Are All Protestants “Saved”? (“TurretinFan” Insanity)

The anonymous Calvinist “TurretinFan” (a lawyer in his day job) may be the most obnoxious anti-Catholic Protestant apologist / polemicist online, perhaps surpassing even the notorious David T. King. The following exchanges occurred in July 2009, with a few more potshots from him in August. It’s been greatly edited down (see the original if you are a masochist), so readers won’t fall asleep or go insane, but one can see how boorish and asinine TurretinFan was (even in this abridged version).

I answered his question briefly at first, then at length. He simply kept pretending that I had never answered it, and kept right on asking the question over and over and over and over, literally more than 60 times in nine days (!). At that particular time I was resolved to no longer debate anti-Catholics, based on long futile experience with Bishop “Dr.” [???] James White and several others, and he and the other anti-Catholics knew this full well, but I did nevertheless answer his question, since a simple answer is not a debate. This took place on the late Steve Hays’ Triablogue site, and on my own blog.

I had removed this from my blog, but now the abridged version is restored for the record and the archives, and “completists” can follow a link to the original, too. TurretinFan’s mentality seems to be that if one doesn’t provide a theological answer that he agrees with, then they supposedly never answered at all. But of course I did answer according to my Catholic outlook. I can hardly do otherwise. If I gave an answer he agreed with, I would have had to adopt Protestant premises and in effect become a Protestant. But I’ve never had the slightest desire or temptation to do that — not even for a millisecond —  these past 35 years.

His words will be in blue.

*****

You call us “Christians” but do you use that term as synonymous with “saved”? Or do you mean something less by that? (7-9-09) 

[ANSWER #1] Protestant baptism is valid, sacramental, and regenerative. (7-9-09)

Which is a “no” to my question about “Christian” meaning “saved,” right? I’m not sure why you’re being so cagey. Do you equate “Christian” and “saved” or not? (7-9-09)

It’s amazing you cannot answer a simple and straight question about what the word “Christian” means when you were hounding Reformed folks to debate you on that topic. I bet the folks who declined simply see this as further evidence of the wisdom of their decision. (7-9-09)

[note that it’s very difficult to give a short answer to his question] Surely you are not so ignorant as to not know the huge vistas of debate that open up when throwing out even one gigantic term like “saved.” Surely you are not so naive as to not know that there can be no short answer to that. (7-9-09)

Amazing that you . . . can’t answer a simple question. That ought to trouble you, . . . (7-9-09) 

Again I prodded Dave to try to get a straight answer out of him (Got no answer.) (7-10-09) 

But again – does “Christian” mean “saved”? Dave won’t say . . . (7-9-09)

Psychological (baiting) tactics don’t work with me. I don’t play those games. Theology is a serious matter and we should all respect it as such. (7-9-09)

Apparently, you don’t take theology seriously enough to be able to answer a simple question. If “baiting” (your term) doesn’t help you to stop evading – would anything help you? Are you just hopelessly unable to answer simple questions? (7-10-09)

Still, I did not give up trying to get my question answered but tried once again (got no answer) (7-10-09)

I posed the question a third time in the form of incredulity over his twice failure [sic] to answer the question. (7-10-09) 

[the following was initially a response to an ecumenical Calvinist regarding similar issues; later I referred this back to TurretinFan, to — you guessed it — no avail] 

[ANSWER #2] This gets to the question of subjective vs. objective criteria of what Christian is. Because the Protestant believes that salvation is already attained, most will want to surmise whether this momentous event has happened in the life of a person. Then the Calvinist / Arminian thing comes into it, too. I understand this. I, too, had a radical life-changing experience in 1977, and again in 1980, when I was, I firmly believe, further filled with the Holy Spirit. Catholics believe that baptism regenerates: a real change takes place: one is incorporated into the Body of Christ. So these are all big discussions.

I think in the end we can only sensibly discuss the issue across the board on a more objective, theological basis: on the creedal level. I usually use the Nicene Creed as a criteria for the definition of a Christian. On this basis, Catholics clearly would be Christians. But if we speculate on the present spiritual state of individuals [i.e., being “saved” or not], we have no certainty, and it goes round and round. John Calvin said we cannot be certain who is of the elect. Luther struggled with that, too. And both believed in assurance of salvation in some sense, over against an Arminian / Catholic / Orthodox understanding.

When a Calvinist clearly forsakes the Reformed faith, and is deeply into sin and outward rebellion against God, Calvinist theology requires that he or she is now defined as having never been a Christian or saved or justified or regenerated. But it then follows that those who thought he or she was in the past were wrong, and did not have certainty at all. So we just don’t know with absolute certainty. We can only go, therefore, by what a person claims to believe, in judging whether they are Christians.

The [anti-Catholic] categories forbid Catholics from being Christians. A consistent, obedient, orthodox Catholic cannot possibly be a Christian. To be a good Catholic is to be no Christian. To be a Christian is to be a bad (heterodox) Catholic. Most anti-Catholics will leave a tiny loophole for the Catholic individual to have a chance to still be saved. But this is virtually despite the Catholic Church. If one is a Catholic and understands Church teaching and adheres to it, they are out of the fold, by this mentality. Some (like an Baptist preacher friend of mine I once worked for briefly, or one of my best friends), will contend that a former evangelical Protestant like myself was clearly saved, and so therefore (from eternal security) could not have fallen away, even having become Catholic. (7-10-09)

So many words from Dave on his favorite misleading label of “anti-Catholic” and still no answer about whether being Christian means being saved. One wonders if Dave himself notices this oddity. (7-10-09)

I notice that you are quite odd (and oddly, inexplicably uncomprehending). (7-10-09)

Don’t let any oddities I possess distract you from answering a simple question, please. Try to focus on the issues. I think that, if you try hard, you can probably bite the bullet and answer the question. (7-10-09)

Tried once more (I got a personal remark, but no answer). (7-10-09)

Over at Mr. Swan’s blog, Mr. Armstrong couldn’t answer the simple question about whether he uses “Christian” as synonymous with “saved.” (7-10-09)

I pushed once more for an answer to the question (Dave simply references two of his previous non-answers . . .). (7-10-09)

Please – run away all you like, refuse to answer simple questions as much as you like, but face the fact of what you are doing, at least for your own benefit, if not for that of the folks who read your blog. And that simple question, just for the record, is whether you consider “Christian” and “saved” to be synonymous. That’s the question that I asked, and for which I got belittled and insulted by you. (7-11-09)

Besides, if I was so interested in “running away” from Reformeds, why would I be engaged for hundreds of hours presently in answering the entirety of Calvin’s Book IV of his Institutes line-by-line? Surely you have better things to do than to utterly make a fool of yourself, no? (7-11-09)

Original image for this post:

Whatever you say. If anyone holding Calvin’s positions decides that your Calvin posts are worth responding to they will be labeled “anti-Catholic” and ignored per your non-vow commitment to running away from Reformed apologetics. (7-11-09)

If someone responds who is not an anti-Catholic, I’ll be more than happy to interact. I’d rather “run away” from foolish and vain conversations than from logic and charity, any day. (7-11-09)

It’s not really ignoring us (which would be impossible for poor Dave) but instead just running away from theological arguments, explanations, and (most of all) the dreaded task of answering simple questions. In a very worldly sense, this is wise of Dave: his positions are so weak that they cannot stand up to reasoned discussion (or even simple questions) with the most staunch opponents of his religion. One way to minimize having the weakness of his positions demonstrated for all is to run away from theological discussions with those that oppose his religion. But – then again – isn’t Dave supposedly an apologist? Isn’t an apologist for religion, position, or viewpoint “x” supposed to be prepared to defend that from anti-x’s? We defend Calvinism against anti-Calvinists, and the Reformed faith more generally against her most outspoken detractors. Not Dave. Go figure. (7-12-09) 

Still hiding from that simple question about whether you view “Christian” and “saved” as synonymous? (7-15-09)

But I haven’t given up hope yet that you will man up and answer it. (7-15-09)

Yes, had you been willing to debate, I would have insisted that you answer questions, like the question that you’ve been evading about 10 times now. (7-15-09)

You can’t answer a simple question. (7-15-09)

Actually, I’ve just been trying to get you to answer a simple question. It’s interesting that you cannot do that with debate (in your mind) or mockery (again, in your mind). (7-15-09)

If you’re so intent on debating me, simply take one of my papers and reply to it, just like I do with Old Man Calvin (Book IV of the Institutes).

I’m not the least bit intent on debating you. There are, in fact, some articles of yours that I had queued for response at some point, but they have not been a high priority. In any event, I wouldn’t consider responding to your articles, as I have done in the past, to be a “debate.” (7-15-09)

A few days ago you were avoiding answering a simple question in order to avoid actual reasoned discussion according to your own testimony. (7-15-09)

If you were simply looking for a simple answer to a simple question (if indeed you are so simplistic to think that this particular question is so easily answered in one or two words, given all the well-known soteriological disputes, that are anything but simple), then you would have either:

1) accepted my initial short answer,

Your initial response was an evasion. It did not answer the question, and you know it. (7-15-09)

2) or the long answer that I later referred you to. You simply deemed that to be a non-answer.

Since it did not answer the question. (7-15-09)

3) And you would not have engaged in mockery and insinuations at Triablogue, to the effect that I am a coward, not “man” enough to answer, which only exposes (in my opinion) your quite probable motivation in asking to begin with.

You’re still not man enough to directly answer the question – you’re still evading, refusing to answer, and attacking the questioner. If you don’t like that fact, do something about it: answer the question. (7-15-09)

But you didn’t do either because (it’s fairly plain to me) the goal was mockery and belittling from the beginning. You knew that you could make hay whatever I did. If I responded in the length the question demands, you could carp on about how I (again) broke my supposed “vow” (that I have never made, since the only vow in my entire life was when I got married: one I have kept for almost 25 years).

I know you will be shocked that your amateur psychology practice missed, but the reason I didn’t go with one of the alternatives above was that you didn’t answer the question. It’s really that simple. I want an answer to the question, and if I have to ask a few times to get the answer – so be it. (7-15-09)

If I don’t respond (to your satisfaction, that is), then you can take your present course, of making out that I am a coward.

If the shoe fits … but I’d rather just have an answer to the question. (7-15-09)

So my choice is coward or falsely alleged vow-breaker. Some choice, huh? That’s what I get when I engage you in any degree whatsoever. It’s all just for entertainment’s sake, in your eyes, and for folks safely observing from the sidelines and never in much danger of the sin of “committing” (heaven forbid) a serious theological discourse, even in a sub-debate, severely limited sense.

Just answer the question and escape this dilemma of your own construction. (7-15-09) 

I’m still waiting for an answer to that question. Maybe if I hold your feet to the virtual fire for a bit, you’ll realize how easy it would be simply to answer the question. But I realize now that perhaps you’ve been feeling burdened. Perhaps you’ve thought I wanted not just an answer to whether you do or do not use the term “Christian” as synonymous with “saved” but also a detailed defense of your usage. If that has been your problem, let me set your mind at rest. I just want a clear unequivocal answer to the question. If you feel that you have to explain your answer, I leave that up to you, but I’m not asking for a detailed explanation. I’d be perfectly satisfied if you answered the question monosyllabically with a “yes” or “no” as the case may be. I’m not asking you for a debate – just a simple answer to a simple question. (7-16-09)

If the question had been posed by someone toward whom Dave didn’t have as much antipathy, that might have enhanced his willingness to answer the question. That’s true whether his antipathy toward me (and other Reformed apologists) is justified or unjustified. (7-16-09)

One might think that answering a simple question would be more important than ad hominem but that assumes rationality. (7-16-09)

With this kind of double-mindedness, no wonder Dave can’t answer a simple question. (7-16-09)

You’re very fond of mocking . . ., but not so fond of answering simple questions. Odd, isn’t it? (7-16-09)

We’re now up to 53 times asking the same question [over eight days’ time, or almost seven times a day, average]. I wanna get up to at least 75, if not 100, so the entertainment value can increase proportionately. I know you won’t disappoint us. (7-16-09)

One assumes that however immature you may be acting now, you’ll eventually answer the simple question. If it takes asking you 100 times, so be it. (7-16-09)

Too bad you are not as eager to answer simple questions as you are to accuse others of doing the same thing you do. (7-16-09) 

At least I still have my wits about me.

We’ve proven you are obstinately refusing to answer a simple question no matter how many times it is asked. (7-16-09) 

I’m trying to get you to answer a simple question. (7-16-09)

And Dave, you do realize that whatever score you are keeping is also the tally of your refusals to answer the simple question, yes? (7-16-09)

Considering that we’d expect a mind-reader to answer a simple question, . . . (7-16-09)

I realize I’m biased on this point, but I think that the ability to answer a simple question is probably a requirement to be considered an “apologist.” (7-17-09)

Dave’s answering lots of non-substantive things, but not a simple question, even if asked 60+ times. (7-17-09)

You were actually answered twice, but you’re simply too dense to know that.

You know you didn’t answer the question. Evasions aren’t answers. You recognized that previously when you gave excuses for why you weren’t answering the question. I guess you’ve at least come to a realization that you ought to have answered the question, which is some progress. Perhaps if I ask another (How many times is it now? – multiply by two) times. I’ll actually get an honest, straightforward answer to a simple question. . . . Why, Dave, can you not just answer the simple question directly? Why be so cagey? I’m not asking that to hear your excuses … I’m asking that to provoke you to thought … and hopefully to actually answer the question. (7-17-09)

The man who can’t answer a simple question making simple requests. (7-17-09)

Photo credit: head shot of “TurretinFan” from his YouTube channel of the same name, c. July 2024.

Summary: Abridged documentation of a hyper-annoying exchange with anti-Catholic Calvinist “TurretinFan” about whether Catholics define “Christian” as “one who is saved”.