Posted on 07/26/2013 2:04:17 PM PDT by NYer
Sunday, June 21, marked the 90th anniversary of the Scopes Monkey Trial decision. The questions surrounding evolution—meaning, in particular, the origins of humans—still raise large and important questions for how we understand human nature and the doctrine of original sin. But Jason Stellman thinks that the obsession with our physical origins, though understandable, is perhaps theologically off-kilter. Where we've come from biologically is not as important as where we're heading. It's not the beginning of the journey, man—it's the destination. Stellman's The Destiny of the Species (Wipf and Stock, 2013) is a brief, rollicking, and readable apologetic, notable not just for turning the question of origins on its head, but also for pioneering a slightly different route from the path taken by many Catholic converts in their first books.
From Prosecutor to Papist Stellman's own personal story is compelling. Born and raised in Orange County, California, Stellman came to serious faith in the context of the Evangelicalism of the California preacher Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel ministries. He served as a Protestant missionary in both Hungary and Uganda before turning to a more theologically rigorous form of Protestantism: Calvinism. Stellman attended Westminster Seminary in Escondido, California and began ministering in the Presbyterian Church in America, the largest conservative Presbyterian denomination in the U.S., planting Exile Presbyterian Church in Woodinville, WA in 2004. Stellman's name came into the limelight when he was chosen to serve as the chief prosecutor in the 2011 heresy trial of fellow Presbyterian minister Peter Leithart, a Calvinist writer and scholar known to readers of journals including First Things and Touchstone. Leithart's views were accused of being in line with a school of Presbyterian thought known as the “Federal Vision,” and he was tried for, among other charges, allegedly failing to distinguish justification and sanctification, divine law and divine grace, and teaching that baptism confers grace and divine adoption. In short, Leithart was on trial for being too Catholic.
Although Stellman's work as prosecutor was acknowledged as solid at the time, Leithart was acquitted by the Northwest Presbytery. In the time after this trial, however, Stellman himself began to question certain historic Protestant beliefs like sola scriptura and sola fide. Through a number of contacts, including the group of formerly Calvinist Catholic apologists centered around the “Called to Communion” (calledtocommunion.com) website, which was founded to foster dialogue with and provide apologetics precisely for Calvinists who suspected the Catholic Church of being right or at least having something to say, Stellman began the journey that ended with his own entrance into the Church on September 23, 2012. Over the last year Stellman has been doing catechesis in a Seattle-area parish, and he now works at Logos Bible Software, developing resource material that will provide an easy way to look at the Scriptures in the light of Patristic and Medieval sources as well as the teachings of the Magisterium.
Apologetics for Everyone Much of Catholic apologetics in English-speaking countries, and increasingly in Latin America, has focused on the differences between Catholics and Protestants. This is not surprising given that large swaths of Evangelical Protestants were baptized as Catholics and left the Church due to the catechetical and spiritual failures of post-conciliar American Catholicism. Sherry Wedell of the Catherine of Siena Institute has written extensively of this phenomenon, which continues to this day—many Catholics who hunger for solid biblical teaching and help in living a life of Christian discipleship seek out elsewhere what they should find in Catholic faith. They find it in the Protestant world where large parts of the Catholic faith have been conserved, especially devotion to Scripture, a serious search for divine intimacy, and the main outlines of Christian morality. Thus Catholic apologetics has been naturally geared toward showing lapsed Catholics and the Protestants they have joined that Catholic faith actually fulfills what they are looking for in a more coherent and comprehensive way. This is an important task—and the importance of it has born great fruit over the last thirty years, not only bringing many serious Protestant pastors, academics, and laity into full communion, but changing the dynamic of Catholic-Protestant relations. During the last two papal conclaves, I have been asked a number of times by Evangelical Protestants about the candidates and what they have to offer. In 2005 one Evangelical Presbyterian friend asked me, “Are we going to get a really good Pope?” I was tempted to answer after the fashion of Tonto when the Lone Ranger asked what chance there was of the duo escaping a wrathful Indian tribe: “Who is this 'we,' white man?” But I didn't, because such a recognition shows how much anti-Catholicism has been tamed in the age of John Paul II, Catholic Answers, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, and all the other efforts of apologetics and dialogue.
Stellman certainly has done his part in explaining his own move, writing an essay titled “I Fought the Church, and the Church Won” and giving an in-depth interview on “Called to Communion” as well as engaging in various interesting questions about the real differences between Catholics and Calvinists on his personal blog, “Creed Code Cult”. But refreshingly, Stellman's Destiny of the Species is actually not geared toward Protestants interested in or annoyed by Mary, the Pope, Purgatory, and Indulgences. It is an apologetic for Christianity as a whole after the fashion of Chesterton's Orthodoxy or Lewis's Mere Christianity, geared toward those who might be “spiritual but not religious,” “nones,” lapsed Catholics who have left Christian faith behind altogether or are already practicing some other sort of faith, and Christians of all sorts, whether Catholic or not. What he has produced is an old-fashioned apologetic for everyone.
Back to the Future Stellman's book, written around the time of the 150th anniversary of Darwin's Origin of the Species, arrived not only in time for the 90th anniversary of the Scopes Monkey Trial, but also Pope Francis's first encyclical, Lumen Fidei, with which it bears some striking similarities. Destiny of the Species begins with the premise that while our biological origins are of interest to us, Darwin ultimately “doesn't scratch where we truly itch.” We certainly eat, drink, defecate, breathe, and move in ways that remind us we are animals. But unlike other animals, whose existence is instinctual, man “is not pushed but pulled, not driven but drawn.” Your dog may appreciate a good nap, a beef, and a burgundy, but we have desires for glory, love, and life that has no end. We are, says Stellman, “hard-wired for heaven.” All of the frantic search for someplace else and something new that Tocqueville found in so pure a form in America (and that more recent writers like David Brooks and Wendell Berry have wryly observed or excoriated) is the sign not simply of biological urge, but spiritual need. Stellman uses Chesterton's fine phrase to describe it: divine discontent. We all hunger for a future that is more than we can experience now.
Like Lumen Fidei, Stellman is proposing that human discontent and restlessness should be answered not by quelling them, but by seeking answers to them. Francis answers Nietzsche's dictum that “if you want peace of soul and happiness, then believe, but if you want to be a follower of truth, then seek,” noting that “autonomous reason is not enough to illumine the future”. Stellman observes that for the vast bulk of people, the way to apparent peace and happiness is not belief, but “worldliness”—simply following our biological needs and various emotional passions for things, fame, revenge, and pharmacologically-induced good feelings. The way of belief, according to Stellman, is actually the path to truth and the only way to real peace and happiness. The rest of his book is dedicated to illuminating the truth that, as Pope Francis puts it, “the light of faith is unique, since it is capable of illuminating every aspect of human existence.” It is “a light coming from the future and opening before us vast horizons which guide us beyond our isolated selves towards the breadth of communion.”
The seeker with a pure heart will not choose between belief and truth, but between competing beliefs. Again, like Pope Francis, Stellman emphasizes that our choice is really between true belief and idolatry. Stellman's middle chapters survey the various false gods that humans encounter, offering treatments of the five vanities surveyed in the book of Ecclesiastes, the temptations of a technologically advanced and affluent society, and how the universal acknowledgment of sin's reality usually issues in our identification of it in someone else's life. We all love to confess others' sins while staying silent about our own. Stellman's treatment is generally good in this section, though it must be said that his treatment of the dangers of life in a consumer society tend toward a sort of stereotyped vision of business and markets that might have been better left out or at least balanced by a recognition of the dangers of modern do-gooderism present in non-profit and government work, too. Stellman, whose views are probably left-of-center, occasionally seems as if he's making a brief against politically conservative Christians and not a brief for Christianity. Jibes at those who watch FOX News or take different views on political issues detract from what is solid and permanent in his exposition. This leads to a second difficulty in the book. Stellman uses a variety of pop-culture references to make his points. Many of them, such as his use of The Matrix to illuminate the choice we have to make between simply distracting ourselves and offering ourselves to seek the truth, hit home. Not all of them do. Rock music fans, especially U2 fans, sometimes need to be reminded that song lyrics seldom stand well on their own.
Stellman really excels when he is bringing out the great riches present in Scripture. Again, mirroring Lumen Fidei, Stellman shows how the Decalogue is meant not simply as a veto on naughty human actions, but as a liberation of humans from the passions and idolatries he's been describing and toward a life of spiritual abundance. (I would complain that he describes the Commandments using the Protestant rather than the Catholic numbering, but my own contribution to ecumenical outreach is to say let's do it the way Protestants and Jews do.) Using Job, Stellman shows how the real objection to God's existence, the problem of evil, is met by God's presence, ultimately in the form of Jesus Christ, whose Resurrection and Ascension show us, in a limited way, what we will be. Stellman's final pop-culture flourish is to use the movie Memento, which tells its story alternating between scenes starting in the beginning and moving forward and the end moving backward, as an analogy to the way in which the light of faith works. We know the destiny of the species is assured, but the light of faith, while illuminating all of life, doesn't usually show us more than we need for our own personal immediate steps ahead. “One step enough for me,” in Newman's famous words. Stellman's vision of Christianity answers exactly to the two primary aspects of Chesterton's personal philosophy in Orthodoxy. In the light of the future prepared for us, life is both familiar and unfamiliar, marvelous and unsatisfactory. It is not merely a biological process, but a high adventure. The Destiny of the Species: Man and the Future that Pulls Him
by Jason J. Stellman
Wipf & Stock, 2013
128 pages
When did the RC Church start? Who founded it?
Who were these saints; how do we know they had authority to compile the New Testament?
Jesus told Peter that he would found a Church with Peter as the rock and that Peter would have the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Apostolic Succession rests on these keys being handed down from one person to the next. There is nothing in the NT that says they cannot be, nor is there anything that says they can be. So what happens to these keys?
Using Hosea 2, we have that Christians are the New Jews/Israel. The tribe of Judah ruled over all the tribes of Israel. However, due to misbehavior, 10 of the tribes rebelled and formed their own Kingdom. That Kingdom fell to sin. In Isaiah 22, we have the curious case that the key to the House of David can be passed down from generation to generation and that the holder of the key can open a door that none can shut and can shut the same door that none can open.
If you will do a word study on petra versus petros and then reread the text you will see that Rome completely misinterprets the passage. Be a Berean and study for yourself. Eternity is too long to be wrong.
Here is a simple easy-to-read breakdown:
Is The Church Built on “Petros” or “Petra”?
http://www.trustingodamerica.com/Petra.htm
Here are a few more helpful links:
Papal Claim of Apostolic Succession
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/01_On_Catholicism/Papal_Claim_of_Apostolic_Succession.pdf
Papal Claim to Have the Keys of the Apostle Peter
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/01_On_Catholicism/Papal%20Claim%20to%20Have%20the%20Keys%20of%20the%20Apostle%20Peter.DOC
What Every Catholic Should Know
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/02_Good_News_for_Catholics/What%20Every%20Catholic%20Should%20Know.doc
The Testimony of a Former Catholic Priest (video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvID3lRyYIc&feature=relmfu
Concerning what every Catholic should know:
Whose word is truth?
First, that quote from Canon does not say anything about Scripture. All it says is the Pope has infallible teaching authority. If the Pope has infallible teaching authority, this is granted by God, not by men.
The actual quote from Matt 4:4 and 2Tim 3:16 do not contradict the infallibility doctrine. All the quote from Mark means is that true Tradition cannot contradict the Word of God. In reference to the Pope, this means that what he infallibly teaches cannot contradict the Word of God, not that he cannot contradict your interpretation of it.
Catholics do not worship sacred images; veneration is not worship. And Catholics do not bow down before sacred images. There is a difference between bowing down before, and bowing down in front of. The earlier one implies that it is because of the image that we bow; the latter implies that it is because of what the image represents. When a Catholic bows in front of a statue of Jesus, we are bowing because of Jesus, not the statue. Jesus does not have one nature with the statue. When interpreting commands in Torah, be careful, as there is a command in Torah that prohibits eating cheeseburgers; however, because of how it is worded and what it fully prohibits, it comes across as a moral, not ritual, commandment. If you want to claim that the Catechism of the Catholic Church incorporates Ex 20:4-5, fine, but keep in mind it is under the subheading of “Love the Lord thy God”. As we are not worshiping the sacred art, I am uncertain of how the Sacred Art is a failure to Love God.
Sacrifice: Whoever wrote that has clearly failed to read those passages in the context of what surrounds them. Also, we agree there is one sacrifice. The Eucharistic Celebration in Mass is not redoing the sacrifice. The Body and Blood in Mass is the same Body and the same Blood in the original Sacrifice. How do you intend to explain 1 Cor 11:27-32? This gives credence to the Catholic belief that one should be in a state of Grace before partaking in Communion. Paul says that Jesus said, “This chalice is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
In addition Paul concludes 1 Cor 11 with a statement he will give more directions when he comes. What directions did he give? Since he has books in the Bible, what he said there must carry weight.
Priests:
Concerning 1 Peter 2:9, this is almost a direct quote of Ex 19:6. In this one God tells the Israelites that they will be to him a Kingdom of priests. However, not every single Israelite is/was a priest. The first requirement to be a priest was to be a Levite, and not every Israelite was a Levite. Going back to 1 Cor and examing 12:1-31, we see that Paul states we are all one body, but each of us has a different function within that body.
1 Tim 2:5 only says there is one mediator; it does not deny the possibility of subordinate mediators. When we examine Hebrews 5,6, and 7, Paul repeatedly refers to Jesus as the new High Priest. He does not explicitly mention what happened to the lower priests. While it is clear that Jesus is the High Priest in the Order of Melchizedek, it is unclear if there can be subordinate priests. However, we have a curious statement in Hebrews 7:25, Jesus “lives to make intercession for them.” Where else do we see intercessions made? In 1 Tim 2:1, Paul requests that intercessions be made (amongst other things for a list of people). Someone is supposed to imitate Christ by interceding.
Baptism/Salvation:
In Acts, we have several baptisms. In Acts 9:18, Paul is baptized. There is no statement as to how or with what. So we will backtrack to Acts 8:26-39. Phillip converts an Ethiopian Eunuch. While talking with the Eunuch, they come upon some water and the Eunuch asks if he can be baptized. Both Phillip and the Eunuch go down to the water and the Eunuch is baptized with the water. However, I suppose this is not enough, but I cannot find a passage that says the water is unnecessary. When Jesus was baptized, it was with water.
And whoever wrote this has taken Romans 11:6 out of context. The beginning of Romans 11 makes it clear that Paul is talking about the Jews. He then proceeds to say that there is a remnant chosen by Grace and the choice is no longer done because of Works. This is clearly referring to the Jewish sacrifices in the Temple. It is likely that anywhere else it denies the necessity of Works, it is a denial of Works of the Law.
If you want an example of where Paul speaks highly of Baptism as a work the attains justification, examine Romans 6:3. Here he says that we are baptized into Jesus. From this, we are baptized into his death and resurrection.
Petros v. Petra
The initial problem with this analysis is that it looks at Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. While the Bible was written in Greek, Jesus spoke Aramaic.
It does raise an interesting point that Peter denied Jesus and so the Gates of Hell prevailed against Peter (sort of, kind of, not really). Peter sinned by denying Jesus, but then became one of the people proclaiming Jesus.
However, Jesus says that he WILL build his Church on a rock, not that he IS building his Church on a rock. This indicates that at some future point the Church will be built, not that it is being built at the present time. Examining this passage, Ephesians 2:20, Paul says that the household of God is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Jesus is the cornerstone. If you look up a cornerstone, it is the first stone laid and all other stones are set in reference to it.
There is a simple explanation why Matthew used the masculine form when referring to Peter; Peter is a man not a woman, ergo, the masculine is used. However, there is another realization here. First the masculine is used and then the feminine. The masculine means movable rock; the feminine means immovable rock. This refers to Peter’s faith not being solid at the present time (movable) and that it will be solid (immovable) in the future.
Every single translation I can find of Acts 4:10-11 follows it by saying Jesus is the cornerstone. See earlier comment about cornerstones.
If you examine 1 Cor 4:15, while it is through the Gospel that they are begotten, Paul does beget them (through the Gospel). They (through the Gospel) are the children of Paul.
We have in Luke 9:46, that the disciples quarrel. Later in Luke 11, Jesus gives the Lord’s prayer. In Luke 13:18, Jesus repeats the parable of the Mustard seed. In Matthew, the Lord’s Prayer is given in 6:9. The parable of the Mustard Seed is in 13:31. Peter is appointed Chief Apostle in 15:18. The quarrel happens BEFORE the appointment.
As for there being no title of Pope in the Bible. Okay. A simple explanation is that while the office existed in some form or another, it had not yet attained the title Pope. Also the true title is Bishop of Rome. During Acts 2, Peter was not yet a Bishop, let alone Bishop of Rome, ergo, he could not hold the title Pope. That does not mean he was not the leader of the Apostles. Which is seen in Acts 2, when Peter is the one to address the crowd. In Acts 4, it is Peter, not John, that is filled with the Holy Spirit. Skipping ahead to Acts 10, the repealing of Kosher Laws is proclaimed to Peter, not one of the other Apostles. If anything this also confirms the notion of Papal Infallibility as an infallible proclamation (no need to keep Kosher) was made to Peter. Fast forward to Acts 15, after a lot of debate, Peter stands up states that it is by his mouth the gentiles should hear the Word of the Lord.
At the end of the Gospel according to John, Jesus specifically calls out Peter and gives him commands. The Church maintains that the Pope is to be the most humble of all priests. This is not to say they always act like that. In Matthew and Mark, when Jesus goes to pray in Gethsemane, he takes Peter, James and John deeper into the Garden. When he comes back, they are sleeping. He specifically calls out Peter rather than the other two; he is holding Peter to higher account.
Bottom line: you trust Rome and the Pope. You elevate them over God and His word.
I’m done here, but I will pray of you.
In all of this, you have furnished Bible verses that are clearly taken out of context or ignore other passages that have related meanings. On a couple, certain words in the verse are clearly ignored.
You appear to have a wonderful ability to spew out Bible verses without any ability to string them together.
But I thank you for the challenge without which I would not have found Papal Infallibility in the Bible.
Whatever. After my first comment or two I stopped taking you seriously because I don’t think you are interested in the truth. So you go ahead and believe your pope is infallible. Meanwhile, based on the Bible, I believe your pope is Antichrist. And go ahead and chant your Hail Marys and rub your rosary beads, but I believe that lucky rabbits foot is a pagan practice. Spiritual truths are spiritually discerned.
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14
I dare you to listen to even the first two sermons from the sermon series linked below on Antichrist.
I also dare you to read the information in these links. They won’t take long to read.
From Tradition To Truth: A Priest’s Story
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/02_Good_News_for_Catholics/A%20Priest’s%20Story%20by%20Richard%20Bennett.doc
Thy Word is Truth
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/02_Good_News_for_Catholics/Thy_Word_Is_Truth.pdf
What Every Catholic Should Know
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/02_Good_News_for_Catholics/What%20Every%20Catholic%20Should%20Know.doc
One is quite capable if praying the Rosary without the beads. It is not the presence of beads that makes the Rosary. It is the intent, the time, and the reflection on oneself and the mysteries that make the Rosary. The point of the beads is to keep track of where one is in prayer. There are 5 sets of 10 Hail Marys; one needs a way to keep track of where one is. If you want a biblical basis for using certain objects in Worship and Prayer, Ex 13:9,16 and Deut 6:8, 11:18.
I am not watching videos or listening to audio tapes. If the message is worthwhile, it should be transcribed. The Church does this. Also, if you want to be more effective, I suggest you publish those .doc files as PDFs or Web pages. Handling an increasing number of .doc files is irritating.
Concerning “Thy Word is Truth”
The only one that actually appears to be a contradiction is the one concerning holiness. Holiness comes from God. If we say someone is holy, that is God’s holiness radiated through them. Where do we see this? Rev 12, where Mary is clothed with the Sun. Oh, wait a second, it does not say the Mary is the Sun, only that she is clothed with it.
Believe as YOU WLL.
Yeah I think I remember this guy from James White’s Dividing Line.
Obviously that should have said:
Believe as YOU WILL
I notice that you post Bible passages. When I explain why I believe your interpretation is incorrect, you post more; you don’t explain why mine is wrong.
And your point is...........what?
You said, “Excuse me, but god supposedly designed things so that there can never be any virgin mothers.” I am contradicting that statement.
So are you aware of any virgin mothers other than the one described in the bible over 2,000 years ago?
I would guess not.
Okay, so I guess in your book, Joseph was a cuckold. Just looked it up. That is some weird perversion that I won’t even discuss here.
While you’re at it, please explain to me how Adam and Eve were able to populate the planet without some incest going on.
A cuckold is the husband of a woman who has cheated on him for her own pleasure. By agreeing to bear God’s Son, Mary was doing this for God not her own pleasure. Joseph was not a cuckold. This is a unique event in the history of mankind so the standard ways of interpreting it won’t work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.