Follow
Some time ago I listened to the conversion testimony of Jason Stellman, a former Presbyterian (PCA) pastor who converted to Roman Catholicism. His conversion story is rather unremarkable, and I am not surprised by his inability to withstand Rome’s overtures. The modern Christian church spends entirely too much energy trying to prevent Christians from criticizing Rome, and hardly any energy equipping the saints to resist and destroy Rome’s untenable epistemology.
Stellman is a product of an anemic church, and his inability to withstand the follies of Rome is entirely unsurprising. If Stellman cannot understand Romans 2:13 in the context of Gentiles exceeding the Jews in holiness—and thereby inciting the Jews to jealousy (c.f., Romans 2:25-26, 11:11-14); and cannot understand James 2:24 in the context of justification before men (c.f., James 2:18)—we can only lament that he spent so much money at seminary, and gained so little in exchange for it. These are not difficult verses to expound. Goodness, Jason! “If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses?” (Jeremiah 12:5a). He never had a chance.
Later this week, we will happily expound on these verses which proved such a stumbling block to Jason. For now, we will focus on what is a typical criticism of Protestantism—a criticism Stellman swallowed whole. Here is his summary of it from his testimony at the Third Annual Holy Family Conference on March 8-9, 2013:
When Protestants talk about true church authority … that claim is an illusion. It’s like shooting an arrow at the wall, and then painting the target around it. Because what you’re doing, is you’re basically opening up your bible and figuring out what the Gospel is, and then finding a church out there that agrees with you. … You figure out, ‘Oh yeah, this is the gospel, this is what scripture teaches. Now I’ve got to find a church that teaches what Scripture teaches, by which I mean that agrees with me about what Scripture teaches.’ (14:40 15:30)
Stellman continues and then returns to this line of reasoning, and eventually succumbs to it. There was no choice, he thought, except to cross the Tiber and join the Roman Church. We won’t at this moment spend a lot of time rebutting Stellman’s argument here, except to say that what he describes in pejorative terms is what Paul commends in the Bereans. They were “opening up their bibles” and determining whether Paul’s preaching conformed to what they understood from the Scriptures before they joined Paul’s church (Acts 17:11). Stellman says it as if it was a fatal flaw in the Christian’s paradigm, but Luke recorded the same behavior in commendable terms. We’ll side with Luke on this.
That said, we wonder what Stellman will do when he finally realizes that his new church practices precisely what he finds so abhorrent about Protestantism. Can we not find Cardinal Newman “painting a Roman target” around his arrow when he finds unobjectionable the practice of adding fictional dialogues to the gospel narrative? It is so much easier to “hit the target” if he can tamper with the evidence as part of his closing arguments. Do we not find Fr. Livius “painting a Roman target” around his arrow when he rejects Origen, Basil and Cyril because the tradition they claimed to receive from the apostles is inconsistent with the teachings of the Roman church? When Fr. Livius rejects tradition because it is inconsistent with church teaching, and then justifies church teaching because it is consistent with tradition, he has merely let his arrows fly, painted the target and then invited us to watch the paint dry and congratulate him on his archery skills. Do we not find Fr. Carol “painting a Roman target” around his arrow when he assumes that some “prominent churchmen” of the first three centuries after the apostles must not have been aware that Mary was sinless? He was supposed to be demonstrating that Rome’s teaching is founded on ancient tradition, and ended up proposing that ancient tradition must be judged by Rome’s teaching!
For a more recent example, consider Roman apologist Dr. Taylor Marshall’s advice to Roman Catholics who are frustrated about the “de facto division growing within the Catholic Church.” It seems, Marshall says, there is a split between those who support “the Holy Father and Catholic Tradition,” and those who do not. What to do? Rome was supposed to be the expression of a unified Church, but there are cracks in the monolith. In his recent blog post, “Are You Part of the Great Catholic Migration of the 21st Century?”, he advises that Roman Catholics do exactly what Stellman criticized Protestants for doing. In short, they need to open up their Catechisms, figure out what it says, and then find a church or ministry out there that agrees with their interpretation of it, and go there:
Begin migrating to the good and holy priests who offer themselves as living sacrifices…for our spiritual well-being. Support these holy men! Find a monastery and get to know the religious there. Are they solid? Then support them with your money and prayers. … What about seminaries? You don’t need me to tell you that not all seminaries are faithful and orthodox. There are still rotten seminaries out there. Research and ask about the seminaries near you. Visit them and learn about their curriculum and liturgical practices. Support the best seminaries. Focus your resources there. Begin researching Catholic Colleges that actually instill a deep Catholic faith in their students. Are these colleges equipping 22-year-olds to live debt-free, have large families, or find vocations? Support them. These institutions are the future of Catholicism. Don’t waste your God-given time and money on apostolates, parishes, and schools that are not fully supporting the one true Faith without which it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6) (Emphasis added).
Dr. Marshall offers this advice as if the liberal Catholics he criticizes were not doing exactly the same thing. They read their Catechisms, decide which parish’s teaching most closely aligns with their interpretation, then join it and support it financially. When Fr. Callan was forced by Bishop Clark to step down from Corpus Christi Roman Catholic Church for allowing “women to play a prominent role at the altar,” his congregation protested, stating that the bishop was punishing the parishioners “for what we believe.” In other words, to borrow Stellman’s own argument, “When liberal and conservative Catholics talk about true church authority … that claim is an illusion. It’s like shooting an arrow at the wall, and then painting the target around it. …You figure out, ‘Oh yeah, this is the gospel, this is what the catechism teaches. Now I’ve got to find a church that teaches what the catechism teaches, by which I mean that agrees with me about what the catechism teaches.'”
We do not hold any animosity toward Stellman and Marshall—both of whom are former Protestants turned Roman apologists—and we appreciate their winsome style and clarity as they express what they believe to be true. It is a delight to listen to them both. But we do find it sadly ironic that one Roman apologist criticizes Protestants for doing what he himself does, and what another Roman apologist actually recommends that Catholics do.
The truth is, as we noted above from Acts 17:11, there is nothing wrong—and indeed much right—with opening the Scriptures to determine the truth, and then holding teachers and churches to that standard. Paul himself instructed us to evaluate men by the doctrines they teach, and to avoid those who do not walk according to truth (Romans 16:17). This should not be shocking to a seminary graduate. Finding an orthodox church and attending it is what Roman Catholics and Protestants all think they are doing every Sunday morning.
The issue is not whether to judge a church by a set standard, but rather to determine what that set standard ought to be. Surely Stellman knows this. As we have noted here, here, and here, Rome has spilled a lot of paint to make sure its arrows always “find” their targets—and they always do, because Rome’s standard is Rome herself. How can she ever miss if her first assumption is that Rome is always right? But are Protestants really to stop opening our Bibles, so Stellman can paint his own targets in peace? And painting targets is exactly what Roman apologists do. Marshall writes,
I don’t think we should be [on] a crusade to rip apart the dissenting parts of the Church. I prefer to be a gentlemen about it. I’m not going to fight or argue about it. I’m just going elsewhere. I’m going quietly, but I’m bringing people with me.
Don’t forget your paintbrushes, Dr. Marshall! And Mr. Stellman, Sherwin-Williams called. Your paint is ready.
Thanks for this, Tim. Have previously enjoyed your articles exposing Rome for what it is over at Trinity Foundation.
But ” their winsome style and clarity as they express what they believe to be true”?
Rather their remarks border on shallow and deceitful, even if they know not what they write, even if in a “purty” style.
They should of course. Stellman boasts elsewhere of the “freakishly smart guys ” that Romanism attracts, but doesn’t really seem to know the implications of his argument, much more as you mention, the standard historical reformed rebuttals to the Roman schtick.
The only other thing I would add is that invincible infallible, indefectable, unreformable and
igneruntimplicit faith answers any and all questions possible for the albeit sincere, yet still gullible and naive convert to Romanism.(Otherwise known as the Tooth Fairy’s
paint brushmagic wand.)cheers
Thanks, Bob,
It is great to hear from you. I certainly understand your objection, and I appreciate it. I just wanted to let you know that Taylor’s and Jason’s “winsome style,” of course does not prove their arguments. It’s just that they are easy to listen to, and I appreciate that. It’s like listening to one end of a phone call, instead of a lecture.
As regards clarity, one thing I appreciate about Jason is that he makes no bones about it: he does not claim to have changed his “Protestant” glasses for an objective lens through which he can read the Scriptures with a pure, disinterested objectivity. He acknowledges that he’s reading them through Roman lenses. That’s good to know, and I appreciate that kind of candor. He is also explicit in his explanation of how he read the scriptures, came up with a gospel that seemed to make sense, and then joined the church that seemed to preach that gospel—the very thing he claims it is wrong for Protestants to do.
He’s a bit muddled in other areas, but these moments of clarity provide a lot of material for a blogger to use, and that’s all that I was appreciating.
As regards Taylor, I was in a group of Reformed men who met regularly in Houston, TX in the early 2000s, in what we affectionately called “The Attic.” Taylor was an occasional participant in that group. At one meeting, he objected to my use of “justification by faith alone” to summarize the gospel. Little did I know that he was on his way to Rome at the time.
Taylor’s podcast style is easy to listen to, but of course his logic falters regularly. But he is “all in,” and I appreciate that kind of ownership. You can make a case that Cardinal Newman waffled and hedged on some of the more superstitious practices of Rome, but not Taylor. He is 110% Roman Catholic now, and I appreciate that kind of clarity in an apologist. Of course, it’s not good for his soul, but it makes him a lot less of a “moving target,” and as you can imagine, that’s hard to find.
Welcome, and glad to have you,
Tim
Tim, I once mentioned on Jason’s site that I think people leave for Rome because of emotional needs often. IOW the need for spiritual magic, mysticism, experience, self esteem etc. It hit a nerve with him and he dressed me down. They often speak of a fuller communion and the full ontological experience of trafficking in the Divine. But for me thats about a lack of faith that the author of Hebrews speaks about the need for the physical. A physical alter, a physical continuing sacrifice, and a physical Priesthood. Much like the Jews who wanted signs from Jesus like the manna from heaven. But he said that it was a lack of faith. Roman Catholics are in big need of physical presence to assure them even though Jesus said I go and leave the Spirit with you, and I will not eat again with you until I return. We are to live by faith. The sadness is the Roman Catholic is striving for God’s approval by adding their works in the sacraments in a virtue climb to perfection. The very thing they want “emotional approval” God’s acceptance, they think is attainable by their cooperation to gain final righteousness. ” The fuller experience” of which they speak is really code for I can(need to) control my justification by belonging to the right church and doing the right things. Rome (Satan) has the door open to these vulnerable. Come on in and you can feel better by what you do. You can control your final outcome. But Satan has blinded the gullible world. The Gospel says admit your total and utter sin and bankruptcy and believe in Him who justifies the ungodly. Trust only him for your justification. This is true freedom and shalom Paul talks about in Romans 5:1, 8:1. Until one looks at their total inability to merit heaven, until someone sees their utter bankruptcy, they will never understand the emotional peace one can have thru simple faith. When you know in your heart God will say well done good and faithful servant because we have passed out of judgment and into life, then the veil will come off. He saved us, not because of anything we have done, but simply because he showed mercy on us and gave us grace. ” The free gift of righteousness” And a heart that understands this will produce good works with joy.
“The modern Christian church spends entirely too much energy trying to prevent Christians from criticizing Rome, and hardly any energy equipping the saints to resist and destroy Rome’s untenable epistemology.”
Alas, too, too true.
This site has been a precious remedy to correct that malaise for my family. May the Lord strengthen you to continue in the truth.