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
There seems to be a LOT of this going on in this thread.
You are correct: no EVIDENCE.
And my cat WAS eaten by aliens!
I told you it was true; so what EVIDENCE do you have to say that poor Fluffy was NOT on the Martian Menu?
No, I clearly said “you” twice.
It looks as if anti-Catholics struggle with basic reading comprehension as well as everything else.
No, it’s all from just one side.
That’s not what I said. Leave it to the anti-Catholic to lie.
“And my cat WAS eaten by aliens!”
Yeah. You stay with that line.
“I told you it was true; so what EVIDENCE do you have to say that poor Fluffy was NOT on the Martian Menu?”
Wow, you seem so desperate.
Talk about Bible lessons, this is a text which is subject to to two different interpretations, and as TMK is not infallibly defined by Rome (very few are) is one in which RCs may exercise their great liberty to interpret Scripture in order to support Rome.
The support for the position that Elijah did not actually go to Heaven is first that of 2 Chronicles 21:12-15 ("And there came a writing to him [Jehoram] from Elijah the prophet, saying,..), yet, while substantial, this only states Elijah was the source, and not that he sent it from some place on earth after he was taken to Heaven.
The approved notes in your official Bible states,
Elijah: this is the Chronicler’s only mention of this prophet of the Northern Kingdom. It is doubtful that Elijah was still living in the reign of Jehoram of Judah; in any case, the attribution of the letter to him has a folkloristic quality.
The approved notes in the Catholic Haydock commentary states,
Le Clerc would read Eliseus. Grotius supposes that all passed in a dream. Others think that Elias had written the letter before his removal from the conversation of men, some years before, foreseeing the impiety of Joram, and leaving the letter with Eliseus, to be delivered unto him. (Menochius) (Junius) --- But the most common opinion is, that the prophet wrote it in paradise, (Calmet) and sent it to the king by an angel, &c. (Seder. xvii.) (Bellarmine) (Tirinus) --http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id976.html-
Prot. Keil & Delitzsch opined in their Commentary,
" there is not a word in the Chronicles about any letter (ספרים, ספר, or אגרת, which would be the Hebrew for a letter); all that is said is that a writing (מכתב) from the prophet Elijah was brought to Joram, in which he was threatened with severe punishments on account of his apostasy. Now such a writing as this might very well have been written by Elijah before his ascension [see 2Chrn. 35:4, in which a writing is from deceased David] and handed to Elisha to be sent by him to king Joram at the proper time. Even Bertheau admits that, according to the chronological data of the Old Testament, Elijah might have been still living in the reign of Joram of Judah; and it is a priori probable that he both spoke of Joram's sin and threatened him with punishment. It is impossible to fix the year of Elijah's ascension. Neither the fact that it is mentioned after the death of Ahaziah of Israel, which he himself had personally foretold to that ungodly king, nor the circumstance that in the war which Jehoshaphat and Joram of Israel waged with the Moabites the prophet Elisha was consulted (1 Kings 3), warrants the conclusion that Elijah was taken from the earth in the interval between these two events. It is very obvious from 2Ki_3:11, that the two kings applied to Elisha simply because he was in the neighbourhood, and not because Elijah was no longer alive.)
The second verse which militates against Elijah being in glory is Jn. 3:13:
And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven.
At face value this excludes anyone from being in Heaven as meaning God's abode, the place of His throne, (Mt. 5:34) and which i am inclined to concur with. Not that Elijah was still on earth, but Heaven is not used precisely of God's throne, but Scripture speaks of heavens, as in Ps. 8:1,3: "...who hast set thy glory above the heavens..;." Psa 68:33: "To him that rideth upon the heavens of heavens;" Psa 103:19: " The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all. 2Cor. 12:2: "such an one caught up to the third heaven."
It is thus possible that Elijah was taken up into Heaven, but not to God's abode, who is " dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. " (1 Timothy 6:16)
It is this Heaven that the Lord Jesus is referring to, and which He came down from, speaking of things above. And we also see that as "the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing," (Heb. 9:8) "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins," (Hebrews 10:4) thus OT saints such as the beggar of Lk 16:19ff were in paradise, Abraham's bosom, whom the crucified Christ first descended to and led captivity captive and then ascended to God. (Eph. 4:9) Thus, "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." (Matthew 27:52-53) And after which Paradise is now the 3rd heaven.(2Cor. 12:2)
It is also uncharacteristic of Scripture to not tell us of the earthly end of its notable characters, while also telling us of notable aspects of them. And thus it would be unlikely that Elijah was still on earth after being taken up into heaven, but it is far more likely that he was taken up someplace outside of God's abode (regardless of the problem of assigning a space to an omnipresent Being), and perhaps then remained in Abraham's bosom until the Lord's postmortem descent.
As for believers postmortem place and experience now, i have dealt with that in many threads such as here . ,
Too much reading for now, but the answer to #1 is that nowhere in the Word does it say Matthew wrote a gospel. But why is attribution critical? Do you consider Trent's attribution of authors to be infallible?
As for # 2, nowhere in the Word does it say Matthew’s gospel is inspired, though 1Tim. 5:18 quotes Mt. 10:10, but then where does it say 2Pt. 3:16, which affirms Paul's writings as Scripture, is inspired of God?
Thus the question is how do we know a writing(s) is inspired of God? And for that matter, how do we know a man is a man of God? The answer is evident in Scripture itself, but your premise seems to be that an infallible magisterium is necessitated in both cases, dissent from which disallows spiritual authority. Is that correct?
Just to let you know, many old commentators did not consider Paradise to necessarily be Heaven (e.g. when Jesus promised St. Dismas he would be with Him in Paradise). They believed it to be the the Bosom of Abraham.
The end result is the same: Elijah was not in the abode of God and could not be until Jesus opened the gates with His death and resurrection.
Oh, and by the way,
“The approved notes in your official Bible states,”
I have no “official Catholic Bible” other than the Nova Vulgata. And the notes in the NAB/RE are not an official text in any sense. They are “approved”, but not official teachings of the Catholic Church.
You wrote:
“But why is attribution critical?”
You’ll have to wait and see - if I ever get an answer to my question from the person I questioned (which is extremely doubtful at this point).
“Do you consider Trent’s attribution of authors to be infallible?”
That is irrelevant to my question or to the answer.
“As for # 2, nowhere in the Word does it say Matthew’s gospel is inspired, though 1Tim. 5:18 quotes Mt. 10:10, but then where does it say 2Pt. 3:16, which affirms Paul’s writings as Scripture, is inspired of God?”
Your question is irrelevant to my question. It serves no purpose.
“Thus the question is how do we know a writing(s) is inspired of God? And for that matter, how do we know a man is a man of God? The answer is evident in Scripture itself, but your premise seems to be that an infallible magisterium is necessitated in both cases, dissent from which disallows spiritual authority. Is that correct?”
Your question is irrelevant to my question. Until my question is answered by the person who I asked it of I see no logical purpose to your question.
I concur on both counts.
Quite a guy.
The only thing I disagree with him on is the Crusades.
I love them. We need another one.
And it was your words that came from your mindset not mine.
It looks as if anti-Catholics struggle with basic reading comprehension as well as everything else.
Was it IS, is the ANTI-WORD catholic struggle with not understanding God's Word; therefore, not obedient TO IT. Go to God with your questions and tell Him you want proof that Matthew is God inspired.
Official Latin text at least, which is a result of Trent decreeing the Vulgate to be the trusted, authentic text of the Bible, but not a specific version, resulting in various attempts to create a standardized one, and the interesting story of the Sistine Vulgate .
Trent also stated, "Sacred Scripture, especially this well-known Old Vulgate edition, shall be published as correctly as possible." More: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7470
And as regards official Bible, I was referring to this:
There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn.” http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm
And which 1991 version has apparently been succeeded by the 2011 New American Bible Revised Edition
And the notes in the NAB/RE are not an official text in any sense.
I understand that, while going beyond the the "approved" category (and then their is the "authentic") to official, all that the CCC officially states is not necessarily infallible. But the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, which type of sanction has a long history , is supposed to give assurance that it contains nothing contrary to faith or morals. “The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat are official declarations that a work is free from doctrinal or moral error. In a sense, this represents a negative approbation. It says the work contains no doctrinal or moral error. No implication is given, however, that the work has been endorsed by those who have granted the ecclesiastical approval or that they agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed in the work.” — http://old.usccb.org/catechism//update/spring98.shtml
And Canon law states that pastors of the Church have "the duty and the right to demand that where writings of the faithful touch upon matters of faith and morals, these be submitted to their judgement." (823; http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017 /_P2P.HTM)
Yet these are decreasingly seen today, with some RCAs no longer bothering to attempt to obtain the stamps for their works.
This is a tangent, but would you agree that the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat give assurance that a work is free from doctrinal or moral error?
The traditional Jewish understanding is that Elijah was indeed removed from the earth altogether without having to undergo death. Judaism is of course far more esoteric and far less dogmatic about the afterlife than chrstianity.
One thing for sure is that Elijah never died. He is the reason all human history is encompassed by the lives of seven men (Methuselah knew Adam, Seth knew Methuselah, Jacob knew Seth, Amram knew Jacob, 'Achiyyah HaShiloni knew Amram, Elijah knew 'Achiyyah, `od 'Eliyyahu chai [Elijah is still alive]).
Furthermore, there is some sort of connection between Elijah and Aaron's grandson Pinechas. As he had already been born when the priesthood was bestowed on Aaron and his sons, he was not originally a priest, but after the episode recorded in the beginning of Numbers 25 he was "grandfathered" in. Furthermore, he was given an "eternal priesthood" (kehunat `olam). One view is that he was actually given the gift of immortality and actually later became known as Elijah (who still has not died). Another opinion is that Elijah was a gilgul of Pinechas.
The tradition is less unified on Enoch, whom so many chrstians also believe was "translated." There is one view that he was, but another merely that he died very young (down to this day in Judaism, very holy individuals tend to live very long lives while mystics often die very young). Enoch died at age 365, while the Arizal and Rabbi 'Aryeh Kaplan both died at age 37.
There is no abomination that can’t get a “nihil obstat” and imprimatur. Believe me, I know.
You clearly are unable to answer the question I asked. Thanks for proving my point in any case.
you wrote:
“This is a tangent, but would you agree that the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat give assurance that a work is free from doctrinal or moral error?”
No. The Nihil Obstat, especially over the last 40 years, is assurance only in relation to the learning and good will of the one granting it. Hence, if I am not mistake, the Dutch Catechism had a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2206&dat=19671002&id=JTs0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=O-sFAAAAIBAJ&pg=558,72392
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.