Friday, April 1, 2011

Assisting John Bugay – part 1

Earlier today (LINK), I briefly commented on the bulk of John Bugay’s early morning post (LINK); a post that struck me as little more than a rant. I pointed out a number of John’s errors; some of those errors seem to flow from either a neglect to read the material he was commenting on, or a lack of comprehension of the material. I would like to assist John here, and walk him through some of those errors. In John’s thread, he reposted the following from my March 31st post (LINK):

Enter Dr. Peter Lampe and John Bugay: A careful reading of Dr. Lampe demonstrates that he sides with Dr. Aland and the modern higher critical school in accepting the following presuppositions: first, the Pastorals were not written by Paul, and were composed at a much a later date; second, the original Christian ministry consisted of "charismatic offices"; third the "Catholic" concept of the ministry did not have apostolic warrant, and was an evolutionary development that took place at different times in different geographical areas, with the churches at Rome being one of the last regions to fully endorse the "Catholic" development. John accepts the last of these presuppositions, seemingly ignoring the fact that it is built upon the foundation of the other presuppositions, which John rejects. I have gone on record as maintaining that John is being inconsistent, and none of my continuing research into this important issue suggests otherwise.

He then wrote:

“Take my word for it,” he says. This is the sum total of David Waltz’s analysis.

He doesn’t prove that Lampe has these presuppositions. He doesn’t describe how and why these alleged presuppositions exist within Lampe’s work.

As I said, I am going to assist John, and walk him through the material that clearly refutes his allegation.

Lampe’s first presupposition: the Pastorals were not written by Paul, and were composed at a much a later date

The Pastoral letters presuppose Aquila and Prisca still to be in Ephesus (2 Tim 4:19) while Paul is already in Rome. This is one of the historical inconsistencies found in the Pastorals…

For example, when Paul moved from Ephesus to Macedonia, by no means did Timothy remain behind in Ephesus, as 1 Tim 1:3 supposes: Acts 19:22; 20:1-4; 2 Cor 1:1; Rom 16:21…

How did the author come to the mistake regarding Aquila and Prisca?…

Conclusion: In a seach for appropriate names to create a literary fiction based in Ephesus, the prominent names of Aquila and Prisca could not miss falling into the hands of the deutero-Pauline author.
(Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 2003, pp. 158, 159.)

The following study will also consider Acts and the deutero-Pauline letters Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and 1 and 2 Peter. (Peter Lampe and Ulich Luz, "Post-Pauline Christianity and Pagan Society", in Christian Beginnings: Word and Community from Jesus to Post-Apostolic Times, ed. Jürgen Becker, p. 243)

John, the Pastorals are composed of 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, which Lampe describes as deutero-Pauline letters – homework for you: look up the meaning of deutero-Pauline letters, and then get back to me.

Lampe’s second presupposition: the original Christian ministry consisted of "charismatic offices"

The writer of Revelation nonchalantly ignored the hierarchical structures that had also emerged in the Christian congregation by the end of the first century [as witnessed by the Pastorals]. Prophecy was the only church office he wanted to acknowledge in the earthly Christian congregation (cf. 10:7; 11:18; 19:10; 22:6, 16). (Peter Lampe, “Early Christian House Churches: A Constructivist Approach”, in Early Christian Families in Context, ed. David L. Balch, Carolyn Osiek, p. 82.)

The household rules of the New Testament are often named as chief witnesses when one wants to describe how post-Pauline Christianity adapted to the world in a "civilized" way. The are often considered the prime example of how in post-Pauline times Christian ethics became conformed to the world and conservative and how the original "revolutionary" impetus of Gal. 3:28 ("there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female") was lost. In what ways do the household rules represent assimiltion to the world? They do indeed adapt to prevailing pagan structures of oikos. The respect the power or the paterfamilias and demand the submission of wife, children, and slaves to this rule, the call to obedience and the readiness to suffer can even be christologically motivated (1 Peter 2:18-23). (Peter Lampe and Ulich Luz, "Post-Pauline Christianity and Pagan Society", in Christian Beginnings: Word and Community from Jesus to Post-Apostolic Times, ed. Jürgen Becker, p. 272)

Also the structure of offices that emerges in post-Pauline Christianity has been frequently seen as an "assimilation" to the social forms of the world. (Peter Lampe and Ulich Luz, "Post-Pauline Christianity and Pagan Society", in Christian Beginnings: Word and Community from Jesus to Post-Apostolic Times, ed. Jürgen Becker,p. 272)

John, how can you fail to comprehend that Lampe sees the offices described in the Pastorals as being non-apostolic in nature? (Unlike the offices described by Paul in 1 Cor. which Lampe does accept as Pauline, and hence, apostolic.)

Lampe’s third presupposition: the "Catholic" concept of the ministry did not have apostolic warrant, and was an evolutionary development that took place at different times in different geographical areas, with the churches at Rome being one of the last regions to fully endorse the "Catholic" development.

Now, Lampe believes the hierarchical structures (i.e. offices) that emerged in post-Pauline Christianity, did so by the end of the first century (see above), and he also adds:

The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city. Victor was the first who, after faint-herated attempts by Eleutherus, Soter, and Anicetus energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and (at times, only because he was incited from the outside) attempted to place the different groups in the city under his supervision or, where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication. Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy… (Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 2003, p. 397)

Seriously John, don’t you think that you misspoke? How can you not see that I have accurately portrayed Lampe on these three issues?


Grace and peace,

David

20 comments:

Paul Hoffer said...

Hi Dave, This is really an interesting thread. Last year, Mr. Bugay asked me to read Dr. Lampe's book. The book, while offering a number of interesting insights, relies too much on arguments from silence for my tastes, a problem that plagues many folks who rely too heavily on the historical-critical method in doing biblical researches. Chapter 41 in particular is little more than a glorified opinion-long on assertion, short on any real evidence.

Secondly, the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession does not rely on the existence of monarchical or residential bishops. This is an invention first foisted on the doctrines by Protestants theologian in the latter part of 19th century just so they can turn around and "refute" it. While it is true that MOST bishops throughout history have been residential or monarchical, it is not mandatory. In fact, this notion was expressly rejected by the conciliar fathers at Trent.

Finally, even accepting the argument that the sine qua non of bishops is that they had to be monarchical or residental bishops, Lampe does not offer any reason why fractionation would hinder the rise of a such an individual in Rome. Lampe does not even demonstrate that the perceived house churches he sees in Rom. 16 survived the first Christian persecution when Peter and Paul were martyred.

I started my analysis of Lampe's book and hope to finish in May after my classes are done.

BTW, there are a number of folks who happen to have read Lampe's book and disagree with his conclusions, particularly. Dr. Bernard Green of Oxford, who wrote a book called, Christianity in Ancient Rome in the "First Three Centuries" in 2010. Of course, Mr. Bugay never bothers to mention anyone who disagrees with Lampe or offers a different view. He would rather present the matter as settled and not subject to question.

God bless!

Raymond said...

Paul - I linked your first part to your study of Lampe's chapter 41 for John Bugay. He said that it was not a 'serious study.'

I suspect he would also say that Dr. Green's study is also not 'serious.

Raymond said...

Paul - just read a review of Green's work:

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010-09-36.html

It might be noted that although Green readily acknowledges doctrinal diversity, he is less inclined than some recent scholars to see “fractionated” multiplicity as a defining feature of the city’s Christian social landscape2 or to postpone the emergence of a fully fledged Roman episcopate until as late as the 230s and 240s (98).

Uh oh. I think I'll start blogging EVERYWHERE about Green this and Green that and fancy myself a John Bugay type but substitute 'Lampe' for 'Green.'

Paul Hoffer said...

Of course, since Dr. Green disagrees with Dr. Lampe, I have no doubt Mr. Bugay would say that, whether he read it or not.

Part of the problem with Mr. Bugay's criticism of my first posting is that Mr. Bugay would wish an instant analysis of Lampe's work which is unrealistic since Lampe has a Habilitation which is higher than a doctorate and a more serious review would be appropriate.

David Waltz said...

Hi Paul,

Thanks much for responding; I have yet to be disappointed by your posts, finding them to be both restrained and thoughtful. Last night you wrote:

>>Last year, Mr. Bugay asked me to read Dr. Lampe's book.>>

Me: I remember that thrad, and posted some brief reflections in the combox.

>>The book, while offering a number of interesting insights, relies too much on arguments from silence for my tastes, a problem that plagues many folks who rely too heavily on the historical-critical method in doing biblical researches. Chapter 41 in particular is little more than a glorified opinion-long on assertion, short on any real evidence.>>

Me: I concur. It is particularly revealing that John Bugay believes that he and Lampe approach their research, “presupposition-less”; such naïveté make serious interaction with John next to impossible.

>>Secondly, the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession does not rely on the existence of monarchical or residential bishops. This is an invention first foisted on the doctrines by Protestants theologian in the latter part of 19th century just so they can turn around and "refute" it. While it is true that MOST bishops throughout history have been residential or monarchical, it is not mandatory.>>

Me: Exactly, and this has been pointed out by a number of Anglican and Catholic authors.

>> In fact, this notion was expressly rejected by the conciliar fathers at Trent.>>

Me: If you get a chance, could you provide the selection/s from Trent that do so.

>> Finally, even accepting the argument that the sine qua non of bishops is that they had to be monarchical or residental bishops, Lampe does not offer any reason why fractionation would hinder the rise of a such an individual in Rome. Lampe does not even demonstrate that the perceived house churches he sees in Rom. 16 survived the first Christian persecution when Peter and Paul were martyred.>>

Me: Good points, to which I add that Lampe offers NO concrete evidence against the notion that one of the ‘catholic’ presbyters of the house churches in Rome functioned as a president (i.e. bishop). Dr. Williams (a Baptist patristic scholar and author of Bishop Lists), whose work I recommended to John quite some time ago, leans towards this position.

>> I started my analysis of Lampe's book and hope to finish in May after my classes are done.>>

Me: Excellent. Could you make a note to email me when you begin to post your contributions?

I shall wrap up this post by extending a big thanks to you for the heads-up on Dr. Green’s book; I plan to use a portion of next month’s book allowance to purchase the tome.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello Raymond,

Welcome to AF! Thanks much for taking the time to drop by, and share of few of your thoughts; you wrote:

>>Paul - I linked your first part to your study of Lampe's chapter 41 for John Bugay. He said that it was not a 'serious study.'

I suspect he would also say that Dr. Green's study is also not 'serious.>>

Me: I saw that, and was not surprised in the least with his response. BTW, are you feeling the ‘love’ over at BA yet? [GRIN]

>> Paul - just read a review of Green's work:

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010-09-36.html >>


Thanks for the link. Hope you are able to drop by AF more often.


Grace and peace,

David

Raymond said...

Well, just like with Triablogue, I've learned that there is no value for sure in interacting with these guys.

Tap said...

i'm looking at the thread on BA, and i'm amazed. That someone could be caught red-handed, and rather than apologize, they say: "i will have a full response to all of you charges." You will have a full response tomorrow after you've already swallowed / digested the cookie you just took from the Jar? Wonders shall never end...

Irene said...

Hey Dave...It seems like your antagonist is going to have to offer a good smokescreen of a redefinition of "presupposition" if he has any hope of salvaging his ship.

Ken said...

I have been out of town a lot lately; I have posted a response in the com boxes of John's article at Beggar's All "Ever seeing but never perceiving"

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/ever-seeing-but-never-perceiving.html?showComment=1302010577075#c1042085774163042305

I am also planing a response article that shows there is no necessary inconsistency of using Lampe for the historical evidence of the development from plurality of elders to the mono-episcopacy post canon; and yet rejecting his rejection of the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals and inerrancy.

Lampe bases his first presupposition on the assumption that all the details of the travel and other people (Piscilla, etc.) must fit into the Acts scenario of Acts 28 and earlier.

Since we believe Paul was released from prison after Acts 28 and wrote I Tim. and Titus later and had more travels (between 62-67 AD), and then was arrested again, and imprisoned and wrote 2 Timothy from prison the second time, there is no logical necessary inconsistency of using Lampe on the post canonical historical details of plurality of elders to mono-episcopacy.

Five good conservative commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles confirm this:
1. George Knight
2. Philip Towner
3. William Hendrickson
4. Donald Guthrie

5. J.N.D. Kelly (at least articulates the conservative traditional view; but I cannot tell if he personally beleives it.)

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

So good to see you back! As I mentioned in my response to you over at BA, I sincerely hope that your recent preaching and teaching efforts brought blessings both to you and those you were reaching out to.

In your post you wrote:

"I am also planing a response article that shows there is no necessary inconsistency of using Lampe for the historical evidence of the development from plurality of elders to the mono-episcopacy post canon; and yet rejecting his rejection of the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals and inerrancy.

Lampe bases his first presupposition on the assumption that all the details of the travel and other people (Piscilla, etc.) must fit into the Acts scenario of Acts 28 and earlier."

Me: Lampe's rejection of Pauline authorship for the Pastorals (and other epistles attributed to Paul) goes much deeper than what you have outlined above; note the following:

"The household rules of the New Testament are often named as chief witnesses when one wants to describe how post-Pauline Christianity adapted to the world in a "civilized" way. The are often considered the prime example of how in post-Pauline times Christian ethics became conformed to the world and conservative and how the original "revolutionary" impetus of Gal. 3:28 ("there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female") was lost. In what ways do the household rules represent assimiltion to the world? They do indeed adapt to prevailing pagan structures of oikos. The respect the power or the paterfamilias and demand the submission of wife, children, and slaves to this rule, the call to obedience and the readiness to suffer can even be christologically motivated (1 Peter 2:18-23)." (Peter Lampe and Ulich Luz, "Post-Pauline Christianity and Pagan Society", in Christian Beginnings: Word and Community from Jesus to Post-Apostolic Times, ed. Jürgen Becker, p. 272)

And a bit later:

"Also the structure of offices that emerges in post-Pauline Christianity has been frequently seen as an "assimilation" to the social forms of the world." (Peter Lampe and Ulich Luz, "Post-Pauline Christianity and Pagan Society", in Christian Beginnings: Word and Community from Jesus to Post-Apostolic Times, ed. Jürgen Becker,p. 272)


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello again Ken,

I forgot to mention the following scholarly assessment, which has direct bearing on Lampe's theory of the early church structure at Rome:

"This brief scrutiny of the theory that Roman Christianity consisted entirely of separate house groups has hopefully indicated that the theory lacks sure foundation. On the contrary, house churches found in other cities than Rome existed side by side with the main city church, and their existence was not owing to divergencies in belief or to conflicting standpoints, but rather to zealous initiative to evangelize, to win one’s neighbors. Such house churches were to be found in Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:19), Colosse (apparently two: Nympha’s [Col. 4:15] and Philemon’s [Philem. 2]), and, on the analogy of Romans 16:10-11 (τοὺς ἐχ) perhaps also in Corith (1 Cor. 1:11: ủπὸ τϖν). Thus, even though house groups existed in the different cities, there was but one church for each city: e.g., Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch. We have no concrete evidence that the situation in Rome was different. (Chrys C. Caragounis, “From Obsurity to Prominence: The Development of the Roman Church between Romans and 1 Clement”, in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, ed. Karl P. Donfried, 1998, pp. 259, 260.)


Grace and peace,

David

Jamie Donald said...

It seems that there is a huge misunderstanding in this discussion. First, John Bugay responded that he wasn't interested in Lampe's theology when discussing his (Lampe's belief in a non-Pauline authorship of the pastorals). John says he's only interested in Lampe's analysis of history. Second, rather than discussing what the implications arise because of Lampe's belief-set, John goes to justify his own personal belief of Pauline authorship. Ken's response follows the same pattern. I find Ken to be very honest in his explanations, so I tend to believe that he is missing your point. Since John’s thoughts follow the same logic, I am inclined to believe that John is missing the point, not being deliberately obtuse.

Additionally, I laud John for attempting to remove as many presuppositions as possible to try to find the "ground truth." But like you, I note that he seems to be interested in removing only Catholic presuppositions. I have not seen him attempt to remove any Protestant presuppositions. The attempt to get to the "ground truth" should examine all presuppositions, not just the ones hostile to your own viewpoint.

Not only does John not remove Protestant presuppositions, but he seems to think it’s possible to remove all presuppositions. This task would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. For example, in the pastorals, Paul tells both Timothy and Titus how to appoint elders (bishop/presbyter) and deacons, what personal characteristics these men should have. But Paul doesn't describe the actual roles and duties of the particular offices. Timothy and Titus are expected to know what an elder and deacon is, what they do, their role in the community, and their relationship to the community as well as their relationship to Timothy and Titus. The pastorals presuppose that Timothy and Titus have this knowledge.

When you state that Lampe believes in non-Pauline authorship of the pastorals, John appears to see this as an attack on his belief in Pauline authorship (he uses the word "charges" in the sense of accusation). He seems unable to see that you are not asking for a defense of Pauline authorship - that he doesn't need to defend his belief in Pauline authorship. John's error in reading your argument is he fails to see that Lampe's belief in authorship of the pastorals cannot help but influence his historical conclusions. I see your position as saying that if Lampe held to Pauline authorship, then his historical conclusions would change. This makes Lampe's view about authorship of the pastorals more of a historical concern than a theological argument. (And John is interested in the historical data.) So if John is going to interact with your thoughts, he would need to show that Lampe arrived at his historical conclusions independently from his belief concerning the pastorals.

I think this task would be extremely difficult. As noted above, the pastorals presuppose knowledge of a church structure; including offices of apostles, elders, and deacons. If the pastorals were written by Paul, then the knowledge of a hierarchy is much earlier into Church history than Lampe concludes.

Thus, a belief in early publication of the pastorals is in direct conflict with Lampe's conclusion of a late entry of structure to the Church. To interact with your thoughts, John would have to show that belief in this rather early knowledge of structure (as evidenced in the pastorals) somehow does not conflict with the concept of a late development of structure to the Church.

For your argument, I suggest the following question to assist in analysis. You stated that Lampe's belief about the pastorals is one of his presuppositions. It may well be. But, I ask you to consider this: could Lampe suffer from a more basic presupposition; where the more basic presupposition influence both his belief about the pastorals and his method for investigating and making historical conclusions?

Ken said...

Me: Lampe's rejection of Pauline authorship for the Pastorals (and other epistles attributed to Paul) goes much deeper than what you have outlined above; note the following:

Maybe so, but in the long quote you provided from Lampe in your discussions with John and me, which I pointed out by email, that one alone shows that that is at least a big part of his beginning assumption, it seems to me.

I don't buy the theory that was only one church meeting place, building, house, location in each city. It seems obvious there were several house churches.

This seems to conflict with what we know about all the persecution of the first 3 centuries?

Also, it seems that one of your quotes above is indicating that Lampe is pitting Galatians 3:28 against I Timothy 2:11-12 on the issue of female leadership in the church. Now, that may be one of his liberal motivations for not liking the Pastorals and seeing them and the church government as a later non-canonical historical development. (So Lampe is not just against the mono-episcopate, but against the "plurality of elders of men only" also. Interesting additional information here, you have provided regarding the Gal. 3:28 issue. Sounds like Elaine Pagels and the Bauer -Ehrman Thesis again.

However, his theory contradicts Acts 14:23 which is about all the churches in the Southern Galatian area. (Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Pisidian Antioch, etc. - Acts chapters 13-14.)

I think it is best to go with the God-breathed Scriptures and Acts 14:23 on this, which is very early. Also Galatians 3:28 is about salvation and equality in relationship with God, not about roles in church leadership. The same for Genesis 1-2. Equality in person-hood and creation; but difference in role and leadership positions.

David Waltz said...

Ken,

Thanks for responding; you wrote:

>> I don't buy the theory that was only one church meeting place, building, house, location in each city. It seems obvious there were several house churches.>>

Me: Who holds that theory? No one to my knowledge; and I certainly DO NOT. I think Dr. Caragounis' theory (stated in my above post) is much more consistent with Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, and the overall extant history provided in the writings of the early Church Fathers; here again is Dr. Caragounis:

"This brief scrutiny of the theory that Roman Christianity consisted entirely of separate house groups has hopefully indicated that the theory lacks sure foundation. On the contrary, house churches found in other cities than Rome existed side by side with the main city church, and their existence was not owing to divergencies in belief or to conflicting standpoints, but rather to zealous initiative to evangelize, to win one’s neighbors. Such house churches were to be found in Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:19), Colosse (apparently two: Nympha’s [Col. 4:15] and Philemon’s [Philem. 2]), and, on the analogy of Romans 16:10-11 (τοὺς ἐχ) perhaps also in Corith (1 Cor. 1:11: ủπὸ τϖν). Thus, even though house groups existed in the different cities, there was but one church for each city: e.g., Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch. We have no concrete evidence that the situation in Rome was different. (Chrys C. Caragounis, “From Obsurity to Prominence: The Development of the Roman Church between Romans and 1 Clement”, in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, ed. Karl P. Donfried, 1998, pp. 259, 260.)


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Jamie,

So good to see you weigh in on this issue; I found your post both charitable and very informative. You wrote:

>>As noted above, the pastorals presuppose knowledge of a church structure; including offices of apostles, elders, and deacons. If the pastorals were written by Paul, then the knowledge of a hierarchy is much earlier into Church history than Lampe concludes.>>

Me: Exactly! Finally someone other than myself is 'getting it'. I would also add that if one accepts that the Pastorals were written by Paul, then the church hierarchy outlined in those epistles has apostolic warrant; and this, Lampe clearly denies, instead, opting for an evolutionary theory bases on what he has phrased, " an 'assimilation' to the social forms of the world."

>>Thus, a belief in early publication of the pastorals is in direct conflict with Lampe's conclusion of a late entry of structure to the Church. To interact with your thoughts, John would have to show that belief in this rather early knowledge of structure (as evidenced in the pastorals) somehow does not conflict with the concept of a late development of structure to the Church.>>

Me: Precisely.

>>For your argument, I suggest the following question to assist in analysis. You stated that Lampe's belief about the pastorals is one of his presuppositions. It may well be. But, I ask you to consider this: could Lampe suffer from a more basic presupposition; where the more basic presupposition influence both his belief about the pastorals and his method for investigating and making historical conclusions? >>

Me: I do believe that Lampe could, "suffer from a more basic presupposition; where the more basic presupposition influence both his belief about the pastorals and his method for investigating and making historical conclusions". However, given John's responses to my older posts on this issue, I have tried to be more specific, presenting for now Lampe's clear, and unambiguous presuppositions.


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

Jamie wrote:
>>As noted above, the pastorals presuppose knowledge of a church structure; including offices of apostles, elders, and deacons. If the pastorals were written by Paul, then the knowledge of a hierarchy is much earlier into Church history than Lampe concludes.>>


David wrote:
Me: Exactly! Finally someone other than myself is 'getting it'. I would also add that if one accepts that the Pastorals were written by Paul, then the church hierarchy outlined in those epistles has apostolic warrant; and this, Lampe clearly denies, instead, opting for an evolutionary theory bases on what he has phrased, " an 'assimilation' to the social forms of the world."

Yes, we already got that, in respect to a plurality of elders for each church and deacons; and John and I agree with the plurality of elders and deacons structure; that it is apostolic, just that the overseer is interchangeable with the presbuteros, in accordance with Titus 1:5-7, I Clement, and the Didache (2 offices); and consistent with Acts 14:23; 20:17 and 28 showing that the elders are the office, and task of overseeing and shepherding/pastoring are the functions of the elders. All of that is apostolic and in Scripture; but the change from a plurality of elders to the mono-espiscopacy is a later development between I Clement and Ignatius (Antioch and Asia Minor) and even later for Rome.

We Protestants also believe in the 2 offices 1. Elders/Overseers/pastors/teachers and 2. Deacons-Servant as apostolic. Acts 14:23 is key and early and contradicts the Bauer-Pagels-Erhman- thesis, but Lampe's historial stuff confirms that the change was between I Clement and Ignatius and even later for Rome.

This (Ignatius and mono-episcopacy) is one of the earliest and most discernible mistakes of the early church (post canon/post apostles) where they went beyond Scripture. "do not go beyond what is written" - I Cor. 4:6

Ken said...

If the pastorals were written by Paul, then the knowledge of a hierarchy is much earlier into Church history than Lampe concludes.>>

Plurality of elders yes

- Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; I Peter 5:1-5; Titus 1:5-7. (also I Clement, Philippians 1:1 (2 offices, overseers and deacons); Didache (2 offices again, overseers/bishops/episcopas being the same office as elders/presbuteros.

But overseers/bishops as separate and above the elders - no;

-that was not apostolic nor canonical Scripture - that appears first in Ignatius and yes, does get developed more in history; but not the original intent in the Scriptures.

Sean Patrick said...

This thread.

It took a little longer than normal but John Bugay, as per the usual, accused you of being 'dishonest.'

John plays from the same deck of cards and his 'you are dishonest' card is one that he plays quite often.

At least others are noticing his duplicity as respect to scholarly inquiry.

David Waltz said...

Hi Sean,

Forgive my somewhat tardy response (in my defense, I had out of town guests over the weekend, and refrained from cyberspace activities). In your last post you wrote:

>> It took a little longer than normal but John Bugay, as per the usual, accused you of being 'dishonest.'

John plays from the same deck of cards and his 'you are dishonest' card is one that he plays quite often.>>

Me: Indeed. I have noticed that John has a penchant for accusing others of practices that he himself blatantly engages in (see my April 11th thread for documentation).

>>At least others are noticing his duplicity as respect to scholarly inquiry.>>

Me: In the upcoming days (the Lord willing), I am going to provide considerable documentation concerning John’s selective and inconsistent use/misuse of Lampe (and now Dr. Darrell Bock), and his complete neglect of contemporary scholars that differ with Lampe on some key issues.


Grace and peace,

David