Posted on 12/09/2013 3:39:35 PM PST by Alex Murphy
Jason Stellman, author of Dual Citizens, and prosecutor of Peter Leithart in his trial in the Northwest Presbytery of the PCA, has tendered his resignation from the ministry of the PCA. You can read his letter here. The two cited reasons are his loss of faith in sola Scriptura, along with his abandonment of sola fide.
First, as is so common with such things, he fails to state accurately the position is supposed to be abandoning. He says, “I have begun to doubt whether the Bible alone can be said to be our only infallible authority for faith and practice.” But of course, that is not the formulation of sola Scriptura at all. Protestants hold that Scripture is the only “ultimate and infallible” authority for faith and practice. There are true spiritual authorities in this world that do not occupy the highest place, and the Northwest Presbytery of the PCA is one of them. But Stellman is showing by this action that he values his own personal thought processes over true ecclesiastical authority, rightly embraced.
With regard to sola fide, he is quite right to see the very narrow position he was nurtured in as contrary to the teaching of the New Testament. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to sinners, and the instrument of a God-given faith is what receives that gracious gift. But the gift received is that of living faith, breathing faith, loving faith, the only kind of faith the living God bestows. It is sola fide, not nuda fide. Stellman was wrong to identify his previous narrow view of sola fide as the doctrine of sola fide itself.
But he is correct about one thing. Given the errors he has embraced, the action that follows makes perfect sense.
“Due to the fact that these disagreements strike at the very core of the system of doctrine set forth in our Standards, I feel that I have no other choice than to tender my resignation from the ministry of the Presbyterian Church in America.”But there is a bigger issue. At the end of his letter, he also says this.
“My sincere hope is that the fathers, brothers, and friends I have gotten to know here will keep me in their prayers, and forgive me for any offense I may have caused during my involvement in the case against TE Leithart, as well as for any offense I may be presently causing by breaking my ordination vows.”If he has sought the forgiveness of Peter Leithart personally, then of course the forgiveness he seeks generally should be extended by others (Luke 17:3-4). But a shift like this does not happen overnight, and if he was afflicted with these doubts while he was engaged in prosecuting Leithart (as it seems he had to have been), he would have done far better to have sought Leithart’s counsel instead of seeking his head.
People do this kind of thing, of course. They are strident opponents of the very thing they are most afraid of falling into. This is telegraphed beforehand when the opposition is moralistic, tight-shoed, and brittle. But the fact that people do this doesn’t make it right.
In this case, Stellman was unable to squeeze as much church authority as he personally wanted to have over him out of a godly ministerium, and so it looks as though he is hunting down a magisterium to suit him. He will, of course, do this as an individual, thinking his own thoughts about the Bible in his own head. The genius of the Roman system is its pragmatic syncretism, which allows folks to bring all kinds of things in with them, from South American animism to North American protestant individualism. This is why a lot of the Protestant converts to Rome didn’t really convert — they are as individualistic as ever, only now they get to play dress-ups.
In the meantime, I wish Jason Stellman well, and consequently I earnestly pray that — before he does one thing or another Tiber-wise — he seeks out godly counsel from more expansive and robust Protestants than he has been accustomed to, including men he once thought of as adversaries. The Protestant faith is a great city, not a tiny village.
He doesn’t want to be the guy in New York who didn’t have a sandwich shop in his neighborhood, and so he moves to New Orleans because he couldn’t get a decent sandwich in New York.
First, as is so common with such things, he fails to state accurately the position is supposed to be abandoning. He says, “I have begun to doubt whether the Bible alone can be said to be our only infallible authority for faith and practice.” But of course, that is not the formulation of sola Scriptura at all. Protestants hold that Scripture is the only “ultimate and infallible” authority for faith and practice. There are true spiritual authorities in this world that do not occupy the highest place, and the Northwest Presbytery of the PCA is one of them. But Stellman is showing by this action that he values his own personal thought processes over true ecclesiastical authority, rightly embraced.
With regard to sola fide, he is quite right to see the very narrow position he was nurtured in as contrary to the teaching of the New Testament. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to sinners, and the instrument of a God-given faith is what receives that gracious gift. But the gift received is that of living faith, breathing faith, loving faith, the only kind of faith the living God bestows. It is sola fide, not nuda fide. Stellman was wrong to identify his previous narrow view of sola fide as the doctrine of sola fide itself.
But he is correct about one thing. Given the errors he has embraced, the action that follows makes perfect sense....If he has sought the forgiveness of Peter Leithart personally, then of course the forgiveness he seeks generally should be extended by others (Luke 17:3-4). But a shift like this does not happen overnight, and if he was afflicted with these doubts while he was engaged in prosecuting Leithart (as it seems he had to have been), he would have done far better to have sought Leithart’s counsel instead of seeking his head....
....In this case, Stellman was unable to squeeze as much church authority as he personally wanted to have over him out of a godly ministerium, and so it looks as though he is hunting down a magisterium to suit him. He will, of course, do this as an individual, thinking his own thoughts about the Bible in his own head. The genius of the Roman system is its pragmatic syncretism, which allows folks to bring all kinds of things in with them, from South American animism to North American protestant individualism. This is why a lot of the Protestant converts to Rome didn’t really convert — they are as individualistic as ever, only now they get to play dress-ups.
Maybe he likes po'boy's over deli sandwiches?
i’m not sure that a person who just converted to Reformed theology in 2004, and who professes that he never accepted the evangelical label (calling himself a reformed non-evangelical) would be a particularly good source to determine the validity of the claims of one religion over another.
He almost seems more like a “seeker”, troubled by something and flitting from belief to belief hoping to find something that makes him happy.
Gods Word vs. this mans doubt. Oh yeah, I'll take feelings for $200, Alex.
This was effectively dealt with recently by John MacArthur in seven sermonettes of which the leading summary is Is Roman Catholicism Biblical?.
In this, MacArthur shows that in denying the (written) Holy Scriptures alone as the ultimate authority for doctrine and practice of The Faith, The Roman Church sets itself above Scripture as the ruling instrument. That is in itself an error.
As the consequence. MacArthur states:
"As long as the Roman Catholic Church continues to assert its own authority and bind its people to 'another gospel,' it is the spiritual duty of all true Christians to oppose Roman Catholic doctrine with biblical truth and to call all Catholics to true salvation. Meanwhile, evangelicals must not capitulate to the pressures for artificial unity. They cannot allow the gospel to be obscured, and they cannot make friends with false religion, lest they become partakers in their evil deeds (2 John 11)."
Which is exactly what Stellman, in his pride of intellect and lack of saving faith, has done.
Matthew 16:18 - case closed.
That is correct. That is to say figuratively, "this rock," which is the declaration "Thou art the Christ, the Son of The Living God," and which is the foundational unmoveable doctrine upon which Jesus has built His Church, beginning on the day of Pentecost.
Grammatically, "this rock," ταυτη τη πετρα is feminine; it refers to a massive rock outcropping. So both the statement "Thou art The Christ," and The Christ Himself, are wholly as steadfast as a great rock ledge.
In contrast, Simon BarJona was given by Jesus the diminutive nickname πετρος, which is masculine; having a different meaning. It refers to a stone a little bigger than a λίθος but far much lesser than a massive escarpment (upon which He and the disciples were at that moment standing when Jesus gave this little lesson).
My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus' Blood and Righteousness;
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly lean on Jesus' Name.
On Christ, The Solid Rock, I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand,
All other ground is sinking sand.
Yes, the case is closed. Neither I nor my church dare stand only on the name of Peter, the one who left off following Jesus six times, who also denied Jesus six times before he was converted, upon whose diminutive nickname no other church trusting alone in The Christ, The Son of The Living God, has ever been founded.
MacArthur is flatly wrong about that, and about many other things. In fact, he's worse than wrong: he's projecting his own error onto someone else ... precisely because he wants to set his own authority above that of the church. Show me the verse in Scripture which says that John MacArthur is the pillar and ground of the truth. You can't: it's not in there. To whom does John MacArthur submit his judgements? Nobody except himself!
The petra/petros argument is bogus, and has been rejected by solid Protestant exegetes, e.g., Ridderbos. “Petros” is never used to mean “pebble” in koine (only in classical Gk poetry), and “petra,” a feminine noun, could not have been used as a man’s given name without switching it to a masculine declension, hence, petros.
You are very sophisticated to get behind the English and examine the Greek. Surely then you would feel it is even better to get behind the Greek and get into the Aramaic. Jesus most likely said Kepha in Peter’s triple blessing, since that is one of the few words the translators did not translate into Greek in various parts of the bible. There is no masculine or feminine or diminutive or any other nuance to the word in Aramaic.
By the way- Jesus’ last words also went untranslated.
MacArthur through these articles is not saying anything new nor is he giving any opinions that has not been said from the beginning, and are wholly in support of and supported by Holy Scripture. The summaries he gives is only a concise restatement for the instruction of the disciple. If you choose to ignore, do so, but don't call "flatly wrong" that which is unarguably and obviously clear.
Despite your claim, the Koine is very precise in that the feminine gender accounts for the figurative sense of the massive, solid rock mass picturing the utter reliability of that Bible truth.
In fact, that is why The Holy Ghost chose a very precise language to speak to the Jews and non-Jews of all ages, and why Jesus titled Simon "Kephas" (= a fragment of rock, per Adam Clarke; noun, masculine) which is, not by mere inexact ambiguous translation, but by exacting hermeneutics (the Koine word used) -- the science of interpretation -- so that no Greek-speaking hearer could possibly come amiss and make the misapplication upon which your approach rests.
The petra/petros argument is absolutely not "bogus" when compared with the construction of your theory, as well as both the nearer and wider context.
And, for your illuminatiion, I did not (mis)use the word "petros" as "pebble" as you indicate. I compared it to lithos (which could be the size of a biscuit; cf Mt. 4:3, Lk. 4:3, or as Christ the head -- kefalay -- of the corner, 1 Pet. 2:7). Simon could not be greater than Christ, could he (Kefas vs Kefalay, a play on words)? Wasn't Simon always presuming to give orders to this God-in-the flesh? (cf Mt. 16:22) And was rebuked for it (cf Mt. 16:23)?
Come on, get with it.
"I stand alone on the Word of God, The Bee - aI - Bee - eL -Ee." (My old Sunday School song)
Sorry, but you are wrong here, absolutely. The word was interpreted, right in Scripture:
"And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone" (Jn. 1:42 KJV)
και ηγαγεν αυτον προς τον ιησουν εμβλεψας δε αυτω ο ιησους ειπεν συ ει σιμων ο υιος ιωνα συ κληθηση κηφας ο ερμηνευεται πετρος (Jn. 1:42 TR)
Here John Theologian applies hermeneutics (the word before petros) to strike down your argument.
There is no masculine or feminine or diminutive or any other nuance to the word in Aramaic.
Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon says otherwuse:
G2786 (Strong's lexicon number)
Κηφᾶς
Kēphas
Thayer Definition:
Cephas = “stone”
1) another name for the apostle Peter
Part of Speech: noun proper masculine
And Peter had no blessing not given to any other regenerated believer-disciple-priest throughout the church era. Jesus never intended, as many wrongly suppose, to build a church on a fallible human being. He built the churches upon Himself, and on belief in the great declaration, "Thou art The Christ, The Son of the Living God," which was given to men, in this case, by Simon BarJonah; but later on by all who preach the Gospel of The Kingdom of The God.
Secondly, though Jesus said to Simon, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: . . ." (Mt. 16:19a), that was given not at that time, but in the future; and in the future first exercised by Simon on the day of Pentecost; that is, the gospel when believed can admit the hearer to an earthly church assembly where both "tares" and "wheat" gather in the kingdom of heaven (which is not the same as the Kingdom of The God); and furthermore, Jesus did not give these to Simon only, but to all who would "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mk. 16:15b,c). The keys to the kingdom is the preaching of the Gospel, no more, and no less. One can show that these "keys" open the eyes of their understanding (Lk. 24:45) but the hearer has to choose to go through the "door" thus opened, nor can the preacher give permission or block the way.
Thirdly, neither was it only given to Simon to "bind" or "loose," but to all His disciples--note the second person plural "ye":
"Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mat 18:18 KJV).
Here the correct sense of the translation is that "Whatsover ye shall bind on earth must be that which is already bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye loose on earth must be that which is already loosed in heaven." Not only was this a future task of Simon, but also all His other disciple/apostles; and hence to all the faithful who pray and minister under the Holy Ghost's power and control.
I trust that you'll be grasping these applications of the Holy Scriptures.
I will hopefully address your post more fully some other time but I want to say how odd and disturbing it is that you continue to show a bunch of Greek words with fancy fonts and other nonsense to convey what you think an Aramaic word means. There is no need for Greek when these words are Aramaic. Your use of Greek does not impress me and it should not impress anyone else.
I certainly am not using the Received Text to impress anybody. The Greek was being used to demonstrate, inasmuch as it is inspired (and the KHV, DRB, and Vulgate are not), God-breathed, and inscripturated in the Greek by the Holy Spirit, that in the case you are speaking of, the Greek is an exact rendering such that for this word the first-century Greek-speaker knows exactly in his mind what is in the Aramaic/Syriac/Chaldean had in his mind in the context.
Please take note that John was undoubtedly adept at both, and needed no translation in either, and therefore was the totally premiere interpreter of both, particularly since he was guided by the Holy Ghost in writing this verse. Apparently the Holy Ghost was impressed that you and I would need this knowledge to correctly understand what Simon's nickname, bestowed by Jesus, really meant.
Beyond the shadow of a doubt, by foreknowledge Jesus knew that Simon, a (not 'the') Stone was going to be a pillar of the Jerusalem church, together with James and John, the Sons of Thunder (Gal. 2:9), but he and they were not the only stones of which the Church of Jesus Christ was to be built. Paul, addressing the church of mostly Gentiles at Ephesus, exhorted them:
"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph 2:19-22 KJV).
They are all to be stones in the building, together with the apostles, prophets, and Jesus.
So Peter became one of the "stones" of the foundation of the Holy Spiritual Temple, figuratively speaking; but most certainly not the only one, and surely not more important than The King of the Jews, Jesus Christ. Again, the whole expanse of the foundation reposes safely on the underlying rock-solid truth that Jesus is The Christ, the Begotten Son of The Living God.
And yet again, after Simon had finally come to spiritual maturity wrote:
"To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded" (1Pe 2:4-6 KJV)
Now we see that Peter himself did not figure that he was the only stone used in building the spiritual (not temporal) Church written in Heaven (Heb. 12:22-23).
Now, for your information, Much of the book of Daniel is written in Aramaic, and it is easy to gather from Gesenius' "Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures," or from Brown, Driver, and Briggs' "Hebrew and English Lexicon of The Old Testament" where the Aramaic nouns, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, and such are structured and are declined in their own fashion. Here is an example of the Aramaic word "stone" from Dan. 2:34,35,45;5:4,23;6:17 (couldn't find "kefas" in the OT) :
H69
אבן (Aramaic)
'eben
BDB Definition:
1) stone
1a) a (the) stone
1b) stone, material of idols and buildings
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: corresponding to H68
One of the bits of information you ought to take into account is that, counting from Christ's baptism, one of John Baptist's disciples, Andrew, moved over to follow Jesus, and brought his brother Simon along with him. On the first meeting, Jesus gave Simon the title "Kephas" as recorded by John the Beloved, which by interpretation means "A stone" (Jn. 1:42 KJV), or "A piece of rock" (same verse, A Precise Translation, Happy Heralds, Inc.). That event took place in Kislev (early December) of 29 AD. However, the instance recorded by Matthew 16:18 tells that in Sivan (June) of 32 AD was when Jesus once more used that already well-known nick-name "Petros." The timing is confirmed by Luke, the precise historian of consecutive happenings, in Luke 9:20.
Here, there can be no doubt that about 16 times before the Sivan declaration, Simon was called "Petros," but only once "Kefas," and that by Jesus, apparently bot by his pals. But on the event recorded in the synoptic gospels, Jesus referred to him as "Petros" as does the Holy Ghost, for all time, and both the name and the meaning stick. That word in the Koine is well-defined, as I understand it. Simon was also said to have been titled "Petros" by Jesus at the time Tammuz (July) of 31 AD, when Jesus called The Twelve to go out as forerunners for His peripatetic ministry. References to this event are Mt. 19:2, Mk. 3:16, and Lk.6:14.
There's lots more, but as a fact, Jesus didn't just pop out with a new name for Peter at the meeting of Mt 16:18, nor did he mention any church as connected with Simon in any other documentation of that moment. BTW, Peter had already made that statement, "Thou art The Christ, The Son of The Living God," already a couple of months before, on 3 Nisan (March 30) of 32 AD (see Jn. 6:68 and context). Jesus made no special connection or Peter then, but he did for Judas Iscariot, eh?
So much for now.
“Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.” [John 6: 49-71]
Is there anything more thrilling, more inspiring, more beautiful and yet more conducive to serenity and peace?
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.