e. bigger is always better or the doc prescribes two so I take three. So much for being counter-cultural.

    Like

  81. Brilliant insight straight from loser ken:

    “My church boasts more child-rapists than there are congregants in your denomination!”

    I’m surprised CtC hasn’t used that on the banner for their website. Who said the Roman Church isn’t Seeker Friendly (TM)?

    Like

  82. I repeat, out of step with Jace:

    Say what you will about its relevance or lack thereof in the culture, the OPC has the stones to say, “Look, we don’t give a frak about how small we are, we’re maintaining fidelity to our confessions, whatever the cost.” Agree or not, you gotta give props to the OPC for their audacious lack of interest in success as defined by their transformationist peers. And for their bow ties.

    Out of step with his pastor, and out of step with reality.

    And again, the more the antagonists keep this up, the better. Popcorn is popping, Katniss (dubya).

    Like

  83. Andy,

    In the comment Jason gives the OPC props for being the last place losers and not seeming to care. Like the fat kid in high school who wears all black and smells bad walking a 15 min mile when everyone else was done in 8. Well…. At least the kid doesn’t seem to care about other people’s opinion. Let’s give him a trophy for his proud suckyness.

    Like

  84. Kenneth, this isn’t Oprah but I want to recognize your courage in admitting your body shape and hygeine defeciencies. It takes a truly smelly man, to still smell his own funk. And at least you know why everyone around you is always crying.

    Like

  85. Well, considering Kenneth’s admitted(big stones) struggles, it’s possible he does a lot of back pew, scrunched in the corner, doesn’t really understand Latin anyway, transcendent communing of one. Boy I bet the deacons are glad for those long handled buckets.

    Like

  86. Robert, this is where I take offense. You can’t find a cradle RC who is this pollyanna-not even Burke, and to prove it he’s in Malta. Only fundies turned fundies but with beads and scapulars even tries to sell this stuff.

    Like

  87. Victim of the crisis Sean,

    There are Catholics in every parish across the nation “peddling this stuff”. I’ve worked closely with 6 or 7 parishes in houston and easily found great Catholic peeps at every one. Now, they may not have my style or charming manner…. But they still know their business.

    You may have known your stuff back in 1958 or whenever it was your were Catholic. But today you are just another senile old man longing for the good ole days when your opinion was relevant

    Like

  88. Come on, Journey boy. What you’re saying is you found some devout old nuns whose smell of mothballs and sweat offset your funk and you have an odiferous communion in the back pew. They also belong to nuns on the bus, but don’t let that get in the way of your ‘sweet’ fellowship. Vat II is a thang. I know that’s a struggle for you, but that’s cuz you wasn’t there. It’s tough going for that Masters when you never went through undergraduate studies. It’s alright, I’ll guide you through as I’m moved by the spigot of god.

    Like

  89. Robert,

    Care to point me in the direction where the pope or Magisterium has infallibly defined the hermeneutic for approaching a papal speech vs. a papal encyclical such as Unam Sanctum?

    Not really. Look it up yourself. Vatican 1, humani generis, etc. It’s too time consuming and you never learn anyways

    Like

  90. Kenneth,

    Not really. Look it up yourself. Vatican 1, humani generis, etc. It’s too time consuming and you never learn anyways

    There is no infallibly defined hermeneutic and you know it. You are free to read these docs and come up with your hermeneutic for discovering what has been declared ex cathedra and its meaning and what hasn’t. And so is the liberal RC down the street. And you’re both welcome at the altar because Rome doesn’t care at the end of the day what your hermeneutic is as long as you tip your hat to the Vatican.

    Don’t peddle the perspicuity of Rome when Rome can’t tell us how to interpret herself except “just believe whatever we say right now.”

    Like

  91. Kenneth,

    The fact of the matter is that for all the whining you all do about the Bible not having a table of contents, at least we offer one even if we don’t impute infallibility to the church. We’re all waiting for a list of defined Roman dogmas from the Magisterium. Heck, a fallible list at this point would be a good one.

    Rome’s failure to do this shows that she really isn’t a religion that cares about orthodoxy, for all the claims otherwise.

    Like

  92. Kenneth – Like the fat kid in high school who wears all black and smells bad walking a 15 min mile when everyone else was done in 8.

    Erik – You’re a seriously poor Catholic when you make a statement like this. Read the article I posted directly above about Pope Francis’ emphasis on ministering to the poor and downtrodden — the very type of person you mock. You should be ashamed.

    Like

  93. Bryan Cross might be right in his approach to debate & apologetics or Kenneth might be right in his approach to debate & apologetics, but no way they’re both right.

    Maybe there’s a reason that convert Kenneth hasn’t been asked to become a contributor like convert Jason.

    It could just be Bryan’s academic snobbery, though. Kenneth is unlettered.

    Like

  94. The Drunks give further consideration to banning me:

    Christian February 4, 2015 at 11:07 AM

    “Can you block Erik? He is like the description of the contentious woman in Proverbs.”

    Stephen, the thought has crossed my mind, and you’re about the 20th person to ask me that.

    I’m afraid of what it would do to him though. He copies all of the comments he writes here that he thinks are really clever and posts them on another blog where they all pat him on the back and tell him how smart he is, and then he compiles them and posts them on his own blog as well.

    Then he comes here and accuses Jason of being narcissistic. It’s all actually rather entertaining.

    Jason Stellman February 4, 2015 at 12:48 PM
    That’s funny.

    Erik Charter February 4, 2015 at 6:45 PM

    You guys get off on rambling on about incest and I’m the one who needs banned? I’m the only one keeping this endeavor from becoming a cross between “Penthouse Letters” and “Pee-Wee’s Playhouse”.

    You guys can whine & emote all you want, but Brandon & I have put forward a lot of factual assertions. Haven’t really seen any rebuttals.

    And my narcissism hasn’t take place in three different denominations and left real hurting people in my wake. .

    Guess what: If you have a private conversation, I can’t cut & paste it. You guys are the ones who can’t resist the public spotlight so you keep responding and providing further fodder.

    Will enjoy taking Kenneth’s public statements about overcharging the government to several Congressmen once Jason gets hired on.

    Like

  95. Erik Charter February 4, 2015 at 6:58 PM
    You guys are of a slightly younger generation so I’ll try to spell it out for you:

    Private things – Marriage, children, details about my employer, intimate religious struggles

    Public things – The weather, public figures, items of public record, sporting events

    When you mix them up and air them all on the internet, s**t happens.

    Like

  96. Erik,

    Bryan Cross is definitely in the right. It’s always more effective to dialog with charity anchored with sound logic and reasoning. However, it was my understanding that this was a language that you did not understand. I’ve been told repeatedly that the atmosphere around here was intentional….. Except when you’re spoon fed your own medicine. Then all of a sudden we all need to be angelic apologists careful not to make an inappropriate joke or jab. Give me a break dude. Like I said, if you want to play with kids gloves I’m fine with that. Just let me know.

    I was under the impression that we all come here to play in the mud. Don’t cry when you’re not the only one slinging sewage. Like I said to Andy, grow a pair.

    Like

  97. Erik,

    Will enjoy taking Kenneth’s public statements about overcharging the government to several Congressmen once Jason gets hired on.

    That would be a hoot, seeing as they are the ones who vote on and regulate prices. Nice try though.

    Like

  98. Kenneth,

    A direct quote from a pharmaceutical salesman about making $10,000 the first week with minimal effort and a direct quote that his company is overcharging the government might get some attention from the right politicians, especially if filtered through the right journalists.

    By all means keep shooting your mouth off, though.

    Like

  99. Robert,

    There is no infallibly defined hermeneutic and you know it. You are free to read these docs and come up with your hermeneutic for discovering what has been declared ex cathedra and its meaning and what hasn’t. And so is the liberal RC down the street. And you’re both welcome at the altar because Rome doesn’t care at the end of the day what your hermeneutic is as long as you tip your hat to the Vatican.

    This is false. V1 gave very clear definitions on papal infallibility. Humani generis teaches in no uncertain terms that even non infallible teachings that represent the authentic Magesterium demand religious submission. There is no valid liberal loop hole. Again, you have already given up the game in the last thread. You admitted that it is easy to identify our teachings. How could you do that without an easily identified hermeneutic? How could Horton? How could white? How could Sproul?

    The fact of the matter is that for all the whining you all do about the Bible not having a table of contents, at least we offer one even if we don’t impute infallibility to the church. We’re all waiting for a list of defined Roman dogmas from the Magisterium. Heck, a fallible list at this point would be a good one.

    We offer as much. It’s called a “catechism”. Look it up sometime.

    Like

  100. Erik,

    Yes, because no one knows that pharmaceutical companies and the medical industry are making a fortune from insurance companies that negate the principle of supply and demand. I’m sure your congressman will be shocked and appalled lol!

    Dear congressman,

    Are you aware that the laws that you have passed allow medical professionals to make a large amount of money? This seems unfair.

    Sincerely,

    Socialist erik

    Like

  101. Kenneth,

    There’s what happens to the medical/governmental complex and there’s what happens to Kenneth once his employer realizes he is immature and has no judgment.

    Keep doubling down, though.

    Like

  102. “We are in the same church. He just does a better job than I do.”

    Actually he’s all CIP and PIP and it’s over. You’re more fun to talk to. You aren’t very bright and you’re wrong but at least you have some sport to you.

    Like

  103. Erik,

    All great questions! However, your creepiness is reaching the kind of heights where I feel it’s better to ignore you and continue living my life. Maybe you could hire a private investigator though?

    Like

  104. And with that, I take my leave:

    Erik Charter February 4, 2015 at 8:28 PM

    “With that I’ll make my exit. This whole enterprise is basically for the religiously marginal, religiously disaffected, vocationally marginal, and vocationally disaffected to commiserate. There’s no point in me commenting here anymore. If I listen — which I doubt I will, I’ll post my reviews at Old Life. Read them if you want, or don’t. Word will get back to Bryan and he can deal with his relationship with you on his own. Heck, I’m actually thinking about this all wrong. The further Jason gets off the reservation, the more I should want Bryan to maintain that tie. Never mind anything I’ve said…just keep it up. Just don’t let it hurt the people who care about you, though. That would be a shame.”

    http://literatecomments.com/2015/02/05/i-take-my-leave-and-decide-to-let-bryan-jason-and-christian-sort-their-relationship-out/

    Like

  105. Kenneth,

    This is false. V1 gave very clear definitions on papal infallibility.

    Yes, Kenneth, so clear that if you ask two RCs how many dogmas have been defined infallibly by the pope, you’ll get agreement. You know that is not the case.

    Humani generis teaches in no uncertain terms that even non infallible teachings that represent the authentic Magesterium demand religious submission.

    In other words, it doesn’t matter if what the Magisterium says is true or not, believe it anyway. I guess that means God will give you a pass on the last day for believing error as long as it was taught by the Magisterium. And talk about a teaching that just tells you to check your brain at the door.

    There is no valid liberal loop hole.

    Except as John Bugay noted, the hermeneutic of V2 and what follows embraces competing and contradictory statements:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/10/ratzinger-for-every-statement-advanced.html

    Further, if there were no valid liberal loophole, why so many liberal RC theologians whom the bishops do nothing about? Oh, infallible dogma not infallible discipline. Why don’t you tell us what good that does the people in the pew who see Rome saying one thing and doing another.

    Again, you have already given up the game in the last thread. You admitted that it is easy to identify our teachings. How could you do that without an easily identified hermeneutic? How could Horton? How could white? How could Sproul?

    All of us, applying a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, can identify what particular councils and popes have taught. The problem is that I have been told specifically that such is an illegitimate hermeneutic. I’ve been told that the Magisterium today determines what Trent meant, not the people at Trent. If studying the historical record you come to a conclusion according to the intent of the Tridentine bishops as to what Trent meant and that differs from what today’s church says Trent meant, you go with today’s church. The original intent of those who were at Trent or any other council is finally meaningless. Talk about a liberal hermeneutic.

    We offer as much. It’s called a “catechism”. Look it up sometime.

    The catechism has not been declared infallible, so it does me no good. I don’t even have a hermeneutic to pick out the infallible from the fallible in the catechism. So much from the perspicuity of the Magisterium.

    Where is that infallible list of dogma and infallible list of tradition again?

    Like

  106. Kenneth,

    Your comments to Erik and me indicate you do not think we are being manly.

    Can you please elaborate on your view of what makes either me or him unmanly?

    How are we being un-manly, Kenneth?

    Like

  107. “The further Jason gets off the reservation, the more I should want Bryan to maintain that tie.”

    E, this had already occurred to me. Just keep doing the occasional updates here, beat the drum slowly, and let Bryan twist on this one. This particular petard named Jason will hoist the hatted one for months or years to come. Or so we can hope. The most likely scenario is that Jason quietly “leaves to pursue other interests” or some future CTC site update magically purges all mention of his slick-headed self.

    Like

  108. But, CW, the upside is that Jason isn’t capable of doing anything quietly. Too much narcissism to fade away. A perpetual bee in the Crossian bonnet.

    Like

  109. Robert,

    First you say there is no hermeneutic, and now you say there is one but it’s no good. Which is it? Does the hermeneutic not exist, or is it flawed for making one “check their mind at the door” and being ambiguous? Make up your mind and get back to me.

    What good does infallible dogma do those in the pews…. Well, quite alot. Religious certainty is pretty valuable. What harm do liberals and heretics do to those in the pews? I am not sure. I would guess that it varies from one instance to the next. Our leaders will be judged one day for how they looked over their flock. I’ll leave it to God.

    You said that “Even a fallible list of dogma would be welcome”. There ya go! The catechism is technically a fallible list of infallible teachings that commands religious submission via the authentic Magesterium. Request granted.

    We don’t have an “infallible list of infallibly defined dogmas”… No one does. However, what we do have is defined dogma. As Cletus always reminds you, even one is better than 0

    Like

  110. DGH’s idea that Kenneth is simply a NY Yankees fan holds some sway with me.

    As we concluded at that link, OPC is most definately the Pittsburgh Pirates, even if I still think DGH makes a mean Billy Beane..

    Like

  111. Oh, and Kenneth, no need to respond to my question about our manlienss. We know you know nothing of us, and all we know of you is your comments here and what we can find by stalking your FB page.

    Funny, if you don’t want people inquiring about you, then why do you maintain a public blog? Is that just you trying your best to be a hard ass blogger or something? Compensating much, yo?

    Like

  112. Kenneth, if I was choosing between evanjellyfish and RC, I might go RC. And though the PCA is not a great example(depends on the church) there is another option. However, if you want to argue Cross’ CIP as the bridge that brings you home to Rome. Not only is it sophomoric from a philosophical perspective but it isn’t representa tive of Rome. Vat II happened, I was there, I was raised, catechized andtrained in the what, why and how of all things RC. CtC isn’t responsibly representative of RC. I’m closer to Francis than either you or Cross can claim. That should tell you volumes about what you and Cross don’t know or refuse to submit to acknowledge about your new home. It’s still more my home than yours and I moved out over two decades ago

    Like

  113. Kenneth, you and Cletus, you aren’t the same person, are you?

    Because I swear, you and him post in pairs.

    Do you know anything about James Young? I actually think he’s an onine entity that doesn’t exist.

    My main theory right now is that he is you, kind of like how Token Woman is likely Susan (does Susan exist?).

    Like

  114. If you are not Cletus, Kenneth, then totally, my bad. I just thought maybe you picked up some of Kevin Failoni’s tendencies (pseudonym posting), you know, the guy that the stellmanistas told to go hang himself?

    MIKEL August 30, 2014 at 11:23 am
    Kevin,
    You are not typing challenged. You are just challenged. As a human being. Somebody who hated your ugly mug must have dropped you on your head as a baby to make you turn out so dysfunctional.
    The thing with you is that you are afflicted with a special kind of stupidity. Very unique. Nothing can be done for you. You are utterly beyond redemption. Bye bye.
    It is your wife I feel so pained for. Having the total bad luck of spending her life with a vomit like you.
    Be quick about it. Hang yourself.

    Last I saw, he’s hanging around Bilbo’s blog. Is Mikel what being a man looks like? I wonder..

    Like

  115. Kenneth,

    First you say there is no hermeneutic, and now you say there is one but it’s no good. Which is it? Does the hermeneutic not exist, or is it flawed for making one “check their mind at the door” and being ambiguous? Make up your mind and get back to me.

    When the hermeneutic can mean anything you want it to mean, its useless. It might as well not exist. And a hermeneutic that says you can believe whatever you want—which is the de facto hermeneutic absent church discipline—is liberalism. To be fair, there is a hermeneutic—implicit faith. IOW, “check your mind at the door.” Which just goes to show that the entire project of RC apologetics, particularly of the CTC variety, is absolutely pointless. All you have to give is nominal assent.

    What good does infallible dogma do those in the pews…. Well, quite alot. Religious certainty is pretty valuable. What harm do liberals and heretics do to those in the pews? I am not sure. I would guess that it varies from one instance to the next. Our leaders will be judged one day for how they looked over their flock. I’ll leave it to God.

    The church is specifically tasked with disciplining her members and, try as you might, that can’t be separated from defining dogma. Defined dogma that isn’t enforced isn’t defined. Many people complain about Protestants having a paper pope. You all have a paper pope par excellence—statements that nobody enforces except through vague “if you don’t believe this you are excommunicated (but we’ll keep giving you the Eucharist, wink, wink).”

    You said that “Even a fallible list of dogma would be welcome”. There ya go! The catechism is technically a fallible list of infallible teachings that commands religious submission via the authentic Magesterium. Request granted.

    We don’t have an “infallible list of infallibly defined dogmas”… No one does. However, what we do have is defined dogma. As Cletus always reminds you, even one is better than 0

    Well thank you for making the case for Protestantism. You all complain about the notion of a fallible list of infallible books (not my preferred way of stating it) and that is what you are offering me.

    And as Cletus continually overlooks, I can give lots of defined dogma. But since one is better than none:

    “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the father but through me” (John 14:6).

    But if it makes you feel better to believe that SOMEBODY has all the answers even if they withhold them from the people in to whom care for their souls have been entrusted, I guess that explains it all.

    Like

  116. ken makes me wince, “What good does infallible dogma do those in the pews…. Well, quite alot. Religious certainty is pretty valuable. What harm do liberals and heretics do to those in the pews? I am not sure. I would guess that it varies from one instance to the next. Our leaders will be judged one day for how they looked over their flock. I’ll leave it to God.”

    How can you be so nonchalant about the biggest and baddest truth nurturing institution in the world? You leave it up to God? Does that happen when you judge your father’s ministry? Are you so nonchalant about Protestants? Why not apply your on-line presence to your bishops? Remember this?

    Have you ever attempted a pleasant and mutually enriching conversation about “religion” or “spirituality” only to find yourself trapped, with your feet to the fire, getting interrogated by that jerk who had done his homework?

    Did your wife serve you a double-helping of lame last night?

    Like

  117. Darryl,

    To be fair to Kenneth, it’s really hard to reconcile Trent condemning us all to hell with Francis’ “who am I to judge?” Not that he would admit that, however…

    Like

  118. Bryan Cross is definitely in the right. It’s always more effective to dialog with charity anchored with sound logic and reasoning

    We are in the same church. He just does a better job than I do.

    Which is just the problem Word Counter Kenny.
    Bryan assumes what he has to prove, and bails when challenged with the magic phrase “question begging”. IOW the sophist imitation of a philosophical argument. That’s when he isn’t telling us “nothing I have said has been contradicted by your critiques of Rome” and complaining because we didn’t make a formal argument – which oddly enough, he never does either.

    It’s all smoke and mirrors. If you can wade through the verbiage (“word count” for the barely-literate) and buy into his suppressed premises and circular reasoning, why of course it makes sense.

    But as Bryan ought to know, a valid argument is not necessarily a true one and at one time he actually admitted it was necessary to go to history, philosophy, patristics and Scripture and see if the data harmonized with the paradigm. Once was enough though and then he was back at the usual.

    Which is why all Bryan’s talk about charity and sound reasoning doesn’t amount to a real love for the truth.
    But yeah, he does it better than you do.

    Like

  119. Kenneth – Bryan Cross is definitely in the right.

    Erik – But hey, when is that not the case?

    Good advice Chortles. I’ll observe & document from here. Bryan has his informants so word will get back to him.

    Like

  120. Victim of the Crisis Sean,

    if I was choosing between evanjellyfish and RC, I might go RC. And though the PCA is not a great example(depends on the church) there is another option.

    I think that your priorities are disordered. Isn’t sola fide the doctrine by which your sect stands or falls? Your last comment seems to suggest that you are a victim of ecclesial consumerism. You just pick out what you like and ignore or avoid the rest. That is the very essence of liberal Christianity.

    However, if you want to argue Cross’ CIP as the bridge that brings you home to Rome. Not only is it sophomoric from a philosophical perspective but it isn’t representa tive of Rome. Vat II happened, I was there, I was raised, catechized andtrained in the what, why and how of all things RC. CtC isn’t responsibly representative of RC.

    You need to be careful not to take a small snapshot of history and project that image as the “and all be all” of Rome. Yes, you are old, and you have memories that I do not. However, most of the chaos that followed V2 has largely been put down. V2 happened, but its impact and relevance is far from established. If you had been born at the height of the Arian heresy, would you be convinced that the Church was hopelessly heretical, never to return to the doctrine once defined at Nicea? Only if you were a fool!

    I’m closer to Francis than either you or Cross can claim. That should tell you volumes about what you and Cross don’t know or refuse to submit to acknowledge about your new home. It’s still more my home than yours and I moved out over two decades ago

    Do you hold to sola fide? sola scriptura? Do you deny the priest hood or apostolic succession? Do you still venerate Mary? Pray to saints? If the answer to all of these questions is “no” then you are far removed from what you once thought was your home. Pope Francis, for all his wild interviews, still considers himself to be a son of the Church.

    Like

  121. DGHART,

    How can you be so nonchalant about the biggest and baddest truth nurturing institution in the world? You leave it up to God?

    It is not my place to judge our bishops. They are our shepherds. Im just a sheep.

    Does that happen when you judge your father’s ministry? Are you so nonchalant about Protestants?

    I have never had a problem with Protestant discipline. It’s the lack of certainty that is the issue. You can run your church with all the discipline of the marines….. but who cares if the general is Osama?!? The Church of Satan could theoretically be run by the most devout and staunch serial killers in the world, excommunicating all that break from the slightest teachings, but that doesnt get you one step closer to orthodoxy.

    Like

  122. More needling from Kenneth on a Journey:

    Kenneth Winsmann January 23, 2015 at 3:41 PM
    Erik

    there are abridged versions with less patristic quotations, historical references etc.

    I think both of our denominations strike a good balance between simple and complex. Both can be explained to a child and both could be studied for decades.

    Queue the creepiness charge simply because I read things said in these forums. Wow, I probably should be sued since I care how my religion is talked about, in public forums, and the people who mock it like Jason and Christian and their followers like Kenneth.

    How pathetic.

    Like

  123. Kenneth, you have no idea how all over the map you come across. I have no idea where this journey you are on is leading you to, but your whole attitude towards religion on the internet strikes me as particularly odd and out of taste. You like to challenge people to answer what you think are the smoking gun questions of protestantism, without ever hinting that your tradition faces huge questions of it’s own. These aren’t small matters, so sure, props for trying.

    I just wish you would do something useful for a change. Like your homework.

    Like

  124. “What harm do liberals and heretics do to those in the pews? ”
    Liberalism is incompatible with roman catholicism? Says who?

    Perhaps you want to set this guy straight?

    Let me just quote one passage from “Nostra Aetate.” It concerns religions other than Catholicism.

    “[O]ther religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing ‘ways,’ comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.”

    Needless to say, that represents an immense change in church practice—and indeed in teaching. That one statement stands in stark contrast to statements from popes and councils and other parts of the magisterium, over the centuries, too numerous to mention.

    But I want to introduce another concept that is often overlooked, and with which I’m sure you agree: the traditional concept of the hierarchy of truths. Not everything is equally essential, nor does every church teaching carry the same weight. This itself is Catholic teaching, and is contained in the Catechism (#90).

    To use a simple example, a pastor proclaiming from the pulpit his opinion on a political matter in the community (a form of church teaching at a low level) does not enjoy the same authority as a papal encyclical (a higher level of teaching) or a document from an ecumenical council (higher still) or the words of Jesus in the Gospels (the highest). While this sometimes seems like overly nuanced, and an excuse for picking and choosing, it is, in fact, traditional Catholic theology, and essential for all Catholics to ponder, lest every utterance from every church official at every time on every topic be treated as, literally, the “Gospel.”

    But, for me, the essentials are contained, first, in in the Gospels and, second, in the Nicene Creed. So no pope—no Christian—could say, “There is no need to love your enemy, to forgive, or to care for the poor.” Nor could any Christian say, “Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead.” After the Gospels and the Creed, I look to the whole rest of our church tradition, through the lens of the hierarchy of truths, understanding what has a greater level of authority over us.

    Now I certainly don’t believe that Fr. White is a closet protestant, however, surely you can see the difference between how he expresses roman catholicism and the folks at CTC express it. In Fr. White’s formulation, Fr. McBrien isn’t a crazy heretic. Curious no? If everything after the gospels and Nicene Creed is embedded in a hierarchy of truths, where does certainty come from? Again, reading Fr. McBrien in light of Fr. White is instructive,

    “The Church has never explicitly claimed to speak infallibly on a moral question, so there is probably no instance as yet of a conflict between an individual’s fallible decision in conscience and a teaching of the Church which is immune from error … While Catholics give antecedent attention and respect to official teachings, they must also take account of other sources of moral reflection and counsel, e.g., their associates, the findings of scientific disciplines, the Bible, the writings of theologians …” (pp. 973-974).

    Now I suppose you know better than these priests and theologians. But how can you be sure? Are you certain? How do you know without relying on your own private judgment? If White’s reading of the magisterium is correct, and after the Nicene Creed and Gospels, everything is up for grabs, where does that certainty come from? How can I be certain that your reading of the magisterium is really the right one and not the guys who have devoted their lives to studying and teaching Catholic doctrine? “Because they’re liberals, and RC Sproul would spot them a mile away” doesn’t cut it.

    Like

  125. Down the rabbit hole Ken, I’ll alert the brothers at Sexton house and the religious at OST that you’ve declared V2 consequences, ‘put down’. They’ll be…….tickled. Tickled’s the word for it, followed by belly laughter and talk of someone letting Francis know. Yes, Francis is a ‘son of the church’ where Vat 2 is a historic reality with ongoing hermenuetical and magisterial interpretive sway. He most certainly is THAT son of the church.

    Like I said, you’re not too bright(easily convinced by first year logic), and understandably disenchanted with your evanjellyfish upbringing. I get it. So, settle in, use deodorant, don’t get drawn into discussions with the celibates about “what’s it like?” and watch me be right, over and over and over and over………………………………..

    Like

  126. ken makes me wince,

    Don’t you see the problem? Protestants are defective because they lack certainty. RC bishops have certainty. But RC bishops screw up.

    So how much certainty do you have (though I understand not wanting to ask too many questions about the bishops — questioning breeds uncertainty; paradigm goes BOOM!)?

    Like

  127. Robert,

    When the hermeneutic can mean anything you want it to mean, its useless. It might as well not exist. And a hermeneutic that says you can believe whatever you want—which is the de facto hermeneutic absent church discipline—is liberalism.

    If there is no hermeneutic, then how is it possible for White, Sproul, Geisler, Horton, Krueger, etc. to cite and engage RC dogma so accurately? Didn’t you just admit last week that it was easy to know what the Church teaches? You already gave this argument away with that admission.

    If you think the hermeneutic can mean anything you need to prove that assertion. So far you have produced no argument. You’ve just flip flopped between there being no hermeneutic, to there being a bad one, to there being a useless one that may as well not exist. Organize your thoughts and get back to me.

    The church is specifically tasked with disciplining her members and, try as you might, that can’t be separated from defining dogma. Defined dogma that isn’t enforced isn’t defined.

    So here your argument is that if Congress passes a law, say no driving over 80 mph, but only about one third of the police enforce this law….. Then No law was ever passed in the first place? Or that therefore civilians can never know the law? That’s just nonsense.

    Well thank you for making the case for Protestantism. You all complain about the notion of a fallible list of infallible books (not my preferred way of stating it) and that is what you are offering me.

    Not quite. We offer an infallible list of infallible books (scripture). But we don’t offer an exhaustive infallible list of every single teaching in scripture. Such a list might not even be possible.

    Like

  128. Ken boy, I was there and got the training, the education, the shirt and the pedigree and commiserate with others who have the same and you didn’t and don’t. That’s one hell of an argument. Try again.

    Like

  129. If congress passes a law saying no driving over 80 and there is no penalty for speeding, then the law is meaningless. If the there is a penalty and it isn’t enforced, then it really isn’t against the law any more. This isnt just hypothetical. We have lots of antiquated laws on the books that we simply ignore because we’ve forgotten about them or it is too much of a hassle to change them. The penalty/award is part of the law…they really can’t be separated.

    Like

  130. Katniss, authority:

    Chapter 10: “By What Authority?”

    One day, as he was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders came up and said to him, “Tell us by what authority you do these things, or who it is that gave you this authority.” He answered them, “I also will ask you a question; now tell me, Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?” And they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’ But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us; for they are convinced that John was a prophet.” So they answered that they did not know whence it was. And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”
    LUKE 20:1-8.
    The story we have read was very important to the early Christians who preserved it for us. If we look at it superficially, no reason seems to exist for such a high valuation: the Jewish leaders tried to trap Jesus by a shrewd question, and Jesus trapped them by an even shrewder question. It is a pleasant anecdote. But is it more than this? Indeed, it is infinitely more. It does something surprising: it answers the fundamental question of prophetic religion by not answering it. An answer to the question of authority is refused by Jesus, but the way in which He refuses the answer is the answer.
    Let us imagine that He had answered the question of the religious leaders about His authority by asking them about the sources of their authority! They could have replied easily and convincingly. The chief priests could have said, “The source of our authority is our consecration according to a tradition which goes back without interruption to Moses and Aaron. The sacred tradition of which we are a link from the past to the future gives us our authority.”
    And the scribes could have answered, “The source of our authority is our knowledge—beyond that of anybody else—of the Scriptures. We have studied them day and night since our early childhood, as a student of the Word of God must do. Because we are experts in interpreting the Holy Scriptures, we have authority.”
    And the elders could have said to Jesus, “The source of our authority is our acquisition of wisdom through many years, and our experience in applying it to the questions of the day. Our wisdom and our experience give us our authority.”
    And they all together would have said to Jesus, “But who are you, who are not consecrated and not studied in the Scriptures, and without the wisdom of age and the experience of practice? Which is the source of your authority? You have not only taught and preached, you have also acted as a radical, without our approval. You have driven out of the temple all who sold and bought, you have overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. And you know yourself that they are necessary for the preservation of the temple and its cult, and for the performance of the sacrifices! By what authority have you turned against the religion as it has been given to us by Moses and by all generations since his time?”
    Thus they could have answered His question. But Jesus does not ask them this question. He asks, “Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?” And to this they could not answer. If they had said that it was from men, they would have hurt the popular feeling and perhaps even a feeling within themselves, that John was a prophet. But if they had said that he was from God, they would have established an authority beyond the threefold authority which they could claim for themselves. And this they did not want. They, who were called authorities, demanded that all authority be vested in them. Therefore, they did not accept John as a prophet, nor Jesus as the Christ. . . . Don’t minimize the seriousness of this conflict. It was not simply a conflict between good and evil, between faith and unbelief. The conflict was much more profound and much more tragic than this!
    Let us imagine that we ourselves were in the place of those who asked Jesus about the source of His authority. Let us imagine ourselves as the guardians of a great religious tradition, or as the unquestionable experts in a sphere of decisive importance for human existence, or as people who have learned through along experience to deal with matters of highest value. And let us also assume that we had no function as legally established authorities, and that somebody came and spoke about the same things in quite a different language and acted in the field of our authority in quite a radical way; how would we react? And if the people who saw and heard this man said of him what they said about Jesus, that he teaches as one who has authority and not as we the established authorities, how would we react? Would we not think: He confuses the masses, he spreads dangerous doctrines, he undermines well-proved laws and institutions, he introduces strange modes of life and thought, he disrupts sacred ties, he destroys traditions from which generations of men have received discipline and strength and hope? It is our duty to resist him and if possible to remove him! For the sake of our people we must defend our consecrated and tested authority against this man who cannot show the source of the authority he claims.” Could we be blamed for such a reaction? And if not, can we blame the authorities in Jerusalem for their reaction to Jesus?
    We think of the Reformation. This was a moment in the history of the Church in which the question of authority was once more in the center of events. Luther, and consequently the whole Protestant world, broke away from the Roman Church and from 1500 years of Christian tradition when no agreement about the authority of the pope and the councils could be reached. Here, again, someone had arisen who spoke and acted with an authority the sources of which could not be determined by legal means. And here also we must ask, “Are the Catholic authorities who rejected him in the name of their established authority to be blamed for it?” But if we do not blame them, we can ask them, “Why do you blame the Jewish authorities who did exactly the same as you did when the people said of the Reformers that they spoke with authority and not like the priests and monks?” Is the same thing so different if it is done by the Jewish high priest and if it is done by the Roman high priest? And one may ask the present-day Protestant authorities in Europe and in this country, “Are you certain that the insistence on your authority, on your tradition, and on your experience does not suppress the kind of authority which Jesus had in mind?”
    And now we ask, “What does authority mean? What does it mean for man as man? What does it mean for our period and for each of us?”
    First of all, it means that we are finite and in need of what the word “authority” really says: to be started and increased. It means that we are born, that we were infants and children, that we were completely dependent on those who gave us life and home and guidance and contents for soul and mind. We were not able to decide for ourselves for many years, and that made us dependent on authority and made authority a benefit for us. We accepted this authority without resistance, even if we rebelled on special occasions. And this authority became the basis for all other authorities. It gave strength to the authority of the older brother or sister, of the more mature friend or teacher, of the official, of the ruler, of the minister. And through them we have been introduced into the institutions and traditions in society, state and Church. Authority permeates, guides, shapes our lives. The acceptance of authority is the acceptance of what is given by those who have more than we. And our subjection to them and to what they stand for enables us to live in history, as our subjection to the laws of nature enables us to live in nature. And from the authority of the law is derived the authority of those who represent and administer it and who, for this reason, are called “the authorities.”
    Our daily life would be impossible without traditions of behavior and customs and the authority of those who have received them and surrendered them to us. Man’s control of nature would be impossible without the tradition of knowledge and skill into which every new generation is introduced and which gives authority to those who are able to introduce us. Man’s intellectual life—the language he uses, the songs he sings, the music he plays, the houses he builds, the pictures he paints, the symbols he creates—he has received through the authority of those who have participated in it before him. Man’s religious life—the faith he holds, the cult he loves, the stories and legends he has heard, the commandments he tries to obey, the texts he knows by heart—all this is not created by him; he takes it from those who represent to him religious authority.
    And if he revolts against the authorities which have shaped him, he does it with the tools he has received from them. The language of the revolutionary is formed by those against whom he revolts. The protest of the reformer uses the tradition against which he protests. Therefore, no absolute revolution is possible. If it is attempted, it fails immediately; and if a revolution succeeds, its leaders soon have to use forms and ideas created by the authorities of the past. This is true of the rebellion of the adolescent against the family authority as well as of the rebellion of new social groups against the authority of the established powers.
    When we speak of human finitude, we usually think of man’s transitoriness in time, of birth and death, of the vicissitudes which threaten him in every moment. But we are not only finite in that we are temporal, we are also finite in that we are historical and that means subject to authority, even if we rebel against it. We are thrown into existence, not only bodily, but also mentally. In no respect are we by ourselves, in no moment can we be by ourselves. He who tries to be without authority tries to be like God, who alone is by Himself. And like everyone who tries to be like God, he is thrown down to self-destruction, be it a single human being, be it a nation, be it a period of history like our own.
    In our story, Jesus as well as His foes acknowledge authority. They struggle about valid authority, not about authority as such. And this is what we find everywhere in the Bible and the life of the Church. Paul fights with the original disciples, including Peter, about the foundations of apostolic authority. The bishops fight with the enthusiasts about the leadership in the Church. The popes fight with the princes about the ultimate source of political authority. The reformers fight with the hierarchs about the interpretation of the Bible. The theologians fight with the scientists about the criteria of ultimate truth. None of the struggling groups denies authority, but each of them denies the authority of the other group.
    But if the authority is split in itself, which authority decides? Is not split authority the end of authority? Was not the split produced by the Reformation the end of the authority of the Church? Is not the split about the interpretation of the Bible the end of the Biblical authority? Is not the split between theologians and scientists the end of intellectual authority? Is not the split between father and mother the end of parental authority? Was not the split between the gods of polytheism the end of their divine authority? Is not the split in one’s conscience the end of the authority of one’s conscience? If one has to choose between different authorities, not they but oneself is ultimate authority for oneself, and this means: there is no authority for him.
    This, however, creates the dreadful alternative of our historical period. If there is no authority, we must decide ourselves, each for himself. As finite beings we must act as if we were infinite, and since this is impossible, we are driven into complete insecurity, anxiety and despair. Or, unable to stand the loneliness of deciding for ourselves, we suppress the fact that there is a split authority. We subject ourselves to a definite authority and close our eyes against all other claims. The desire of most people to do this is very well known to those in power. They use the unwillingness of human beings to decide for themselves in order to preserve their power and to increase it. This is true of religious as well as of political powers. On this ground of human weakness the systems of authority are built in past and present.
    “By what authority” do you do this? Jesus is asked. And He answers not by answering but by pointing to the acting and speaking of John. Here, He tells the leaders of His nation, you see the rise of an authority without ritual or legal foundation. But you deny the possibility of it. So you deny both the Baptist and myself. You deny the possibility of an authority guaranteed by its inner power. You have forgotten that the only test of the prophets was the power of what they had to say. Listen to what the people say about us, namely, that we speak with authority and not as you, who are called the “authorities.” That is what He tells them.
    What would He say to us? He would not have to fight about His authority with the chief priests and the scribes and the elders of our day. In our time they all acknowledge Him. He would have to ask a quite different question of them. He would have to ask: “What is the nature of my authority for you? Is it like that of John the Baptist, or is it like that of the authorities who tried to remove me? Have you made the words of those who have witnessed to me, the Bible, the Church Fathers, the popes, the reformers, the creeds, into ultimate authorities? Have you done this in my name? And if so, do you not abuse my name? For whenever my name is remembered, my fight with those who were in authority is also remembered.”
    There is something in the Christian message which is opposed to established authority. There is something in the Christian experience which revolts against subjection to even the greatest and holiest experiences of the past. And this something is indicated in the question of Jesus, “Was the baptism of John from God or man?” and in His refusal to give an answer! That which makes an answer impossible is the nature of an authority which is derived from God and not man. The place where God gives authority to a man cannot be circumscribed. It cannot be legally defined. It cannot be put into the fences of doctrines and rituals. It is here, and you do not know where it comes from. You cannot derive it. You must be grasped by it. You must participate in its power. This is the reason why the question of authority never can get an ultimate answer. Certainly there are many preliminary answers. There is no day in our lives in which we do not give, silently or openly, answers to the question of authority, saying mostly “yes” and sometimes “no.”
    But an ultimate answer we cannot give. We only can point to a reality, as Jesus does. And this is what our religious leaders could and should do—the churches, and the ministers, and the theologians, and every Christian who acts as a priest to other Christians. They all can raise their finger as Jesus did to John, and as John did to Jesus. We all can point passionately, but not as established authorities, to the Crucified—as does the Baptist, in the tremendous picture by the old painter Matthias Grünewald. There his whole being is in the finger with which he points to the Cross. This is the greatest symbol of which I know for the true authority of the Church and the Bible. They should not point to themselves but to the reality which breaks again and again through the established forms of their authority and through the hardened forms of our personal experiences. And once more we ask: “What does it mean that the question of authority cannot get an ultimate answer?” It would sound like a blasphemy if I said, “Because God Himself cannot give an answer.” It would sound not blasphemous but conventional if I said, “Because God is Spirit.” Yet both sentences mean the same. God who is Spirit cannot give an ultimate answer to the question of authority. The churches, their leaders and members, often ignore the infinite significance of the words “God is Spirit.” But the sharp eyes of the enemy see what these words mean. Nietzsche calls the man who first said that God is Spirit the first one of those who have killed God. His profound insight into the human soul made it certain to him that a God who is not circumscribed on a definite place, who does not answer definitively the question of authority, cannot be accepted by most human beings. If he were right, we either had to agree with him that there is no God left, or we had to return to a God who tells us a definite answer to the question of authority, and subjects us by Divine order to an established religious authority as the earthly representative of His own heavenly authority. But this God is not the God who is Spirit. Actually, such a God is the heavenly image of the earthly authorities which use Him for the consecration of their own power. This God is not the God of whom Jesus speaks in our story.
    The God who cannot answer the question of ultimate authority because He is Spirit does not remove the preliminary authorities with whom we live our daily lives. He does not condemn us to the emptiness of an adolescent who feels that the world must start with himself. He does not deprive us of protection of those who have more wisdom and power than we have. He does not isolate us from the community to which we belong and which is a part of ourselves. But he denies ultimate significance to all these preliminary authorities, to all those who claim to be images of His authority and who distort God’s authority into the oppressive power of a heavenly tyrant.
    The God who does not answer the question of ultimate authority transforms the preliminary authorities into media and tools of Himself—of the God who is Spirit. Parental authority on earth is not the consecrated image of a parental authority in heaven, but it is the earliest tool through which the Spiritual qualities of order and self-control and love are mediated to us. Therefore, the parents must be and remain subjects of honor, but not of unconditional authority. Even God whom we call the Father in heaven cannot answer the ultimate question of authority. How could the parents?
    The authority of wisdom and knowledge on earth is not the consecrated image of the authority of heavenly omniscience, but it is the tool through which the Spiritual qualities of humility and knowledge and wisdom are mediated to us. Therefore, the wise ones should be honored but not accepted as unconditional authorities.
    The authorities in community and society, in nation and state, are not consecrated images of heavenly power and justice, but they are tools through which the Spiritual qualities of mutuality, understanding, righteousness, and courage can be mediated to us. Therefore, the social authorities should be accepted as guarantees of external order but not as those which determine the meaning of our lives.
    The authority of the Church is not the consecrated earthly image of the Heavenly Ruler of the Church, but it is a medium through which the Spiritual substance of our lives is preserved and protected and reborn.
    Even the authority of Jesus the Christ is not the consecrated image of the man who rules as a dictator, but it is the authority of him who emptied himself of all authority; it is the authority of the man on the Cross. It is one and the same thing, if you say that God is Spirit and that He is manifest on the Cross.
    And you who are fighting against authorities and you who are searching for authorities, listen to the story in which Jesus fights against them and establishes an authority which cannot be established! Here is an answer, namely, that no answer can be given except the one that, beyond all preliminary authorities, you must keep yourselves open to the power of Him who is the ground and the negation of everything which is authority on earth and in Heaven! .

    Viewed 374744 times.http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=375&C=23

    Like

  131. Ken child, we’ve al done the irreconcilable premises bit. It’s not an unfamiliarity with logic, it’s a resistance to futility and boredom. I’ve done the CIP-PIP with the reigning internet trads. This is about life on the ground, experience(yours is limited), religious angst(your current driver) and bowling shirts(your papi and I were on the same team-Vat II-liberation theology-Jesuit trained). Really, really round circles on a chalkboard doesn’t necessarily an accurate assessment make. So, what were you saying about what you think you know about a thing you weren’t there to hear, read, receive and believe?

    Like

  132. Sdb,

    Of course they can. Perfect example. 1920s prohibition era. Huge majority dissenting from the law, dirty cops and politicians everywhere, and only a small minority arresting people and carrying out the agenda. Does that mean there just were no laws against drinking? Or that no one could ever know what the law was? Obviously not. The law of the land was known by everyone…. They just didnt care. Just because Capone and nucky johnson could point to dozens of dirty judges, politicians, and police, it ultimately didn’t help them avoid prison.

    Like

  133. Sean,

    So you don’t care about logic or reason but would prefer to talk about subjective perspectives and opinions based off personal experience? You sound like this Mormon guy I know

    Like

  134. Kenneth – If you think the hermeneutic can mean anything you need to prove that assertion.

    Erik – All sorts of Catholics teaching & believing all sorts of contradictory things administer & receive the sacraments, without temporal consequence.

    Assertion proved.

    Like

  135. Loser Ken, yes, you have it. I don’t care about reason or logic. I don’t care about reconciling irreconcilable premises. I really, really don’t. I don’t care about discussions with prot-cath’s who end up taking shelter in noumenalism. I really, really resist it. You sound like a bunch of fundies I know.

    Like

  136. Kenneth argues the 21st Century Catholic Church is akin to a renegade American society under prohibition.

    O.K……………

    Maybe we should just stand aside and let him take over?

    Kind of like just letting Jason go on and on.

    Like

  137. Sean,

    In a similar way, I resist this burning bosom angle you have embraced. I’ve got some charismatic family members that could give you a real run for your money though. They love talking about “personal experience” just like my Mormon friend Ross. Couldn’t care less about dna evidence that Indians were not Jews (irreconcilable premises) just wanted to talk about his feelings, etc.

    This is where we reach an impasse. We’re both looking for different kinds of conversation.

    Like

  138. Kenneth,

    It’s pretty rich for a traditionalist RC to complain about people not wanting to consider the evidence. The only evidence you are allowed to consider in the traditionalist Roman paradigm is what Rome says the evidence is and what the evidence means. That’s not at all different from what the Mormons or the JWs do. Your whole view entails heeding the Roman appeal to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

    Like

  139. Appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy in formal logic. Virtually your entire faith system is an appeal to authority (testimony). Sean isn’t appealing to an authority, he is appealing to experience…experience you lack and would do well to take heed of his advice. It is similar to the advice Dreher gives for RC converts (or any converts really) who want to grow in their faith. It is similar advice I tried passing on to Bryan, but he already knows everything and has read everything, so he has no need of epistemic humility. Namely, be quiet and concentrate on growing in your faith. 15 minutes ago Jason was a reformed pastor prosecutng a fellow pastor for being catholic, an hour prior you were Lutheran after a spin in pentecostal digs, and the day before Bryan was a reformed seminarian. I get it; you guys have found THE TRUTH (again?) and that’s great. Maybe you’ll see the errors of your ways and be Orthodox tomorrow (or in Jason’s case a recovering Catholic). Maybe not.

    Yet here you are…you’ve read Chesterton and the catechism and you are ready to settle a 500year debate with protestants on one hand and ready to condemn “liberal and heretical” priests and theologians on the other…because you know the catechism. This is simply hubris and it will kill your faith.

    Dreher was a conservative convert not too unlike you or Bryan. As he dug deep into sex abuse crisis and saw the rot in the hierarchy, his over-intellectualized faith withered.

    The sophistry coming from ctc puffs up weak minded intellectual poseurs setting them up for a spectacular fall. I know, I know you are no Rod Dreher. You’ve done your homework. Perhaps instead of striving to win the interwebs you might think about seeking humility…who knows, you might learn something.

    Like

  140. @Andrew
    and i thought I was verbose. It would sure make life easier for those of us on phones if you just put in a link…

    Like

  141. Come on, Ken. Spare me the feel good religion tripe of your friends. I’m in a reformed communion because I’m all about the liver shiver. Give me a break. I’m trying to talk with you outside your Catholic Answers, CtC primer material. I was raised in the ‘bosom’ of your new mother. I know her outside of the ‘Merican internet former prot turned RC apologist virtual reality but not so in the parish or bishopric, sphere. IOW, your papi and I inhabited the same RC which you keep hoping goes away or you pollyannishly(sp?) hope is over. It ain’t. Ratzinger was the blip, the fluke, in fact, he isn’t even what you think he is. He’s a german autocrat with expensive tastes, a huge sense of entitlement and a pretty sincere theological commitment to higher criticism. His big pushback against Kung, was simply that Kung resisted his papal authority Convenient. You don’t know what you don’t know. That’s not your fault. But don’t sell your pie in the sky, it works on the internet, prot-cath truth to me. I, in fact, know what you don’t.

    Like

  142. The Drunks are attracting a sophisticated class of listener.

    Guys who are mad at Calvinism and write reviews on butter burgers:

    https://houseofthedread.wordpress.com/

    comradedread February 5, 2015 at 6:58 PM

    “There is no God as monstrously sadistic and evil as the god who has created billions of people and damned them before they were born to eternal torture in order to make himself look really awesome to the few he deemed worthy to save before they had even been born.”

    Like

  143. Kenneth also has a great young family who could use his time & attention a lot more than a bunch of middle-aged men who aren’t buying what he’s selling if he went on here for 100 years.

    You’re not getting this time back.

    Like

  144. Prohibition is not a good example at all. A majority didn’t oppose it and drinking went way down. Maybe a better example is pot law. Is it legal in CO or not? State says yes, feds say no, but they won’t enforce federal law…so it is, but not technically…

    Like

  145. Sdb,

    The goal is not to find a perfect analogy. The era of prohibition and the roaring 20s serves to show how discipline and dogma are not one and the same. Poor discipline does not entail an absence of clearly defined dogma.

    Like

  146. Sean,

    Come on, Ken. Spare me the feel good religion tripe of your friends. I’m in a reformed communion because I’m all about the liver shiver. Give me a break.

    Earlier you said that if it was between RC and evangelicalism you might go RC…. Which just goes to show you have no real commitment to Sola fide. So, I think it’s fair to ask, why in the world are you Reformed? You don’t seem willing to talk about anything but your liver shivers and experience in a liberal RC era.

    I’m trying to talk with you outside your Catholic Answers, CtC primer material. I was raised in the ‘bosom’ of your new mother. I know her outside of the ‘Merican internet former prot turned RC apologist virtual reality but not so in the parish or bishopric, sphere. IOW, your papi and I inhabited the same RC which you keep hoping goes away or you pollyannishly(sp?) hope is over. It ain’t. Ratzinger was the blip, the fluke, in fact, he isn’t even what you think he is. He’s a german autocrat with expensive tastes, a huge sense of entitlement and a pretty sincere theological commitment to higher criticism. His big pushback against Kung, was simply that Kung resisted his papal authority Convenient. You don’t know what you don’t know. That’s not your fault. But don’t sell your pie in the sky, it works on the internet, prot-cath truth to me. I, in fact, know what you don’t.

    But you haven’t given me any reason to take your experience seriously. Why does your experience add up to “catholicism is false”. I truly don’t see it

    Like

  147. ken makes me wince, “Poor discipline does not entail an absence of clearly defined dogma.”

    For the umpteenth time, this puts the Roman Catholic Church in precisely the same boat as the PCUSA.

    Like

  148. ken makes me wince, maybe Sean’s experience doesn’t add up to Catholicism is false. But what about Richard McBrien and his enablers? What about Cardinal Martini? Kasper?

    You have so much more to answer for than your father.

    Like

  149. Darryl,

    For the umpteenth time, this puts the Roman Catholic Church in precisely the same boat as the PCUSA.

    But don’t you know the significant difference: The PCUSA can’t be certain whether the dogma it doesn’t care about is true. Rome knows with certainty that the dogma it doesn’t care about is true, or at least that it is true for some people (like RCs) but not for others (like Muslims). Makes me feel better.

    Like

  150. Ken, it’s not that complicated. I don’t think broader evangelicalism has much of a commitment to Sola fide or much of anything beyond its own entertainment. Broader evangelicalism is a mile wide and an inch deep. Maybe you understand that frustration. So, that’s what I meant by my comments. If I had to choose between Holy Trinity Catholic Church and John Hagee’s Cornerstone, I’d probably punt and go golf. But if you put a gun to my head, I’d rather inhabit the RC than Hagee’s temple to himself. Fortunately for me, I have an option of confessional prot churches who do placard Jesus Christ and are committed to the apostolic doctrine. They sometimes do it poorly but that’s the way of things with sinners. Jesus has promised to preserve His church and we’re to follow Apostolic doctrine in our consecration to Him. That’s what I’ve taken vows in commitment to. In the meantime, I’m not in the habit of lying to myself about perfect people, churches and paradigms. But, instead, we do have historical circumstances and texts with which to reconcile.

    Like

  151. Looks like the Drunks might be moving to comment moderation, a la The Callers.

    Seems more appropriate for the Callers than a podcast where one of the hosts (not Jason) talks about his porn watching & masturbatory habits (which are related).

    Meanwhile Kenneth Winsmann (two n’s, not one) can’t resist continuing to smart off about me there, even though I’ve beaten him into submission here.

    And Jason looks to be selling cell phones instead of drugs.

    Like

  152. Kenneth, indeed dwell on SDB’s comment at 10:15, here’s the punch line:

    this:

    The sophistry coming from ctc puffs up weak minded intellectual poseurs setting them up for a spectacular fall.

    Like

  153. Erik,

    Even though you have beaten me into submission! Give me a break weirdo. I just decided it was best to not talk to you anymore once you started creating random FB accounts to harass my family (that you creepily looked up stalker style). Quite of the day goes to the drunks

    I’m not sure what you think you’re accomplishing here other than making yourself look bad. You and I both know that this is a pattern in your past that you deal with. One time your pastor reigned you in and you swore off the cyberworld. (How long did that last?) The other time your wife banned you from using Facebook. Exercise some self-control before someone else in your life has to step in again.

    Creeeeeeeperrrrr

    Like

  154. Anybody know Eriks pastor or wife? Might be time to give one of them a call. The rottweiler is acting kinda strange and spooky.

    Has there ever been a PCA serial killer btw? It’s not a common phenomena in your circles right? Probably just another weirdo Internet stalker….. Right? Lol!

    Like

  155. Kenneth Winsmann (2 n’s, not 1) – I just decided it was best to not talk to you anymore once you started creating random FB accounts to harass my family (that you creepily looked up stalker style).

    Erik – Trying to outdo Tom Van Dyke in the realm of Old Life conspiracy theories.

    I am so in these guys heads right now. They can’t stop.

    Like

  156. Kenneth,

    First you’re making $10,000 a week selling drugs when you’re actually working at a restaurant.

    Now you’re saying I’m setting up “random Facebook accounts” to harass your family.

    Can you even remotely begin to prove either of those?

    And we’re supposed to take you seriously as a Catholic apologist?

    You need to go to Bryan and sit at his knee for a year or to. Say what you want, but he’s a real guy, with a real job who doesn’t go around making wild claims and accusations about himself & others.

    Like

  157. So my working theory is that 90% of the Drunks audience is divorced women between 25-45 who are ticked off at a lout of an ex-husband (the other 10% are guys like Kenneth Winsmann – 2n’s, not 1).

    So last night some woman posts a snarky comment directed at me and I respond, asking if she’s part of the demographic I’ve identified.

    Comment gets deleted.

    a guy makes a snarky comment directed at me and I respond, making reference to the demographic I’ve identified.

    Comment is “in moderation”.

    Christian claims it’s not him, it’s probably Jason. Comments being mean to people will not be permitted.

    This from the guys who spend half their podcast being mean to people they don’t agree with.

    So Jason has finally gone Tim Bayly, giving me a good opportunity to exit. You can’t win a fight with chickens who censor where there is no profanity or threats involved.

    Like

  158. Erik, you don’t get it. You”re the only one trying to “win a fight.” You have some serious issues, dude, not least of which is claiming you’re some kind of “rottweiler” causing us to “pee down our legs.” Ha! Delusions of grandeur much? We’re actually laughing at you. Even some of your own “friends” from here at Old Life, who have written us to make sure we know that you’re kind of a “rodeo clown” over here, someone who is not taken very seriously and has confessed to having past issues on the internet.

    Get a grip, man.

    Like

  159. Christian,

    Good to hear someone’s laughing at something related to your podcast.

    The stories of you masturbating to porn mostly just make people feel sick to their stomachs.

    Like

  160. Christian,

    Would you melt down like this when you faced opposition as a pastor/missionary?

    If so, it’s no wonder it didn’t work out.

    Where did you go to church during your (brief?) Calvinist phase?

    Like

  161. It’s fun debating these guys who, if you added up their combined maturity levels, you would still not get out of the teen years:

    Jason (8) + Kenneth (4) + Christian (6) = 18

    Like

  162. First Tom Van Dyke thinks Darryl’s a computer mastermind who can block him from submitting comments from multiple computers throughout the Los Angeles metropolitan area.

    Now Kenneth Winsmann (2 n’s, not 1) thinks I know how to create 100 fake Facebook accounts.

    Meanwhile both Darryl and I can barely use a mouse.

    Kenneth Winsmann (2 n’s, not 1) started out as an up-and-comer but lately he’s coming off like a seriously unbalanced crank.

    Like

  163. Just a bit of advice to any Facebook users—it’s pretty easy for others to see your profile if you don’t have your security settings up high enough. I know that we’ve had to be careful to block access to any except our friends.

    That’s my friendly neighborhood public service announcement for the day.

    Like

  164. Erik Charter February 5, 2015 at 2:39 PM
    I do (have a FB page) . I also have a Twitter account and more internet passwords to keep track of than I care to acknowledge

    But you barely know how to use a mouse? Crreeeeeper……

    Like

  165. The millennial generation is unique in thinking that they can put all sorts of information out into the world via podcasts, blogs, and Facebook and then they act shocked that people know things about them.

    Jason & Christian are old enough to know better.

    Like

  166. My point in doing all this is to examine the credibility of the Roman Catholic apologists that we deal with here who, in some cases, we have been dealing with for years.

    Is Kenneth credible when we look at his day to day life? Maybe, but there are some red flags.

    Is Jason credible, given the content of the podcast and his association with Christian?

    Is Bryan credible, given his ongoing association with Jason?

    If the paradigm is superior, we should see some fruit in the form of superior Christian lives. If not, the apologetic is pretty unimpressive.

    Like

  167. rottweiler,

    Everyone here knows the truth. This thread should be renamed “the shameful exposure of Erik charter”. I would be embarrassed too. Do yourself a favor and ask your wife and pastor for help. You need to reach out to someone.

    Like

  168. Maybe I need some of those overpriced drugs you (allegedly) peddle.

    I was here long before you showed up & will be here long after you’ve left to go bother someone else.

    If you object to trolls, why are you one?

    Like

  169. My philosophy is to go on and on with guys like you as long as you want. Public service to take up your time & keep you from bothering others. So continue on. I’m at the computer for the next 25 years minimum, Lord willing.

    Like

  170. Erik, they think you are the strictest and biggest tyrant of the Reformed world.

    They should get to know and spend some quality time with the crustier pietism freaks…

    Like

  171. ec, but if the magisterium doesn’t have to measure up, why should Jason, Bryan, or ken who makes me wince? Roman Catholicism can give us Christian civilization but Roman Catholics are schmucks. Seems exactly what Christ had in mind for his people.

    Like

  172. Don’t try to make sense of it, just bow to the superiority.

    After weeks of exhaustive research my scientific conclusion is that RC tools & agnostic tools are just as toolish as our own.

    Like

  173. Erik, we if stuck with Jimmy/Bunk, Win(n)y would have less trolling fodder for his repertoire of awesome comments on this tread.

    Here’s our troller, this is his level of sophistication he should like it

    Elsa vs Trolling Saruman: http://youtu.be/fc4Y1yyN3Ns

    I was going to send the Millennium Falcon drone on daily mail dot co dot uk. Win(n)y, look that up, yo, only one link per comment. We don’t believe in purgatory..

    Like

  174. Kenneth really took a step backwards in this whole sordid affair. I would have recognized him as a jr. Cletus at one point but he’s become the new Tom van dyke. Bryan is in the stratosphere in comparison. Even Jason is ahead of Kenneth at this point and he doesn’t really give a rip. Kenneth needs a weekend reset and a do-over on monday.

    Like

  175. When someone needles you you can’t go all conspiracy theory & lose bladder control. Stay focused, stay on message. These guys want to try to dig up something on me from long ago, but we get refined in battle and learn for future fights. It’s a war of attrition & only the strong & battle-hardened survive. The dude can attest to these truths. Cue the “Braveheart” clip.

    Like

  176. What ultimately kills the CTC project (well, many things do, but this just came to me) is that their threads are wayyyyy to long. No one will ever read the convos. And they will only grow. They think their solo/sola argument is the nail in the coffin. What a joke. Their last series of 10 or whatever, and now Tater posts about 5 years a Catholic. They’ve gone soft, I expect my RC’s mean and telling me my heresy is damnable. Not Tater’s mom giving him a high five..

    Kenneth, just a fly on a horse’s butt. Nothing to see here, move along.

    Like

  177. rottweiler

    You have been exposed as a pathetic joke. Daryl and a few others might give you a sympathetic pat on the back but their private emails tell a different story. Call your pastor. Tell your wife about the bizaar FB activity you need help.

    Like

  178. rottweiler,

    You have been exposed as a pathetic joke. Daryl and a few others might give you a sympathetic pat on the back but their private emails tell a different story. Call your pastor. Tell your wife about the bizaar FB activity you need help.

    Like

  179. http://literatecomments.com/2015/02/07/what-is-the-roman-catholic-position-on-the-9th-commandment/

    Links are all in my blog post.

    What is the Roman Catholic Position on the 9th Commandment?

    In his blog, “Coffee House Inquisition” we get this introduction:

    “My name is Kenneth Winsmann and I am a student living in the greater Houston area. I am studying to be in education but my passion is for theology and apologetics. I’m married and have three beautiful young boys. I grew up in a charismatic evangelical family but developed my theological convictions in the Lutheran (LCMS) tradition before converting to Roman Catholicism. Have you ever attempted a pleasant and mutually enriching conversation about ‘religion’ or ‘spirituality’ only to find yourself trapped, with your feet to the fire, getting interrogated by that jerk who had done his homework? Well, I’m that guy and this is my blog.”

    On Winsmann’s Facebook page as recently as early February 2015 (before he upgraded his privacy settings) he claimed that he works at “Del Frisco’s Double Eagle Steak House”, which is apparently in the Houston era.

    Appears to be a nice place.

    As recently as January 26, 2015 Winsmann has also claimed that he has a rather lucrative pharmaceutical sales position:

    Kenneth Winsmann (to Jason Stellman)
    January 26, 2015 at 11:32 AM

    “Also,

    If you are looking for another job send me an email. I can offer you a pharmaceutical sales contract that pays residual income and takes very little time and effort. I made 10k my first week barely even trying. Let me know.”

    On February 3, 2015 I asked Kenneth how helping Jason get a similar job was going. His response:

    Kenneth Winsmann
    Posted February 3, 2015 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    “Erik,

    Not yet. We have to finish up our license in his state. Couple more weeks. Maybe a month.”

    We only over charge the government….. Which every patriot knows is OK.”

    The next day, Kenneth told me that the company he works for is owned by his dad:

    Kenneth Winsmann
    Posted February 4, 2015 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

    “The company that I work for is owned by my dad. Struck out yet again. But I’m loving how pathetic you sound right now.”

    Kenneth Winsmann’s father, also named Kenneth Winsman (note that there is only one “n” at the end) made no mention of owning a pharmaceutical sales company on his Facebook page in early February 2015:

    Of course, not mentioning a business on a Facebook page does not mean that such a business does not indeed exist. I am willing to give Kenneth the benefit of the doubt on this.

    In the past at Old Life, Kenneth Winsmann has told us that Kenneth Winsman (the father) is a pastor of a pentecostal church in Texas. This appears to be true:

    Now everything I know about Kenneth and his dad is based on Kenneth’s own public statements at his own blog, at drunkexpastors, and at Oldlife, plus a public search of his own Facebook page and his father’s Facebook page.

    Kenneth’s response to my bringing up this publicly available information has been several wild assertions against me at both Drunk Ex-Pastors and Old Life:

    Suggesting at Drunk Ex-Pastors that I am a potential window peeper:

    Kenneth Winsmann
    February 6, 2015 at 4:49 PM

    “He means he will literally see you later….. Through your window while you are sleeping.

    the Rottweiler.”

    Calling me “creepy”:

    Kenneth Winsmann
    Posted February 4, 2015 at 11:12 pm | Permalink

    Erik,

    “All great questions! However, your creepiness is reaching the kind of heights where I feel it’s better to ignore you and continue living my life. Maybe you could hire a private investigator though?”

    Similarly, on the Drunk Ex-Pastors blog, Kenneth calls Brandon Addison “creepy” after he posted a timeline of Jason Stellman’s public activities:

    Kenneth Winsmann
    February 4, 2015 at 9:00 AM

    “Brandon Addison,

    Its super creepy that you have a documented time line on Jason.”

    Two days later he makes even wilder assertions against me:

    Kenneth Winsmann
    Posted February 6, 2015 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    “Erik,

    Even though you have beaten me into submission! Give me a break weirdo. I just decided it was best to not talk to you anymore once you started creating random FB accounts to harass my family (that you creepily looked up stalker style).”

    He continues:

    Kenneth Winsmann
    Posted February 6, 2015 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    “Crreeeeeper.”

    Kenneth Winsmann
    Posted February 6, 2015 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    “Christian (Kingery) (One of the hosts of Drunk Ex-Pastors),

    Don’t give him too much info. He will create 100 fake FB accounts and start trolling your old congregation. He is like a human spam machine.”

    Kenneth Winsmann
    Posted February 6, 2015 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    “Can’t be too careful when your dealing with a creeeeeeeperrrr”

    So, in summary, Winsmann’s response to my citation of publicly available information is to make allegations of my “creating random FB (Facebook) accounts”, which are used to “harass (his) family”, and an accusation of looking up (presumably his family’s Facebook pages) “stalker style.” He also suggests that I send spam e-mail.

    These are outright lies. No “random or multiple (Facebook) accounts” have been created by me and no harassment of his family has taken place whatsoever. If he has a shred of evidence to the contrary I would welcome it.

    Why is any of this important?

    What we have here is a young man who has labeled himself a Roman Catholic theologian and apologist. He regularly interacts at Old Life and on other theological blog sites online. One of the primary characteristics of a credible theologian and apologist is personal honesty. Related to this is adherence to the 9th commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

    My belief is that Winsmann, in an overreaction against me highlighting his potentially embarrassing public statements about himself (statements which may indeed be true), and doing basic online research about him and his business interests, has overreacted and gone way too far in an effort to undermine my credibility. As Catholic apologist Bryan Cross would presumably say, Winsmann has committed a classic ad hominem attack against me:

    Winsmann is still a young man (not even 30 years old I would guess) and is obviously an intelligent guy. I would assert that he too often shows poor judgment in what he reveals about his personal life in online, public forums, however, and this leads to uncomfortable situations for him when people recall those statements at a later date and attempt to discuss them with him. We all make mistakes and are often lacking in judgment — that’s part of being fallible humans.

    The lesson I would take out of this, however, is that when we err in judgment we have to stop, turn back, humble ourselves, and try to make things right rather than making things worse by dishonestly and maliciously impugning people’s character without evidence.

    Winsmann is dangerously close to committing slander and/or libel against me, if he has indeed not done so already. This is not an intelligent thing to do against a person with resources, who is also in business and has ready access to attorneys in his day-to-day work. This is especially unintelligent if the slanderer/libeler is making a substantial income that could be garnished upon a favorable court judgment being awarded to a plantiff against the slanderer/libeler.

    Like

  180. In light of this I also want to make a public apology to Tom Van Dyke.

    I a post above I suggest that Kenneth has become the new Tom Van Dyke at Old Life.

    In no way did I mean to suggest that Tom Van Dyke is a dishonest person. I have actually found him to be quite honest.

    What I meant to suggest is that in his style of communication Kenneth has begun to resemble Tom, not in the content of his arguments.

    Like

  181. Erik, he has a history of shooting his mouth off, that Win(n)y. He lied here about me and how he never addresses me. I’ve wanted to got back and show how many in the last few weeks he actually has. He should be grateful for the above, I know I am.

    My personal opinion is he is a bully.

    Like

  182. Kenneth,

    Back to the earlier discussion….

    If there is no hermeneutic, then how is it possible for White, Sproul, Geisler, Horton, Krueger, etc. to cite and engage RC dogma so accurately? Didn’t you just admit last week that it was easy to know what the Church teaches? You already gave this argument away with that admission.

    If you think the hermeneutic can mean anything you need to prove that assertion. So far you have produced no argument. You’ve just flip flopped between there being no hermeneutic, to there being a bad one, to there being a useless one that may as well not exist. Organize your thoughts and get back to me.

    But there is no disorganization here. In the first place, I’ve been told by other RCs that the individuals named above don’t get RCism correct. All of them, or at least White and Sproul, emphasize that in order to know what Rome believes you have to go to the actual creedal statements and exegete them in their historical context, all the while noting that none of them have been rejected by the Magisterium. I agree. But that demands a conservative, historical-critical reading of the documents, and that is one that I don’t see your Magisterium interested in affirming. If it were, there would be discipline.

    IOW, I’m happy to apply a Protestant historical-grammatical hermeneutic to what Rome has said. But it is clear that such a Protestant approach is a Protestant approach. The fact that White and Sproul have to emphasize that such is how we must go about understanding Rome proves that there are a whole lot of RCs, and non-RCs for that matter, who think it is justifiable to understand what RCism is by not using that historical-grammatical hermeneutic. My point is simply this—Rome endorses that broad interpretative view. It has done so at least since V2. There is no way that you can reconcile Lumen Gentium and Unam Sanctum by applying a historical-critical hermeneutic.

    Rome simply isn’t interested in reading its own tradition in a conservative matter, except perhaps for on contraception. And there is every side that such is slowly changing. Remember, RCs shouldn’t “breed like rabbits” anymore. (Francis).

    Rome is a big, big, big tent. You are part of a conservative wing that is as equally welcome under that tent as radical liberals. The only way that such a tent is possible is to have a hermeneutic that basically means whatever you want it to mean.

    So here your argument is that if Congress passes a law, say no driving over 80 mph, but only about one third of the police enforce this law….. Then No law was ever passed in the first place? Or that therefore civilians can never know the law? That’s just nonsense.

    My argument is that if you want to go all “superior paradigm” and stress the greatness of the living Magisterium on us, then you need to be able to cash that check. The Infallible Magisterium is no good if it just issues statements and then allows RCs to interpret them however they want to as long as they don’t leave the fold. All you’ve given us is a list of dogmas that is no less authoritative or perspicuous or knowable or certain than anything Protestants have given us.

    The dogmas may be infallible, but the big tent hermeneutic indicates that the Magisterium’s interpretation of the dogmas is not, or at least it means that the Magisterium thinks postmodernism “truth is whatever is true for you” is the bomb. Big whoop.

    Not quite. We offer an infallible list of infallible books (scripture). But we don’t offer an exhaustive infallible list of every single teaching in scripture. Such a list might not even be possible.

    I don’t want a list of ever single teaching in Scripture, I want an infallible list of every single infallible dogma that Rome has thus far proposed. This should not be difficult, but its not forthcoming. It’s because there is really one dogma that Rome embraces—”Just do whatever the Magisterium of the moment says.”

    Like

  183. Robert, thanks.

    I poke in creedcode, for old times sake, to see what people like you are up to. My all time favorite comment of yours, responding to that Mikel guy, when he asked you to try to respond for him, what you think his response would be. I think that was the guy who told someone to go hang himself quickly, out on Jason’s blog. This is genius, Rob:

    ROBERT December 10, 2014 at 7:00 pm:

    Sure. I’ll guess:
    Mikel: “Ha! Ha! Ha! OC Robert. Now I’ve got you. You’re such a stupid moron that I, who can’t even be bothered to read the Westminster Confession, will laugh at you and invite some random friends of mine to look at your post and they will laugh to. And since we’re laughing that must mean you’re an idiot because we never make a mistake and always follow every argument perfectly.
    Robert, you’re so stupid because you believe what Protestants believe, because everyone knows that you should just believe what Rome says because Rome says it. After all, the illiterate people in my country will never be able to understand the Bible if they are taught it consistently but they’ll understand what Rome teaches without even looking into themselves because well, because Rome says they can! It’s just so obvious you idiot OC Robert.
    Robert, I can’t believe how uncaring you are. Because I think sola Scriptura is unworkable for no other reason than the fact that there’s some wacked-out neighbor of mine who thinks Jesus has 9 heads because he says it’s in the Bible, it must be unworkable. I mean if God left people with sola Scriptura, then he’s a evil deity. Never mind that if I actually apply that standard consistently and believe that the only way a caring God would work is through an infallible church, then that must mean he really hated all of the people before Christ who my own tradition says he loved. After all, he didn’t give them an interpreter. How did those poor Jews know God anyway. There was no one in Rome to give their seal of approval. Obviously, God didn’t really love them. I’m so glad I live in the era when God does love people. Now I’ve got Rome. Oh, mighty loving Rome, who has shown its care and compassion over the centuries by launching Crusades, forcing Jews into ghettoes, massacring dissidents in the Inquisition, papal prostitution… .
    Robert, I can’t believe how unfeeling you are. Once you said that if people are really born of God, they will desire to know what He says. What a stupid statement that is. It’s so obvious that people who have no desire to know what He says are really born of God. I mean, my RC neighbor who never goes to mass and doesn’t express any desire to learn or any hope that one day he will learn the catechism, he’s perfectly fine. He’s a true RC.
    Ha, Ha, Ha! You’re so stupid because you think you are correct. I think I’m correct, but that’s no sign of my lack of intelligence. It’s obvious that you think no one else is right but you because you believe the church can err. Everyone knows the church can’t err. A caring God would never give us a church that could make any doctrinal mistakes (except during the old covenant period.).
    Robert, you’re an evil person who’s trying to weasel out of comments that could not possibly have been either ill-spoken or that I, the great Mikel, could not possibly have misinterpreted. Because it’s wrong for you to think you are correct but if I think I’m correct, it’s clearly a different story. You’re worse than that other evil guy Eric. I can’t believe you all are even allowed to go online because I’ve never miscommunicated a point or been misheard. I am that good of a speaker. Best since Jesus, actually.
    Ha, ha, ha! You’re so foolish to think you can read the Bible and determine what the Apostles taught. After all, there are 33,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000 denominations that all claim the same thing and none of them agree. The fact that RCs can’t agree on what the church has infallibly taught proves nothing because we can always go ask the living Magisterium a question. Ignore the fact that more often than not the Magisterium’s speaking has created more confusion. You’re too stupid of a person to even look at that. And whatever you do, don’t ask me how I can be certain that Rome is the church Christ founded or how the fact that I don’t have a “principled means” to separate my opinion of Rome from what Rome actually is makes my critique of Protestantism entirely beside the point. It makes me feel better to let the people in the funny hats do all my thinking for me. I feel good because Rome says its infallible. My feeling good is all that matters. History doesn’t. The Bible doesn’t. Just what I feel, and I feel that I can’t know anything true unless there’s an infallible church somewhere.
    And if I need them to do all my thinking for me, you can’t imagine how much my feeble-minded countrymen need Rome to do all the thinking for them. Never mind how these same illiterates are supposed to be able to know Rome is the true church or not. Apparently, they can magically do the research to make an informed decision here, but not with the Bible; or, they’re just blind fideists. Quit insulting them by suggesting that I might be able to find idolatry among them. Everybody knows that there’s no such thing as RC syncretism anywhere in the world. I can’t believe you won’t stop insulting my incompetent and illiterate countrymen who can’t possibly have a desire to study the Bible or know God’s Word AND be in a desperate situation financially. Everyone knows that if you’re in a desperate situation financially, that eliminates any desire you have to learn the Bible. Just ignore the people three nations over who are barely subsisting and will walk for days to go to church and hear the Word of God preached. They don’t count. Everyone knows that a desire to know Scripture and true Christianity go together like oil and water.
    Ha, Ha, Ha OC Robert. I can’t believe you’re dumb enough to think people in history can get things wrong. The RCC has never gotten anything wrong. Those Crusades. Perfectly fine. Those medieval popes who put their own children on the throne after them, ignore that. The pope’s infallible except when he’s not. It’s so clear when he’s spoken infallibly. Let me take out my infallible list of infallible decrees. Wait. That doesn’t exist. Doesn’t matter. Doctrine isn’t that important, and that’s a good thing because my illiterate countrymen can’t get it either. Wait, scratch that. They can get Roman doctrine but they can’t understand the Bible without someone claiming infallibility. Quit acting like the Bible is something special. The fact that it is the Word of God and claims sufficiency for itself is entirely irrelveant. Remember 50 gabillion people read it and can’t agree. But the fact that RCs can’t agree on the extent of infallible teaching proves nothing. The teaching isn’t important. It’s the Magisterium. Never mind that you can get 50 some odd interpretations of any Magisterial dogma, all of which are acceptable even if they are blatant contradictions because none of them advocating them are excommunicated. Wait, scratch that. People self-excommunicate themselves whenever Rome can’t get around to it. That can’t possibly happen with Scripture though. Nosiree. People can’t possibly get them booted out of the kingdom for believing the wrong things about the Bible.
    Oh the magic Magisterium. On the last day when God weighs my beliefs and works, he’ll give me a pass if I do what the Magisterium said. It’s not my fault if they got it wrong. I’m not supposed to think for myself. If the Magisterium says contraception is the most critical issue ever, it’s the most critical issue ever. Who cares that the Muslims hate the Trinity. The important thing is contraception and nothing but contraception.
    Robert, you are stupid and uncaring. If I tell my Muslim uncle or neighbor that he has to believe in Jesus to be saved, World War 3 will start. I should just live my life and not worry about what Jesus said about Himself. I shouldn’t care that my attitude on this totally invalidates the purpose of even caring about Jesus or finding His church, not to mention the Apostles who were willing to be beaten and to die because they said salvation comes only through faith in Jesus. That was then, man! We know now that all roads lead to heaven. Except, probably, the Calvinist’s road even though they don’t teach anything substantially different from what my patron saint of theology, Aquinas, taught on the doctrine of predestination.
    You uncaring Protestants who have brought literacy with you wherever you have gone. You evil Protestants who came up with teaching on religious liberty that makes it at least possible for people of two different religions to live together and not kill each other. Quit doing so much evil in the world you dumb people.
    Robert, you are so dumb, unfeeling, and evil that I hardly know why I say anything to you. Ha, Ha, Ha. Why do you even care about Roman Catholics anyway? It can’t possibly be that you believe them to be in damnable error and want them to be saved. No, you’re too evil and stupid for that. The only person you want in heaven is yourself. And your mother dresses you funny. And you’re ugly.”
    Pretty close, eh? 😉

    Like

  184. Breaking News: Bryan Cross Publicly Affirms His Continuing Support for Jason Stellman

    http://www.drunkexpastors.com/podcast-28-yoga-pants-gay-husbands-and-incest/#comment-853

    Bryan Cross
    February 7, 2015 at 7:45 AM

    Erik,

    Though I haven’t listened to all the podcasts, the only thing I disagree with Jason about, so far as I know, is his claim that the rest of us at CTC are better Catholics than he is. Also, morality does not include all cultural taboos or norms. In a fundamentalist paradigm, saying ‘fuck’ is a sin. But not in the agape paradigm, within which ‘fuck’ can be said while loving God above all else as Father, and loving one’s neighbor as oneself for God’s sake. Jason gets this, which is why he is rightly comfortable in his earthy humanity, as was Chesterton, O’Connor, Waugh, Greene, and Percy. (Just read Percy!) The saints are very diverse; no two saints are identical. Each has a different set of gifts, a different style, a different personality. Not only is there room within the Church for all these different styles, but we each benefit from them all, and in this way we need and appreciate these different styles and gifts, because they exemplify different facets of the Good, which none of us individually fully exemplify. In short, in the Body of Christ we alI (myself included) benefit from what is unique in Jason’s style. So not only is Jason a friend and brother (though I’m a lousy friend on my end when he’s in need), I’m grateful for everything about him that is different from me.

    Also, if you can get a little distance, read through this thread again as if through the eyes of a third-party (if you can), and ask yourself what it means when a self-professed agnostic is so much more kind, giving, long-suffering, gracious, charitable, and (dare I say it) Christ-like, than yourself. What does it say about your paradigm when an agnostic so clearly and obviously out-loves you? Something in 1 Cor 13 seems pertinent. But 1 Cor 13 came after the Damascus road, when a man infatuated and obsessed with the laws, and in the name of the law breathing murderous threats and seeking to stamp out those even in far away places who had entered into the agape paradigm, came face to face with Agape Himself. He discovered that Agape Himself was that to which all those laws pointed. And there and then this man was lifted into a higher paradigm, the agape paradigm, according to which laws are for persons, not persons for the law, because the telos of the law is love, which is irreducibly both Personal and Inter-Personal. If the measure is love, then everything without love becomes a clanging cymbal, not only empty, but off-putting. And a paradigm that breeds and applauds love-less behavior by that very fact refutes and destroys itself, in spite of itself. So if you find yourself in a paradigm in which love-less behavior is bred, encouraged, and applauded, where individuals are continually attacking and devouring one another, where genuine insults (not the affectionate sort) are the norm, where getting the speck out of the neighbor’s eye is everyone’s obsession, then it might be time to reconsider seriously whether you’ve taken a wrong turn at some point.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  185. My response to Bryan:

    Erik Charter
    February 7, 2015 at 8:05 AM

    Bryan,

    You’re on the record. Very interesting. Would be interested in hearing if you have the same take if you ever do listen to all the podcasts.

    I would note that you are likely not a very impartial judge in all of this matter, given the heated nature of our past interactions.

    The relevant point I take from your statement is that you are still embracing Jason.

    Would you stand by Kenneth Winsmann in light of his potentially slanderous/libelous statements against me? I don’t believe you have any formal relationship with him, but he is a fellow Roman Catholic.

    http://literatecomments.com/2015/02/07/what-is-the-roman-catholic-position-on-the-9th-commandment/

    Like

  186. This “Agape Paradigm” is quite interesting. It sounds like I could get away with a lot of sins as long as I was non-threatening and expressed love and non-judgment to man and love toward God.

    Maybe that’s what Ted Kennedy had?

    Like

  187. sean
    Posted February 5, 2015 at 5:17 pm | Permalink
    Down the rabbit hole Ken

    kenneth in the rabbit hole making us wince, and can’t tell us how to spell his last name. Long handled deacon bags, yo. Props, sean.

    Like

  188. Robert,

    But there is no disorganization here. In the first place, I’ve been told by other RCs that the individuals named above don’t get RCism correct. All of them, or at least White and Sproul, emphasize that in order to know what Rome believes you have to go to the actual creedal statements and exegete them in their historical context, all the while noting that none of them have been rejected by the Magisterium. I agree. But that demands a conservative, historical-critical reading of the documents, and that is one that I don’t see your Magisterium interested in affirming. If it were, there would be discipline.

    I have heard Sproul especially give wonderful summaries of RC teaching. Any Protestant preparing for a debate with a RC can easily find what the Church teaches on any given topic. Anyone with a brain wouldn’t go search out random theologians and dissenting opinions. They would go with the official teachings of the Church as asserted by Her most authoritative documents. Simple. That’s why so many respectable protestants can do such a great job charitably representing our teachings. Because they are easy to know and find. As you admitted only a week ago. I would go further and say that you tacitly admit how perspicuous the Church is when you rattle off your favorite Pelosi, Biden, heretical nuns, argument. How else could you recognize all these dissenters unless you knew What they were dissenting from?

    IOW, I’m happy to apply a Protestant historical-grammatical hermeneutic to what Rome has said. But it is clear that such a Protestant approach is a Protestant approach. The fact that White and Sproul have to emphasize that such is how we must go about understanding Rome proves that there are a whole lot of RCs, and non-RCs for that matter, who think it is justifiable to understand what RCism is by not using that historical-grammatical hermeneutic. My point is simply this—Rome endorses that broad interpretative view. It has done so at least since V2. There is no way that you can reconcile Lumen Gentium and Unam Sanctum by applying a historical-critical hermeneutic.

    Tim Staples just did over at Catholic.com i would love to see you comment over there. Tim hangs around and defends his own work. It’s pretty cool to have a big name guy do that in the comments section. They rarely do. Would you be open to taking this part of your argument over there? (Unam sanctum vs Lumen Gentium) He just posted it so I know he will respond. Change of venue and interlocutors would be refreshing. You only get 5 comments per 24 hours so make them count!

    Rome simply isn’t interested in reading its own tradition in a conservative matter, except perhaps for on contraception. And there is every side that such is slowly changing. Remember, RCs shouldn’t “breed like rabbits” anymore. (Francis).

    This is an assertion but not an argument

    Rome is a big, big, big tent. You are part of a conservative wing that is as equally welcome under that tent as radical liberals. The only way that such a tent is possible is to have a hermeneutic that basically means whatever you want it to mean.

    False. There is another way. Have a set hermeneutic but not be as strong in discipline as you should be.

    My argument is that if you want to go all “superior paradigm” and stress the greatness of the living Magisterium on us, then you need to be able to cash that check. The Infallible Magisterium is no good if it just issues statements and then allows RCs to interpret them however they want to as long as they don’t leave the fold. All you’ve given us is a list of dogmas that is no less authoritative or perspicuous or knowable or certain than anything Protestants have given us.

    False yet again. To continue the analogy, Under the prot paradigm, there are hundreds of different “legislative bodies” each making competing laws and none of them claiming to be the final authority. The degree to which each legislative body enforces it’s laws varies as much as the laws themselves. Under my paradigm, there is a single authoritative legislator. We can know what it teaches easily. Enforcement is a different issue.

    I don’t want a list of ever single teaching in Scripture, I want an infallible list of every single infallible dogma that Rome has thus far proposed

    Thats the equivalent!

    Like

  189. Kenneth, I’m keeping them short for the reading impaired. Do you ever read the words that come from your fingers?

    Are you for real?

    I don’t trust Facebook, don’t sent me to your online psycho logical projections where you are some hard ass blogger. We get enough at this site, truly.

    Like

  190. we” would be representative of the billion or so RCs in the world.

    Ding ding ding!

    As I said, you stepped in it.

    Not bright, but a good sport, per sean.

    You really do believe you speak for all of the people in your church.

    Funny, I spoke to Pelosi. She wants to have a few words with you, though she loves your approach here at OL.

    For real.

    Like

  191. Kenneth,

    I have heard Sproul especially give wonderful summaries of RC teaching. Any Protestant preparing for a debate with a RC can easily find what the Church teaches on any given topic. Anyone with a brain wouldn’t go search out random theologians and dissenting opinions. They would go with the official teachings of the Church as asserted by Her most authoritative documents. Simple. That’s why so many respectable protestants can do such a great job charitably representing our teachings. Because they are easy to know and find. As you admitted only a week ago. I would go further and say that you tacitly admit how perspicuous the Church is when you rattle off your favorite Pelosi, Biden, heretical nuns, argument. How else could you recognize all these dissenters unless you knew What they were dissenting from?

    The traditionalist version of Rome is easy to find as long as you employ a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, which is Protestant methodology. It’s not RC methodology. From my perspective, Pelosi et al are dissenters, but that demand the employment of a historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Pelosi et al do not, and Rome hasn’t kicked them out. Ergo, either the historical-grammatical hermeneutic is wrong or it is one of many equally valid options.

    Whatever the case may be, the point is that the Roman paradigm isn’t any more perspicuous than Scripture as long as this goes on. Your camp is as theologically divided as Protestantism. The Magisterium has largely rejected the traditionalist version of Roman Catholicism. I think that is a dishonest way of reading history, but I don’t blame them. The only way you can maintain that Rome hasn’t changed and is the one true church is to abandon responsible ways of reading history.

    IOW, your hermeneutic might be right, but Rome hasn’t said that it is and, in fact, does everything in its power to act otherwise. You need to wake up.

    Tim Staples just did over at Catholic.com i would love to see you comment over there. Tim hangs around and defends his own work. It’s pretty cool to have a big name guy do that in the comments section. They rarely do. Would you be open to taking this part of your argument over there? (Unam sanctum vs Lumen Gentium) He just posted it so I know he will respond. Change of venue and interlocutors would be refreshing. You only get 5 comments per 24 hours so make them count!

    If I have time, I might check it out.

    False. There is another way. Have a set hermeneutic but not be as strong in discipline as you should be.

    But Kenneth, you aren’t the Magisterium. How do you know the Magisterium is not as strong in its discipline as it should be. Maybe its laissez-faire attitude is part of the deposit of faith.

    Look, I feel for you. If I was RC, I’d be a traditionalist like you. But I couldn’t survive long in a church that doesn’t seem to buy its own hype anymore.

    False yet again. To continue the analogy, Under the prot paradigm, there are hundreds of different “legislative bodies” each making competing laws and none of them claiming to be the final authority. The degree to which each legislative body enforces it’s laws varies as much as the laws themselves. Under my paradigm, there is a single authoritative legislator. We can know what it teaches easily. Enforcement is a different issue.

    Under the Protestant paradigm, the single authoritative legislator is God and the legislation is His Word, so the parallel is not the same. Our legislative bodies do not identify themselves as infallible, nor do they say that they need an infallible visible church of the nature of Rome in order for people to be able to identify the laws God has revealed. When you claim that you need an infallible visible church to know what the Bible teaches and that the infallible visible church is more perspicuous than Scripture, you don’t get to start sharply dividing dogma and discipline and ignoring the fact that theological disagreement is as prevalent in Romanism as it is for Protestants.

    The claim of infallibility and perspicuity for Rome actually ends up undermining your own system, particularly when you complain about Protestant division. The main critique that Rome has is that if the Bible was perspicuous, there would not be division among those who hold to that. If that is true, then division in Romanism destroys the perspicuity of the Magisterium. You simply cannot have it both ways.

    Thats the equivalent!

    No it’s not. The list of every infallible teaching in Scripture would be far larger than what Rome has thus far defined. Rome should be able to give an infallible list of all the infallible dogma it has defined over the last 2,000 years.

    Like

  192. I can’t say Kenny is making the RCC or himself more attractive but at least he isn’t signing off “in the love of Christ.”

    I’m all about finding the silver linings of dark clouds.

    Like

  193. Starting to think about how I can spend Kenneth’s money.

    I might just put it on account at the Westminster Seminary California bookstore and let you all go shopping.

    Like

  194. He’s starting to consider an apology, but his pride just won’t let him quite get there:

    Kenneth Winsmann
    February 7, 2015 at 9:22 AM

    Erik,

    If some other random person just so happened to create random FB accounts and harass my family coincidentally on the very same evening when you began to look us all up then I apologize. But I’m sure you can understand why I would be pissed off

    Erik Charter
    February 7, 2015 at 9:42 AM

    Kenneth,

    If you will post an apology to me at Old Life stating that you have absolutely no proof that I have created any random FB accounts or that I have harassed your family I won’t press the issue any further. I’ll copy your apology onto my blog and consider the matter closed.

    I have no idea what is going on and would not harass anyone anonymously. That’s why I use my real name. Doing things secretly or under a fake name is pointless as far as I’m concerned.

    Like

  195. I imagine he’s on the phone with some Facebook tech support guy in India, desperately trying to prove that I did what he says I did.

    Since I know I didn’t do anything I have no concerns about that whatsoever.

    Even Christian is being civil now since he’s a computer guy and now realizes he trusted Kenneth when he was really selling him a load of crap.

    It’s turning out to be a good day.

    Like

  196. Here is better music than the stupid trombone sound that Kenneth did higher up this thread.

    I hereby upgrade pony boy Kenny from Journeyman to Trekker.

    Engage, my boy.

    Like

  197. Andrew,

    If you want to confess to playing both sides on this, I’ll receive your confession.

    You go back & forth between sides so frequently it’s like watching “Europa, Europa”:

    If you don’t confess and Kenneth sells you out, I’m done dealing with you on a friendly basis.

    If you didn’t do anything, then we’re good.

    Like

  198. Erik, I’m busy with a jigsaw, hanging a new door.

    You know how to find me on Twitter. I did nothing of the sort.

    Maybe no more comments until Monday?

    I’ll say a prayer for everyone who finds themselves in quagmire of theology blogdom.

    I’ll be praying, like the Captain, yo.

    See you all Monday or later.

    Peace out.

    Like

  199. I’ll maybe even hand this off to Sean to do my legwork.

    Contact our Houston and San Antonio Defamation Lawyers

    If you have been damaged by slander or libel you may be entitled to bring a defamation lawsuit. If you have been sued for slander, libel, or defamation, you need representation. Contact Carter & Bachynsky, L.L.P. for experienced representation from a Houston defamation lawyer.

    Like

  200. I’m dead serious about this Kenneth.

    I’ve seen lawsuits that didn’t even get to trial that involved $200,000 in defense costs.

    Unless you have no assets and are this judgment proof you need to take me seriously. I’m not going to have someone make up nasty lies about me in a public forum based on speculation or coincidence. Before you say the kinds of things that you said about me, you had better have proof.

    Unless you’re a deadbeat with no assets and no future earning potential, you had better take this seriously.

    You have at least 4 mouths to feed, plus your own big mouth.

    Like

  201. Erik, on my laptop, trying to catch up (was on my Nexus 5 earlier).

    I have been really busy today. But it sounds like you thought I emailed the drunks behind your back?

    Dude, I’m the chihuahua. I’m tired, hanging a door is hard.

    Again, man, yo quiero taco bell.

    I’ll go read and see what the drunks are up to. NOW, I’m done (emoticon).

    Like

  202. Erik,

    Against my better judgment I will write one more post on this and then I’m done.

    You have couched your recent activity as “research into public infornation”. While this may be true there are certain societal settings where “research into public information” is creepy and strange. Most of us learn this at a young age. For example, if I went up to one of my coworkers, someone who I had a real life relationship with, and said:

    “hey Joe doaks! I did some research into available public information and looked up you and your family. I have some questions about yalls profile info and the spellings of your last name”

    This would be considered “creepy” to most people in the world. It’s even more so with strangers or random commentators at blogs who I don’t have a real life relationship with.

    Now imagine this coworker of mine found out that on the very same night I was doing “research into public info” on his family, those same family members were harassed by newly created FB accounts. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. But then imagine Joe finds out that I have even had a past of having my family members and pastors try to limit obsessive and bizaar Internet activity. Would it be slander if Joe told other coworkers to watch out for me?! Or called me creepy!? Obviously not. This is just the way the world works.

    Now about this libel nonsense.
    . If you believe you are have been “defamed,” to prove it you usually have to show there’s been a statement that is all of the following:

    published: check

    false: you need to PROVE that it is false that your behavior is creepy. You would also need to PROVE that it wasn’t you who created those FB accounts. The burden is on you in civil court. Not me. Now, I would LOVE for you to prove the FB weirdness wasn’t you. My opinion of you would rise dramatically. Unfortunately, I don’t see how you could and the circumstantial evidence is pretty damming.

    injurious: Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement — for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won’t collect much in a defamation suit. So good luck with any of that

    Needless to say, don’t hold your breath for an apology. I stand by my statements 100%. I perceived your behavior to be creepy. I believe it was you who harassed my family. I believe you should seek out help if you have a troubled past when it comes to this kind of thing. If you don’t like it, sue me.

    Like

  203. Kenneth continues digging:

    Kenneth Winsmann
    February 7, 2015 at 1:15 PM

    Lol first Congress, now law firms. That’s what I get I guess for messing with…. the Rottweiler.

    Erik Charter
    February 7, 2015 at 2:43 PM

    Kenneth,

    Lawyers are motivated by money. Whether or not you’ve violated the law is an objective question. If you have and there’s money to be had, lawyers will be interested.

    Have you ever been involved in litigation? Do you understand how it works? If I sue you, you’re basically guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around like in criminal court.

    You’ll spend money to defend yourself. The state will not provide you with an attorney. If you just ignore it, you’ll lose by default and then it becomes a question of whether or not you have assets that can be attached. This includes a paycheck, commissions, bank accounts, real estate.

    None of this is a joke at all, trust me. By mocking it you’re just digging yourself in deeper.

    Like

  204. Kenneth,

    Whether or not you think I’m “creepy” is irrelevant. You’re entitled to your opinion.

    What is relevant are the specific activities that you accuse me of – specifically, anonymous electronic harassment of people who were not a party to our dispute. Being wrongly accused of doing something like this against an innocent victim is injurious to my professional reputation. Note that I’ve said nothing negative against your father in all this — he is not a party to our dispute. If I go to find another job I don’t want those allegations out in public because I know they are totally false. That’s why I want a specific public apology from you.

    I can argue with people like you all day long in forums like this because that’s what people like us come here for. Those interactions are not at issue.

    What you have done here is really unprecedented in the 3 years I’ve been here. You really jumped the gun by doing it before you could prove it was me. I suspect that’s why Christian was asking if I have a Facebook account the other night. I do, but I’ve only had it for a few weeks, have like 4 friends on it, and follow like 3 groups. Not a heavy user and not sophisticated in even knowing how to do what you have accused me of.

    Facebook has records of where accounts were created from and I am in a specific location. It will be easy to show that it was not me.

    10:00 a.m. Monday morning is your deadline. You should seriously consult legal advice.

    Like

  205. Erik, and I don’t play both sides. I just know JGM called RC’s his friends. And said:

    Does this mean, then, that we must eternally bite and devour one another, that acrimonious debate must never for a moment be allowed to cease? . . . . There is a common solution of the problem which we think ought to be taken to heart. It is the solution provided by family life.

    In countless families, there is a Christian parent who with untold agony of soul has seen the barrier of religious difference set up between himself or herself and a beloved child. Salvation, it is believed with all the heart, comes only through Christ, and the child, it is believed, unless it has really trusted in Christ, is lost. These, I tell you, are the real tragedies of life. And how trifling, in comparison, is the experience of bereavement of the like!

    But what do these sorrowing parents do? Do they make themselves uselessly a nuissance to their child? In countless cases they do not; in countless cases there is hardly a mention of the subject of religion; in countless cases there is nothing but prayer, and an agony of soul bravely covered by helpfulness and cheer. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/05/gresham-machen-friend-to-catholics

    Playing both sides, man? Come on, we both hate the yankees. Easy stuff.

    NOW NOW NOW im out (Katniss is too).

    Like

  206. You also woefully misunderstand my professional reputation which is what is at issue here.

    CPA, realtor, over 20 years experience, six figure income, squeaky clean public record, Could produce many witnesses to my professional competency and integrity.

    A hobby of arguing about theology with knuckleheads is not a crime.

    You also seem to misunderstand that if I can hire an attorney on a contingency fee basis, I pay no bills. If you hire a defense attorney, you pay bills from day one. Texas has some form of a “loser pays” system, but this isn’t going to help you if you’re in the wrong.

    Like

  207. As far as I am concerned, you are both hurting yourselves. So am I by hitting post.

    Here, have some OPC reading material. Erik, remember, I’m the deacon, you’re the elder. I get to be more mercy minded. If you really think I play footsie too much with Jason and the Callers, you can always take it up with my presbytery. We are church officers, remember? I hope we act like it out here..

    Why I Came to a Three-Office View

    Mark R. Brown

    Extracted from Ordained Servant vol. 4, no. 1 (January 1995)

    Many readers of this magazine rightly hold the memory of Bob Atwell in high regard. In 1978 the venerable Mr. Atwell asked me a church government question as part of my presbytery ordination exams: “Do you hold to three offices or two offices in the church today?” I answered naively that I was not yet sure to which position I held. Because of very limited exposure during seminary days to the issues involved in this debate, I had not yet come to any firm convictions on this subject. As I began my church planting labors in Hollidaysburg, PA, I used the few modern booklets on Presbyterian officers that were available and taught the popular two-office view. Only later as controversy erupted in the session would I come to realize that some elements of the current literature were in conflict with our Orthodox Presbyterian Church Form of Government.

    The works of Thornwell are highly respected in conservative Presbyterian circles. He said, “Presbyterianism stands or falls with the distinction between ruling and teaching elders.”[1]

    All Presbyterian two-office views recognize some distinction between preachers and other presbyters. That is why Presbyterian two-office views are often labeled “2-1/2” office views because they recognize two different functions (teaching and ruling) within their office of elder.[2]

    Tensions developed at Westminster Orthodox Presbyterian Church Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania when several of our elders pushed two-office views that allowed for no distinctions of function within the office. I had always taught parity in governing; now these men took it to mean equality in all functions. To recognize distinctions in calling and functions between the pastor and other elders was seen by them as evidence of clericalism, hierarchy, and arrogance. For example, the dissident elders were offended when I would encourage young men to consider a call to the ministry. To them this was a put down. They felt I was falsely assuming ministerial prerogatives to myself. They wanted a rotating pulpit, and the right to baptize, administer communion, and bless the people on the basis of their calling as elders. They were offended that a pastor must be present to conduct session meetings. They preferred to talk of the eldership rather than the session (consisting of a pastor and the ruling elders). I was to be seen as one of the elders. We were all the elder/ pastors of the church.[3]

    As our session studied the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Form of Government the opposition of the dissident elders to Presbyterian views hardened. They presented this false choice to the whole session: “Are we going to follow the Bible or the Form of Government?” Our session tried very hard to bring compromise and resolution by using Larry Wilson’s excellent article from Ordained Servant entitled “How Many Offices are There?” It clearly sets forth the Presbyterian boundaries of office. The dissidents would not agree that preaching was distinct from ruling. They would not agree that ruling elders could serve who did not teach publicly. They wanted all elders to be preachers. In essence their position was similar to the Plymouth Brethren. They created a new office of local lay preachers and rulers all simply called elders. Of course, this view falls outside the bounds of our presbyterian standards since it disposes of both our preachers and rulers. A helpful analogy to this situation comes from the field of eschatology. Reformed churches allow for pre-, post-, and a-millennial interpretations while rejecting the dispensational premillennial view as being outside the bounds of the Reformed confessions. In like manner our Orthodox Presbyterian Church Form of Government allows both a teaching elder/ ruling elder and a minister/ruling elder framework within our standards while the lay eldership view is clearly beyond our bounds.

    Why did this spirit of envy and rivalry develop in our session? I am convinced that it is due to the current confounding of the offices in popular Presbyterian presentations. Where the offices of minister and ruling elder are not clearly defined and distinguished, tensions do develop within sessions. There has been controversy throughout Presbyterian history about the precise relation of the ruling elder to the minister.

    The 2-1/2 office view is a mediating view that is both inconsistent and ambiguous. The strict two-office men here rejected it as merely a variant of the three-office view. In trying to respond to the objections of these two-office men, I found solid answers as I discovered the historic three-office position. Charles Dennison encouraged me to gather a book of essays on this subject for the benefit of the whole church. That is the genesis of the new book Order in the Offices: Essays Defining the Roles of Church Officers. In addition to some 19th century reprints from Campbell, Smyth, and Hodge, the book consists of new essays by eight Orthodox Presbyterian Church and two Presbyterian Church of America ministers. Our conclusion is that the classic three-office Presbyterian structure of ministers, elders, and deacons better expresses the biblical framework of church office than does the current two functions within an eldership view.[4]

    We often hear the popular phrase that “all Christians are ministers.” Of course we do not believe that all Christians are preachers, rulers, or ministers of mercy. The word minister (deacon) has both general and special usages. So does the word elder (presbyter). The great mistake of the two-office people is in making an across the board equation of the word elder (presbyter) with the ruling elder in all the biblical passages. Elder sometimes refers to an older man, sometimes to a governor or elder of the people, and sometimes to a bishop or pastor. Many in our day just assume an equation between the ruling elder and the bishop. Do not most Presbyterians today read ruling elders into Acts 20 and I Tim. 3? That is not the view of Calvin and other classic Presbyterian interpreters as Steve Miller and Jeff Boer point out in their essays in Order in the Offices.[5]

    The question of ordination is highly relevant to the number of offices. The word office itself is not a biblical term. In common parlance an office is either a function or a position. It can be either a task or a role. By either definition our standards are three-office in orientation, as are the standards of the Presbyterian Church in America.[6] Our form of government defines an office as “a publicly recognized function” (p. 17). Note that in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church men are not ordained to the eldership. They are ordained to an office: deacon, ruling elder, or minister (p. 73). I have never been good at math, but I count three offices there. The sacred office (position) and the work of preaching the gospel (function) are not equated with the eldership. The ministry of the gospel is not a subdivision of the eldership but is a distinct calling common to all Protestant denominations. The minister is not an elder who teaches but a preacher who also governs. Out standards present three discreet ordinations with three special gifts: teaching, ruling, and serving (p. 17). There are three ordinary offices for the ministry of the Word, rule and mercy. (p. 18).

    To speak of two offices within the office of the eldership is an illogical use of language. But, as Dr. Clowney reminds us, the essence of the matter is not the number of offices but whether all who rule in the church must have gifts for public ministry of the Word. Three-office views prevent clericalism and preserve the importance of the office of ruling elder in all the courts of the church. Nothing I have said is in any way meant to demean the godly, wise, and respected men who have been called to the office of ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (p. 34). I highly value the many godly ruling elders who share in the government and discipline of the church. With Thomas Smyth I would say:

    …ought not ruling elders to be very thankful to us for defending them from the imposition upon them of clerical titles, clerical office, clerical duties, and clerical responsibilities? We think so for who among them could endure to be clothed with the pastoral office without education, fitness, desire, or opportunity for it—without, in short, a call to the ministry.[7]

    In our congregation (and in many others with whom I am familiar from correspondence, both within and without the Orthodox Presbyterian Church) the ambiguous two-office view leads to tensions and strife among the officers. May I encourage you to take some time to read Calvin’s Commentaries on the key office passages, Charles Hodge’s three essays on office, and above all Thomas Smyth’s “Theories of the Eldership I and II.” Smyth is to the subject of church officers what Geerhardus Vos is to biblical theology.

    I believe Robert Rayburn is right when he says that the two-office view is the opinion of the majority in our circles today. However, many have never studied a positive defense of the classic three-office position. Order in the Offices is the first major book-length presentation of the three-office view since the works of Hodge and Smyth over 100 years ago. Before you reject our classic three-office Presbyterian heritage, please give it some thoughtful consideration. I would also be glad to personally respond to correspondence from any of you on this subject.http://www.opc.org/OS/html/V4/1f.html

    Like

  208. Andrew,

    I’m really not that angry with him, but facts are facts and I think that what he has done is wrong.

    I poke him, he pokes me, I get it – that’s what we both signed up for. But when he asserts something that is harmful to my professional reputation that is just objectively not true he needs to be held accountable for that.

    Like

  209. Yeah, I believe Katniss has a history of exaggerating, and dare I say, lying. He mentions thing about e-mails I sent him that were creepy, back in March, and never sent them to me or backed them up.

    I’m thinking he’s more like president snow sometimes. Oh well, he’s trying to win the war against the captial, what’s a girl to do (that Katniss, yo)?

    Like

  210. I’m telling you guys, I’m not emotional about this. It’s about the public record of what’s been written and what the law is. I’m not saying I know all the answers definitively, but I might be willing to find out. My biggest fear is that Kenneth is in reality judgment proof (i.e., has no money). If that’s the case, why bother?

    Part of your problem is you have this preconceived notion that I’m irrational and have a history of my wife & pastor telling me what to do. They both might wish they had that power, but they don’t. I’ve been online here consistently for 3 years so if I’ve ever been kicked off the internet it’s news to me. I’ve had one instance here when I got ticked off on one issue and quit for a day or two. No big deal. I later saw that I was wrong about a principle I was arguing for and it all worked out for the best.

    Your big problem and Kenneth’s big problem is how direct I’ve been with both of you — you because of the content of your podcast, him because of how I’ve highlighted and questioned his public statements. Your only recourse has been classic ad hominem arguments, which always reveal more about those making them than those they are directed against.

    This has been eye-opening for me in terms of the costs and benefits of dealing with knuckleheads, though. Probably time to let someone else take their turn.

    Like

  211. Christian,

    Do you like golfing?

    Any brand of club you like? I’m Ping irons, nd Taylormade driver.

    Just curious.

    Missed you since you were here last, amigo.

    Toodles.

    Like

  212. Kenneth,

    I won’t drag it out. I’ll turn it over to a firm that specializes in online defamation on Monday for an assessment and go from there. If they say I have no case, I’ll drop it and avoid you like the plague in the future.

    If I have a case, I’ll weigh the costs and benefits and proceed accordingly.

    Like

  213. Erik, it took me about 8 months watching Katniss over here before I was willing to talk to him again, after he died about me and creepy emails on white horse blog dot com.

    Avoid him either way. He’s trouble, Taylor swift knew trouble when he walked in..I digress.

    Like

  214. Breaking news:

    I have decided to could term sue Erik Charter for alleging that my pharmacy rips off the elderly and disabled.

    Daryl, whatever you do, don’t delete his comments. Objective facts need to be defended. He really jumped the gun on that one. I will be seeking 650 billion gazillion dollars. I hope you take me seriously Erik.

    See how that sounds?

    Like

  215. O.K. I’ll cross you off the (real or fabricated) list.

    Please, please, cross me off the list too.

    You guys are pathetic.
    Both you guys – not winsmann- need to grow up and shut up so we can get back to the regularly programmed discussion.
    The puerile prattling, fawning and threatening has no compare unless it is CtC combox, the diamond in the manure of Bryan’s eff post notwithstanding.
    Why we might even find ourselves agreeing with Kenny.
    “Creeper”.

    Like

  216. Andrew,

    I love Taylor Swift lol but I haven’t been able to listen much ever since Erik hurt my professional reputation alleging me of ripping people off and preying on the weak and feeble. It will all be corrected soon enough though. Once I get Eriks 600 billion gazillion dollars that is.

    Like

  217. Kenneth,

    That’s probably a bad strategy being that you’ve admitted in writing to overcharging the government.

    $10k made with minimal work the first week is also not something you want to sell to a jury.

    Like

  218. Ken, my daughter Megan rushed by when she heard I was playing TS on my phone. She’s almost six, been a fan of hers since she could hear the car radio.

    No worries about the lies on Tim Kaufmann’s blog. Water under bridge. At the time, it stung. But you are just a clown, we’re used to you now. Hopefully Jonathan Prejean stays off your case, since you so enjoy posting here.

    Shake it off!

    Like

  219. Sorry, wrong Distance video. Here’s the correct.

    Bub, how’s life in your world?

    Sorry for all the nonsense. Maybe David R can come back and talk of his dislike for Kline?

    I’m out.

    Like

  220. Kenneth, dig it up and e-mail it to me if you so desire. I purge all my old emails. Creepy that you keep my old ones?

    Mebbe..

    Just kidding. Who cares, I just think it’s funny that you have this monopoly on knowing who is and isn’t creepy. Takes one to know one?

    Nah, I would never say such things(wink).

    Peace, man.

    Like

  221. Creepy is Bruce Jenner is a chick. I’m still wrapping my head around that one. I mean, it’s LA and it’s the Kardashians, we should all be numb to it by now. But, Bruce as a chick is take away his shoelaces, death pool, creepy stuff. And now people are dying on the PCH because of it. If Missler or Lindsey were actually any good, this should have made a prophecy conference right along with Locusts as attack helicopters. I’m officially creeped out.

    Like

  222. Chitter Chatter, it’s Mr. Bub to you, capiche?
    If you got the goods on Kenny, say so. We gots no problem turning over miscreants to the tender mercies of the government for fraud.
    But just because comments are open doesn’t mean we are all interested in the junior high antics.
    Make your case and then shut up. (You know, the whole ‘brevity is the soul of wit’ schtick.)
    Instead this is turning into a soap opera with the goombahs, prot as well as romanist biting and devouring each other like the trolls were planning on doing with Bilbo.

    Besides the jinx is in.
    The last person to say he doesn’t read what we post – instead of just ignoring us like everybody else – was Jason Stellman!
    And we Know How That Turned Out.
    Jase later announces the First Annual Stupor Bowl Party, Bryan was in when it came to the Lakers and the rest is History.

    cheers

    (6 figure income? Everybody in Washington running the country has a 6 figure income. Which is why the country is going to pot. All the little piggies are at the corporatist/govt. trough. Better make sure you’re not one, pal.)

    Like

  223. Bob, I do not work for the government, but if you can point me to a 6 figure government position I am willing to learn.

    Today was the pinnacle of my Kenneth, Jason, Bryan work. I’ll pass the torch on.

    Bryan affirmed his agape love for Jason so what more can I do?

    Like

  224. Today was the pinnacle of my Kenneth, Jason, Bryan work. I’ll pass the torch on.
    Great/bout time.

    Bryan affirmed his agape love for Jason so what more can I do?
    Shut up. Basking in the glory is a strictly non verbal affair.

    Like

  225. Muddy, it’s the cigarette that seals it for me. If only he had grown fat and out of shape. I just never saw the Laryngeal shave coming. I was already anticipating a tragic consequence and sure enough now people are dead, on the side of the highway.

    Like

  226. So you are not going to sue now, Erik? That is shocking. I was taking you so seriously too.

    Does this mean you are also going to stop emailing everyone trying to figure out if I’m lying or not?

    Like

  227. I like the Chihuahua label, almost as much as girlfriend.

    I’m now going for creepy girlfriend, if that’s alright with everyone here. I’ll drop the good golfer psychological projection.

    Who’s next? Thoughts, Bub?

    Like

  228. I like waffles. I particularly like the waffles because the syrup and whipped cream pools in the little boxes. I would like to add, at this creepy moment, that I don’t like or want the waffles that might influence one to get larynengeal shave. But, I think that’s more linked to pancakes, so, waffles are my thing.

    Like

  229. Robert, I have a pic of one of my old prof’s making waffle/pancakes in a courtyard at Vat City. Not sure if the Papi’s charism extends to breakfast but I wouldn’t bet against my old prof. Since Francis is all synodical maybe he can pass it off as his own.

    Like

  230. French toast guy here. Make ’em every Sunday. But my son doesn’t appreciate their culinary nuance because he spreads peanut butter on them along with enough syrup to burst a dam.

    Yes, I think this conversation is going much, much better.

    Now let’s sing “Sunday Muddy Sunday.”

    Like

  231. Christian, E-mailing? We all need to be mindful that when this all takes place in public we could attract erstwhile “helpers” and Imposters who are far crazier than us. Maybe that’s what happened with Kenneth’s relatives. I’ve e-mailed Bryan a couple of times about Jason but no one about you that I can recall.

    Like

  232. You guys get a rabid theonomist or federal visionary on your ass*s and it’s Katy bar the door. I can not be responsible for the actions of everyone on my “team”. Some may not have the agape paradigm. Which is why mouthing off constantly may not be the way to go.

    Like

  233. I like it.

    I’m just pointing out Erik’s ability to lie in front of people who know he’s lying. I assume it bothers him, but I guess there could be some element of sociopathy to his personality, or perhaps his pride is just more important to him than his integrity.

    Like

  234. Cool.

    You seem better than Barney humble to me.

    I feel like I’m Homer. I aspire to be Flanders. Remember the image of this post.

    Like

  235. The lapsed Episcopalian used to make us buckwheat pancakes in his early 80s health food phase. (I wanted to get him some corn nuts for Xmas this year for old time’s sake, but couldn’t find any in the whole salty snack isle at Meijer. As providence would have it after the gift exchange, the Shell station up the street from his condo had some at the register. Doh.)

    Like

  236. Christian,

    O.K. Now this is getting interesting.

    First off, if you object to being addressed as “The Drunks”, you probably want to change the name of your podcast.

    Second off, There is truth to my e-mailing some people to see if they have been e-mailing you. Those people are “my people”, though, not “your people”. The way I was reading you, I thought you meant I was trying to contact your friends or something.

    I have an “inner circle” of Old Life friends that I communicate with in a way that I assumed was confidential. When you made reference to receiving e-mails about me I called them on the carpet and asked if it was any of them. Interestingly I received 4 denials and 3 non-responses.

    We could have a mole in the Old Life inner circle, in other words. If we do, it will change Old Life going forward. The plot thickens…

    If you actually have e-mails from someone in that inner circle that is something that you can hold over them because all of these guys are purporting to be NAPARC church members and officers in good standing. Choosing your side in all this would be extremely damaging to their credibility and people’s impressions of their integrity going forward. No one will trust them with any sensitive information in these ongoing debates.

    #DoubleAgent

    None of this explains why you would care that I was e-mailing my friends about you, even if they are only supposed friends. So what?

    Like

  237. Just so everyone knows the score (this is like a game of “Clue”):

    Denials that they are e-mailing The Drunks (I got my count wrong – it’s 3 denials and 4 no-responses):

    Sean
    Chortles Weakly
    Kent

    No-Response:

    Zrim
    D.G.
    Muddy Gravel
    Amish Ambush

    So either:

    (A) Christian is lying and no one is guilty
    (B) One of the deniers is lying and is guilty
    (C) One of the no-responders is either guilty or is not-guilty

    Like

  238. One thing people don’t get about me is that if I have to lie, be devious, or do things anonymously I’m not going to bother doing it. What is the point of going about religious-themed debate in a devious or non-straightforward way? It’s an oxymoron. If you do it that way you’ve already lost the debate before it starts. What you see from me is what you get.

    Like

  239. Erik,

    Dont you think it’s possible that people reading this are finding your behavior off putting enough that they feel obligated as officers in good standing to apologize for your actions? It has been pretty extreme and out of character for you. Just a thought….

    Like

  240. Christian,

    If you really have the e-mail I’m thinking you have, post the first sentence of the 4th paragraph here and I’ll know that you are not lying and one of the seven is guilty.

    I won’t ask you to give up the leaker’s name (if they really exist) because frankly I think they’re a gutless snake and I like the idea of you having leverage over them.

    Like

  241. Kenneth,

    I could go there if they are merely weighing in privately on my public posts. We don’t march in lockstep.

    Pretty much everyone, Catholic or Protestant, can agree that sharing the content of ostensibly private e-mails is not acceptable.

    There’s also a chance that whoever is behind this is the one messing with your family in an effort to make me look bad. If they’ll share private e-mails why wouldn’t they mess with innocent people, too?

    Like

  242. Kenneth,

    You have to grant that the point I got extreme with the lawsuit talk (which was about 80% just seeing how you would respond) was when you accused me of something heinous that I absolutely did not do. How do you respond when you are wrongly accused of something serious of which you are not guilty?

    All I’ve done beyond that in this whole exercise with you, Christian, and Jason is highlight your own public statements on podcasts and on public websites. Anyone can do that. None of it is private and not in the public domain.

    Like

  243. Updated Scorecard:

    Sean
    Chortles Weakly
    Kent
    Amish Ambush
    Muddy Gravel

    No-Response:

    Zrim
    D.G.

    One more possibility: Andrew – He’s on the denial list but is not in the group. Contacts me through Twitter. If he’s the “informant” I have no concern about that. I share nothing private with him.

    Like

  244. Erik, you can tell me to mind my own business and I won’t post another word to you on this subject.

    Now you’re friendless, so to speak. Why? Because you treated Jason like prey. Why? Is the loss of him to the Reformed church so lamentable that you chase him like Costanza chased the girl who “couldn’t stand him?”

    It doesn’t matter that the podcasts are public, preying on him like that is wrong and off kilter.

    And did you give one thought to this being DGH’s blog and that as a regular here you’re the servant, not him?

    You do seem an honest man to me.

    Lastly, this post wasn’t really about Jason, it was about the train (as JoeM notes) known as Francis coming down the track.

    Don’t have anything more to add except that I wish you peace and I love pancakes with blueberries. Not in the batter though. They screw everything up. Just over top the melted butter and syrup.

    P.S. Robert, papal pancakes are consistently light and fluffy. The recipe, however, is part of the nuncupative culinary magisterium. 🙂

    Like

  245. MLD,

    Since when does the point of the post have anything to do with the comments section?

    If treating Jason with kid gloves is the objective of Old Life, that’s news to the host.

    I’m on the record of saying we should be nice to him:

    http://literatecomments.com/2014/10/15/has-the-time-come-to-give-jason-stellman-a-mulligan/

    The point of documenting Drunk Ex Pastors was to see if Bryan and the Callers still supported him. Bryan weighed in yesterday – he does – so there’s no need to keep documenting it. I won’t – it’s irrelevant now.

    There’s years of history here that you’re missing. This place is not for the faint of heart.

    Like

  246. Erik,

    Fair enough on point of post and comments.

    Doubly fair enough that I’m uninformed on the history thing.

    I don’t mind a rough and tumble comment section, I’m an only daughter with three brothers.

    I think you’d be missed if you didn’t post anymore, so I hope everything works out fine here.

    Like

  247. MLD,

    Thanks. I think we’ll get it figured out one way or another.

    I trust the guys who have denied it, it’s frankly not D.G. or Zrim’s style to bind themselves with an oath, and if it’s Andrew or anyone else I’m not concerned.

    My thought is that Christian and Kenneth are making these supposed e-mails up. We’ll see if they can prove it, kind of like sending an ear to prove you’ve actually kidnapped someone. If they can’t or won’t prove it it’s just par for the course with those guys.

    Like

  248. My guess is that Kenneth is also making up the “Facebook Attacks”. No proof of those has been offered either.

    That’s the nice thing about Reformed people — we learn to deal in verifiable facts.

    Agnostics and Catholics like to deal in illusions, whether it’s supposing there might not be a God or in supposing that the Pope solves all religious questions.

    Like

  249. First off, if you object to being addressed as “The Drunks”, you probably want to change the name of your podcast. – Erik

    I’ve never objected to it. I’ve also never objected to anything I say on a podcast being re-published or broadcast. Do you think our goal is to not be heard? LOL

    Erik, you should give your friends the benefit of the doubt and assume I’m lying. At least then you’ll keep some friends. Last time I checked, people didn’t like being interrogated and mistrusted by their “friends.”

    Like

  250. Christian,

    O.K. I’ll assume you’re lying.

    So why did you come here and bring it up?

    Do you regularly lie and is that development pre or post Christianity?

    I though atheists and agnostics are all about facts and proof.

    Apparently you’re as bad at being an agnostic as you were at being a Christian.

    Like

  251. Christian,

    And “friends” belongs in quotes. This is all recreation. If it all goes away, real life is not impacted. These are all people in different places with whom my interaction is completely optional — just like with you.

    Like

  252. So why did you come here and bring it up?

    Same reason you were lying about suing Kenneth I guess, to see how you’d respond. You didn’t disappoint. Thank you.

    Like

  253. The interesting thing about this is how it all ties back to the infamous “sweetbreads” thread. It was a good lesson for me that has implications for everyone here in how to view and deal with the internet.

    I got mad at a guy because he took sides with a guy I was arguing against who, at the time, I thought was literally dangerous (Greg the Terrible). Since then I’ve come to realize he’s actually just a big ugly puppy dog who is harmless.

    The lesson I learned, though, is that you cannot confuse your online allies with your real life friends.

    The internet brings something out of all of us that is a deeply-entrenched part of our sinful human nature. Don’t confuse your online relationships with your real life friendships with your family, church friends, and personal friends — they’re not the same.

    You see all this in spades at Twitter, Facebook, etc. and you also see the problems that arise when people intermix their personal relationships with those mediums.

    You also see it on theological blogs, hopefully it’s a bit cleaner and more humane, but it’s still combat. If you know what you are involved in, it’s quite stimulating. If you get confused about what you are doing, though, it can lead to real-life problems.

    Like

  254. Christian,

    Difference is I was 20% serious about suing Kenneth. I’m not convinced I don’t have a case. Who wants to go through discovery and have to travel to Texas to win a suit against a guy who likely has no money?

    At least we now know you are a 100% liar. Glad I’m done listening to your sad, depressing podcast, Enjoy your agnostic life.

    Like

  255. It’s been a while since I have commented here, as the demands of life have almost squashed my discretionary time to nothing. But, we had to sit out of church today because the family is sick, and I am stuck as caretaker in chief. I still try to stay up on the dude’s posts and the more salient conversations in the comboxes, and when time permits a quick barb here and there…

    All this to say, this one has gone off the rails in a way that makes the old school dust-ups with Paul Manata seem like child’s-play (sean didn’t one of us challenge him to a good old bare knuckled brawl once), and the brou-ha-ha between Zrim and I over Reformed Resistance Theory seem positively infantile.

    As someone who loves OldLife and the open back and forth here, I think this one has gotten out of hand in the same fashion of the newsman brawl in Anchorman. Kind of like WWI, the spark was fairly small, the trenches have been dug, and nobody can quite remember why they are chucking grenades at each other, but they lob them nonetheless. Can’t we just go back to poking fun at Mark Jones? Seriously.

    *BTW, I am on my meds, and think that sounded pretty sane.

    Like

  256. Jed,

    Now that Christian has admitted he’s a liar I think it’s over.

    I’ve never taken on knuckleheads as big as him and Kenneth, short of the two guys subject to the Sowers rule, Richard Smith, and maybe Bryan Cross (not a knucklehead, but with his own unique charms).

    It’s probably a weakness, but I will not back down to guys like these. I’ll play it out to the bitter end, at least until the day comes that I just walk away for good.

    Like

  257. Mark Driscoll overtakes EC? And why is dreamweaver still on there?

    Top Keywords from Search Engines
    Which search keywords send traffic to this site?

    Keyword Percent of Search Traffic
    1. oldlife 67.53%
    2. dreamweaver gary wright 17.86%
    3. darryl hart 2.49%
    4. mark driscoll 1.73%
    5. erik charter 1.23%

    Like

  258. Several of you are probably mad at me right now, but consider this: I got Bryan freaking Cross to write a treatise lauding the virtues of saying “fuck”. Who else can pull that off?

    Give it all a few days to sink in and you’ll be asking for my PayPal account so you can send money.

    Also note that The Dude has maintained radio silence.

    I’ve sat at the feet of The Dude for some time now and have learned many lessons…

    Like

  259. Erik, words like “you should assume” and “I guess” do not an admission make. I’m trying to help you out here and let you keep some of your online friends. You have to ask yourself what reason I have to “cave,” don’t you? Chill out, dude. Quit while you’re ahead.

    Like

  260. Erik,

    To anyone even remotely familiar with litigation and “grown up” affairs you sound so ridiculous talking about suing me. I realize that it’s all a ploy to make yourself not look like a psycho…. But after this whole episode most people have already realized that you are disturbed. Instead, Your just making yourself look like an idiot with some kind of OCD who is projecting himself as a rottweiler doing battle in the trenches. You need to take Christians advice and take a few weeks off. You are not going to be able to salvage the situation. You need to get your head straight….. Make sure you have all your ducks in a row before you start writing Congressmen and hiring law firms. From a normal persons perspective… It reads like you’ve lost your frickin mind.

    You have forever lost credibility.

    Like

  261. Kenneth,

    Is that your opinion? Or do your opinions carry the weight of all 1.2 billion roman catholics in your church?

    We’re all very impressed with your borg cube of an apologetic, but I suggest the same for you.

    Give the internet a week off. This thread was not your best showing.

    Respond to me as your led. I’ll make sure to adjust my avatar photo appropriately to the level of sophistication of your comments.

    Peace, friend.

    Like

  262. Ken, lighten up with all the ‘forever’ talk. Even if you thought someone was unbalanced, is it your M.O. to pile on? ‘Hey look there’s the Asperger’s kid, let’s taunt him.’ I don’t particularly understand the situation nor do I really want to. But, if you think someone had a pathology that was aberrant, the tact wouldn’t be to poke him with a stick. If you’re above it all, then be above it all. I know, I know; ‘but he started it, blah blah blah.’ You can’t control someone else but you can regulate yourself. It’s the internet and it’s filled with sinners and all the social irregularities and even oddities of virtual community, so, let’s all take a breath and not play God as regards to other’s character. Plus, you still haven’t convinced me how it is that the consequences of Vat II have been ‘put down.’ I’m pretty sure the RC’s I interact with daily are all products of those consequences.

    Like

  263. Sean,

    Youre right. Moving on….

    Yves Congar once commented that the anniversary of V2 sounded to him more like funeral bells. Which goes to show how frustrated he was with the reign of JP2. It just wasn’t the victory for liberalism you think it was….. We are still waiting to see. The Synod on the family will be an interesting book mark. We shall see

    Like

  264. sean, this thread is a trainwreck. You won’t have missed anything if you just read Darryl’s post and comment accordingly.

    The internet can really be a waste of time. I should be ashamed of myself.

    I’ll be digging up my sackloth and ashes, toodles all.

    Like

  265. IOW Kenneth’s trumpeting that this thread is the great leveler and revealer of EC is as pathetic as his other’s claims that the thread on the drunk’s website somehow achieved something of value.

    We’re all just wasting our time, yelling, “LEEEERRROOOOYYYY JENNNNNNNNkkkins!!”

    Finding something useful with my time,
    Andrew

    Like

  266. Sorry, not his (Kenneth), but I think Erik believes we owe him royalites for his service on the drunk website.

    This is all just a video game, and we all have better things to do. Other threads. Even more fun video games.

    Sorry.

    Like

  267. loser ken, I’m with Erik on this. You’re making 10k a week by overcharging the govt. is far creepier than what EC is doing here. Why, what you’re doing by your own church’s teaching is a big deal — call it mortal sin.

    Not to mention grown men — one a recent convert to RC’sm — talking about masturbation in public. What happened to Humanae Vitae?

    Like

  268. Daryl,

    My “overcharging the government” comment was sarcasm. They set and regulate the pricing not us. So…. That’s not a mortal sin or a sin at all. But way to stick up for your boy. Nice effort

    The Magesterium has never creepily looked me up on FB.

    Like

  269. Maybe Kenneth can get hired to sell ads for the secret version of Facebook that isn’t visible to everyone on the internet…

    Could pay even better than selling overpriced drugs.

    Like

  270. Thanks for the support, D.G.

    No surprise that it came from the guy who will go toe-to-toe with guys like Kenneth & Christian, plus misguided guys within our own movement, at a real cost to himself, under his real name — and do it for decades.

    That’s why I’m here and why I think you are a one-of-a-kind who will not be seen again in my lifetime.

    Like

  271. Erik,

    Maybe Kenneth can get hired to sell ads for the secret version of Facebook that isn’t visible to everyone on the internet…

    Now that’s funny! See, a little support from your boy and already your settling back into the groove.

    Like

  272. If anyone wants to know where Christan and jason are headed, read the titles:

    http://ohnopodcast.com/

    They have farther to fall. “Ross and Carrie Touch Themselves: Breast and Penis Enlargement Edition”

    “Ross and Carrie Engage in Cupping: Our Skin Runneth Over”

    the colon cleanse episode: “Ross and Carrie Colon-ize: Colon Cleansing and Hydrotherapy Edition”

    my wife went to xtian school with ross. its really sad. people reject xtianity and romans 1 is soooo true. debased mind, yo.

    Like

  273. Daryl,

    priests look you up on facebook holily?

    Haha no I don’t think I want to go there.

    do you tithe? Or do you play Bingo?

    Spend it all on captain Morgan and cigarettes. I’m stock piling both for the end days.

    Like

  274. Erik,

    Fwiw:

    If anyone should send you remuneration, it’s Jason. You’re helping expose more hair brained operations and bozos like Kenneth who seek to derail his honest efforts.

    Good work, Erik. If you are this way as an elder in your church, your church-mates have much to be thankful for, for you.

    I expect Kenneth to keep trolling this thread, so I just wanted to get this in. Talk to you later, rottweiler (wink).

    Like

  275. For those who missed it, Bryan waxes eloquent on how Jason & Christian yukking it up over “snail trails” is really just Jason being a 21st Century G.K. Chesterton writing his “Father Brown” stories.

    It takes a world-class sophist and a very prideful man to come up with a whopper like that.

    http://www.drunkexpastors.com/podcast-28-yoga-pants-gay-husbands-and-incest/#comment-853

    Bryan Cross
    February 7, 2015 at 7:45 AM

    Erik,

    Though I haven’t listened to all the podcasts, the only thing I disagree with Jason about, so far as I know, is his claim that the rest of us at CTC are better Catholics than he is. Also, morality does not include all cultural taboos or norms. In a fundamentalist paradigm, saying ‘fuck’ is a sin. But not in the agape paradigm, within which ‘fuck’ can be said while loving God above all else as Father, and loving one’s neighbor as oneself for God’s sake. Jason gets this, which is why he is rightly comfortable in his earthy humanity, as was Chesterton, O’Connor, Waugh, Greene, and Percy. (Just read Percy!) The saints are very diverse; no two saints are identical. Each has a different set of gifts, a different style, a different personality. Not only is there room within the Church for all these different styles, but we each benefit from them all, and in this way we need and appreciate these different styles and gifts, because they exemplify different facets of the Good, which none of us individually fully exemplify. In short, in the Body of Christ we all (myself included) benefit from what is unique in Jason’s style. So not only is Jason a friend and brother (though I’m a lousy friend on my end when he’s in need), I’m grateful for everything about him that is different from me.

    Also, if you can get a little distance, read through this thread again as if through the eyes of a third-party (if you can), and ask yourself what it means when a self-professed agnostic is so much more kind, giving, long-suffering, gracious, charitable, and (dare I say it) Christ-like, than yourself. What does it say about your paradigm when an agnostic so clearly and obviously out-loves you? Something in 1 Cor 13 seems pertinent. But 1 Cor 13 came after the Damascus road, when a man infatuated and obsessed with the laws, and in the name of the law breathing murderous threats and seeking to stamp out those even in far away places who had entered into the agape paradigm, came face to face with Agape Himself. He discovered that Agape Himself was that to which all those laws pointed. And there and then this man was lifted into a higher paradigm, the agape paradigm, according to which laws are for persons, not persons for the law, because the telos of the law is love, which is irreducibly both Personal and Inter-Personal. If the measure is love, then everything without love becomes a clanging cymbal, not only empty, but off-putting. And a paradigm that breeds and applauds love-less behavior by that very fact refutes and destroys itself, in spite of itself. So if you find yourself in a paradigm in which love-less behavior is bred, encouraged, and applauded, where individuals are continually attacking and devouring one another, where genuine insults (not the affectionate sort) are the norm, where getting the speck out of the neighbor’s eye is everyone’s obsession, then it might be time to reconsider seriously whether you’ve taken a wrong turn at some point.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  276. Erik,

    Loser ken said he needs an escape from the hard work of raising three small kids.

    That’s all I can must as to the why. He never answers my questions. They are too hard for him (and too many words, I will try to keep my words to 140, and very short to boot).

    Peace.

    Like

  277. By the way, prudence dicates we look up online the bozos who harras and seek to defame us in these silly blogs. Props for finding him on Facebook, Erik. It wasn’t creepy at all. Again, well done.

    Here’s the comment back in march I keep talking about. Ken just drops the creep bomb when things get hard for him. Can you say, loser ken?

    Kenneth Winsmann
    MARCH 12, 2014 AT 6:08 AM
    Andrew,

    If you would just read the link that you posted about me accusing the reformed of believing in a “legal fiction” it was just a joke…. Everyone understood that it was a joke except for you… I guess you still didn’t get the memo? I don’t think I understand why you are following me around like a creeper bringing up old convos on a different blog…. Do you have anything nice to contribute to the conversation besides a wild change of topic? I’ve already seen the insulting, rude and crass side of reformed protestants over at OL… I was hoping to get to see a new perspective from Tim and it’s been very enjoyable thus far.
    http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/03/09/throwing-god-off-the-cliff/#comment-132

    Like

  278. I had two seven layer burritos (no sour cream, healthy, you know) last night, with all this taco bell talk, and the kids had their fill. It was beautiful. They have some crazy @$$ new things on their menu, some creepy crunch wrap nonsense. Great theme music, you’re on your A-game this last week. Off to watch the delay of the grammys.

    peace.

    Like

  279. It’s apparently Darryl’s frault (from Andrew’s White Horse Inn link):

    Kenneth Winsmann
    MARCH 12, 2014 AT 8:50 PM

    And also for the record I have not just “shown up” to reformed blogs just to attack people like a troll (although that is what you have done here). Daryl has repeatedly said they he wants me at Old Life while the rest of you took bets on how long I could stomach the abuse and stick around. Obviously I think RC claims are true and because I love others enjoy sharing that truth with them in the hope of spreading the cause. Tim has already been there and do everything that and swam the Tiber in the opposite direction…. Hence, a great opportunity to dialog.

    Like

  280. Erik, it’s great to have a dimwit catholic to have as target practice. we should be quiet and let kenneth engage with someone else here, and just watch him make a fool of himself.

    that blog is awesome, got to fight with the big bad ass blogger catholic nick himself. that thread i linked you to is itself a riot.

    but don’t let this blog garbage take you away from what matters. i know you never do.

    again, peace homeslice.

    Like

  281. Erik, best part of the BCross quote:

    {Paraphrase}

    I dont listen to this podcast, but nothing said here contradicts what ive said.

    What a clown. These aren’t video games
    These blogs are a circus.

    Its like, I don’t drink beer, but when I do
    The Most Interesting Man in the World: http://youtu.be/L8nt94LCyqY

    Break out the popcorn.

    Like

  282. loser ken, I’m with Erik on this. You’re making 10k a week by overcharging the govt. is far creepier than what EC is doing here. Why, what you’re doing by your own church’s teaching is a big deal — call it mortal sin.

    Au contraire DG. To whom much is given much is required. I can expect stupid or immature stuff from Romanists or at least allow for it. Not my job to police them per se. But from professing reformed believers/elders? Get serious.

    Rom 3:8. This is elementary. If descending to these guys’ level is the only way to pursue them, then it’s not worth it. Why go there?

    If Ken running a rip off, nail him. Hard.
    But the blowhard bullshtick boasting that has accompanied all this is juvenile.
    Comments are open, but twerps preening and flaunting their immaturity don’t further the truth or their reputation of having a love for it, even if Jase and Chris are over the edge.
    As if they don’t already tell us that in the title of their podcast.

    The original post and thread?
    The Word Count Wunder Kid doesn’t understand perspicuity according to the Roman dialectic. Consequently he thinks Vat2 didn’t change anything, however much sean is trying to hip him to the fact that for one, anathema and separated brethren are not synonyms in any real paradigm worthy of the name.

    The smug fellow in the flat hat?
    He still thinks that the CIP is all about love without the law and the PIP is all about keeping the law without love.
    No mention of course, in all this of the Scriptural paradigm: “for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. . . love is the fulfilling of the law Rom.13:8,10.”

    But his comments weren’t responsive the last time we went through all this either here or at Green Baggins.
    So what else is new?

    cheers

    Like

  283. Bob,

    I think you are funny and I appreciate your wit and candor.

    But I think you’re wrong. Unless you know Erik in real life, you don’t get to tear him down like that.

    Go get a beer or s