Monday, April 11, 2011

Assisting John Bugay - part 2: helping John keep track of his falsehoods (or, perhaps, acute memory loss)

John Bugay's ongoing campaign/obsession (7 new threads over 12 days 7th; 6th; 5th; 4th;3rd; 2nd; 1st) to misrepresent, slander and smear yours truly (in his attempt defend his use of Peter Lampe for his much larger anti-Catholic campaign/obsession), has taken a darker side: the use of falsehoods. In this thread I will document two recent examples.


FALSEHOOD #1: John Bugay posted/wrote the following on April 2, 2001 - 4:25 AM:

I’ll say in response to this, other than David having called Lampe a “liberal,” (and having loosely associated him with Harnack), David himself doesn’t state what Lampe’s “presuppositions” are. Assigning “guilt-by-association” is not the same thing as stating what someone’s presupposition is. As I’ve said, he is more than welcome to point these out so that I may then reject them, but no such thing is forthcoming. (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/ever-seeing-but-never-perceiving.html)


John had to of known that his charge was utterly false, because just the day before (April 01, 2011 - 3:21 AM) he posted/wrote:

Into this mix, David Waltz wants to inject the illegitimate method of “smear by association” and suggest that “Lampe’s presuppositions caused him to misunderstand that world.” And in an effort to try to somehow to “prove” this, Waltz, in his most recent post, takes a long selection from the writings of the most well-known of the German liberals, Adolph von Harnack, and says, “Lampe and Von Harnack both believe the Pastorals were not written by Paul. Therefore, their work is flawed in exactly the same way.” Here is his “analysis”:

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.

“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. He doesn’t describe the historical situation and say, “this begins here, that begins there”. David Waltz simply makes some loose assumptions, he declares “guilt by association,” and then he wants to go and take a nap or something. (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/bauer-thesis.html) [Bold emphasis mine.]


And on March 30, 2001 - 5:45 AM, he posted/wrote:


After providing a series of links to my various blog posts responding to him (and which I have supplemented here), here, unvarnished, is his devastating criticism:


I do not believe that John has adequately addressed the most pressing issue—which I have mentioned on more than one occasion—here it is again:


The premise/presuppostion [sic] that archeology and secular history must take precedence over Biblical historicity.


This is the method that is foundational for Lampe (and so many other liberal scholars), and he applies it not only to Biblical historicity, but also to the history provided in the writings of early “Catholic” bishops and authors. (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/03/closer-look-at-david-waltzs-objections.html)

So, as one can clearly see, John provided in two prior posts the very presuppositions he spoke of being absent in his charge that, David himself doesn’t state what Lampe’s “presuppositions” are. My oh my!!!


FALSEHOOD #2: In the body of John's April 01, 2011 - 3:21 AM post we read:

Into this mix, David Waltz wants to inject the illegitimate method of “smear by association” and suggest that “Lampe’s presuppositions caused him to misunderstand that world.” And in an effort to try to somehow to “prove” this, Waltz, in his most recent post, takes a long selection from the writings of the most well-known of the German liberals, Adolph von Harnack, and says, “Lampe and Von[sic] Harnack both believe the Pastorals were not written by Paul. Therefore, their work is flawed in exactly the same way.”


Notice that John attributes to me ("David Waltz...says"), using quotation marks, the following:

“Lampe’s presuppositions caused him to misunderstand that world.”

Lampe and Von[sic] Harnack both believe the Pastorals were not written by Paul. Therefore, their work is flawed in exactly the same way.”

The above "quotes" are not my words at all. John is trying to 'pull a fast one' on his readers, via a falsehood: he is attributing to me what are actually his own personal assessments—assessments that miss the mark by a 'country mile.'

IMO, this post has given us an important glimpse into the mind and character of John Bugay; I shall let the readers discern for themselves the implications therein.



Grace and peace,

David



P.S. I noticed the following at the end of John's latest (7th) post directed at me:

This is going to be my last response to David Waltz at Beggars All.

Given John's obsessive behavior, it will be interesting to see if the above holds true.

13 comments:

Akakius said...

Mr. Waltz,

I check in on your blog on a regular basis, but I rarely comment. Your last post has prompted me to share some rare comments.

Mr. Bugay is clearly anti-Catholic (for the record, I am anti-Catholic too), what is troubling to me is that he thinks he approaches the early post-Biblical writings without this clear bias.

More troubling is the fact that he has lied on numerous occasions (you present his lies as “falsehoods”, but your apparent attempt at tactfulness does not change the facts before us.)

I have been going through the seven links you provided, and have found Mr. Bugay’s responses woefully deficient. I have also noticed that you have directly responded to his posts in his threads, but he does not directly responded to your posts in your recent threads.

The obvious lying, the general tact, and the total absence of the “fruits of the spirit”, suggests to me that Mr. Bugay is not a Christian. That he is a Calvinist, comes as no surprise to me.


Akakius

David Waltz said...

Hello Akakius,

Thanks for taking the time to respond; you wrote:

>>The obvious lying, the general tact, and the total absence of the “fruits of the spirit”, suggests to me that Mr. Bugay is not a Christian.>>

Me: Unlike John and a few other posters at Beggar's All, I refuse to pass judgment on whether or not he (or anyone else who claims our Lord Jesus Christ as their savior) is or is not a Christian—such judgment lies in the hands of Jesus Himself.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. (Matt. 7:1, 2)

>>That he is a Calvinist, comes as no surprise to me.>>

Me: I concur; my online experience strongly suggests a good number of the Reformed e-pologists (but certainly not all) are some of the meanest and bigoted folk in cyberspace. There also a penchant for 'double-standards' that is very frustrating to me (I suspect most readers have already discerned this).


Grace and peace,

David

Irene said...

David Waltz:

"...my online experience strongly suggests a good number of the Reformed e-pologists (but certainly not all) are some of the meanest and bigoted folk in cyberspace. There also a penchant for 'double-standards' that is very frustrating to me (I suspect most readers have already discerned this)."

Rory:

I don't think I ever told you this Dave, but my brother, who is a Reformed Baptist, had apparently followed a link from Beggar's All to here and happened upon a comment I made along the same lines as what you have just said. This was a couple of years ago I think.

Of course he was not very happy about it. He seemed surprised. I don't understand it myself. But Akakius said the same thing virtually. Not surprised to find Bugay was Calvinist! Do you think there is something doctrinally that tends to kill compassion or mercy whatever it is that tends to make us amiable?

Of course I can't prove that Calvinists are less pleasant than all other Christians. But there are three of us here right now whose experience seems to point that way. As far as Protestantism goes, I probably have more sympathy for Calvinism than any other group. I don't have any axe to grind. Do you guys? If not, do you have any theories or guesses that you would want to make public about what could account for this agreed upon sad phenomenon?

Rory

Sean Patrick said...

At least there is finally some sanity being presented at Beggars All in the comments:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/devotional-life-of-modern-pantheist.html

I think the whole "Benedict is a pantheist" takes the cake and finally people from his own team are telling him to cut it out. It is so absurd I cannot even justify thinking about it.

But it goes to demonstrate his motives.

If you google 'Benedict' + 'Pantheist' you get quotes from him repudiating pantheism and then a single person accusing him of pantheism...that is John Bugay. Now he and Matthew Schultz are beating up on Ron for daring to call into question John’s behavior.

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Thanks much for taking the time to comment; you wrote:

>>I don't think I ever told you this Dave, but my brother, who is a Reformed Baptist, had apparently followed a link from Beggar's All to here and happened upon a comment I made along the same lines as what you have just said. This was a couple of years ago I think.>>

Me: I knew that your brother went from an Independent Baptist to a Reformed Baptist awhile back, but I did not know that he had posted here. I think you informed me that he is a fan of "Dr." James R. White. James Swan is a member of White's Prosapologian squad, and occasionally posts on White's blog; I suspect that is how your brother 'discovered' Swan's anti-Catholic blog.

>>Of course he was not very happy about it. He seemed surprised. I don't understand it myself. But Akakius said the same thing virtually. Not surprised to find Bugay was Calvinist! Do you think there is something doctrinally that tends to kill compassion or mercy whatever it is that tends to make us amiable?>>

Me: IMO, a complex number of factors are at work; I am sure the doctrines of double-predestination, inability, total depravity, et al. are part of the 'mix'.

>>Of course I can't prove that Calvinists are less pleasant than all other Christians. But there are three of us here right now whose experience seems to point that way.>>

Me: Not just us three; my broader 'experience' over the last few years in cyberspace has revealed numerous other examples of hostility, bigotry, and the absence of any charity, directed towards individuals who have dared to call into question the musings of a number of Reformed e-pologists.

>>As far as Protestantism goes, I probably have more sympathy for Calvinism than any other group. I don't have any axe to grind. Do you guys?>>

Me: My mentor who played a major role in my exodus from the JWs was Reformed; a very bright, yet humble gent, who grew tired of the 'Reformed civil wars', and ended up converting to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod well over a decade ago. He worked at a Christian Discount Bookstore whose inventory of books was at least 90% Reformed; a number of the books in my library reflect the early influence of CDB and the classic Reformed works I purchased there—I suspect Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, W. G. T. Shedd, et al. would be a bit shocked by the behavior of a number of cyber folk who claim to be Reformed.

>>If not, do you have any theories or guesses that you would want to make public about what could account for this agreed upon sad phenomenon?>>

Me: IMO, ego and pride are major factors involved; I cannot ignore the general tone of superiority that drips from the pens of a number of Reformed cyber-folk; bottom-line: they think they are smarter than the rest of us.


Grace and peace,

David

steelikat said...

I found your blog through Beggars All as well.

My experience is similar to your mentor's (the one who played a major role in your exodus from the JWs).

Not to disagree with any of what you and Irene and Akakius have said, but I think it should also be said that most Reformed are just as amiable, compassionate, loving and polite as most Lutherans or most people from any other Christian denomination or tradition.

I think there is a certain type of personality (and I am speaking from personal experience because I have that personality) who is likely to be attracted to Calvinism and for whom snobbery, narcissism, a sense of superiority and other related flaws are particular temptations and tendencies.

That is not an indictment or an argument against Calvinism or, as I've said, a description of Calvinists generally speaking. Nor is that type of personality unique to Calvinism. That's just an observation I've made something that resonates with my personal experience.

David Waltz said...

Hi Sean,

So good to 'see' you back; thanks for the link to the new thread from the "asylum"—I still remained a bit shocked that the Ratzinger/Benedict XVI "is a full-blown pantheist" slander/smear is still being promoted (a bit shocked, and yet, not that surprised; a dichotomy for sure!). I found the following comment from one of the "inmates" to be quite revealing:

"Don't give our theological opponents unnecessary fuel for their slanderous apologetics machine. If you really have an issue with John's methodology, write a post critiquing it over at your blog, with supporting documentation and arguments, rather than throwing out something unsubstantiated, bordering on defamatory."

Me: The BA "inmates" can slander all they want, but if anyone attempts to call into question any of the "inmates" wild musings and/or theories, the BA smear machine rolls into action—one word comes to mind: HYPOCRISY.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi steelikat,

I am sincerely pleased that you have taken the time to offer your thoughts concerning the subjective online experiences with certain Reformed folk that a few of us have witnessed. I am in full agreement with much of what you posted; for instance, you penned:

>>Not to disagree with any of what you and Irene and Akakius have said, but I think it should also be said that most Reformed are just as amiable, compassionate, loving and polite as most Lutherans or most people from any other Christian denomination or tradition.>>

Me: Agreed. I have noted on numerous occasions that the Reformed Baptist Ken Temple's overall online actions run contrary to the Reformed folk we have been highlighting. Other Reformed folk who generally demonstrate charity and politeness in their online behavior include Jason Stellman, Guy Davies, and the gent who goes by the name 'Pilgrimsarbour'. I am sure there are many more charitable Reformed folk that others can point to...

>>I think there is a certain type of personality (and I am speaking from personal experience because I have that personality) who is likely to be attracted to Calvinism and for whom snobbery, narcissism, a sense of superiority and other related flaws are particular temptations and tendencies.>>

Me: I would add to the mix the fact that until the last few decades, Reformed theologians/thinkers have dominated conservative, Protestant, American, Christian writings and thought.

>>That is not an indictment or an argument against Calvinism or, as I've said, a description of Calvinists generally speaking. Nor is that type of personality unique to Calvinism. That's just an observation I've made something that resonates with my personal experience.>>

Me: I have sincerely appreciated your observations and reflections.

At this point I think it important to note that I view many of the individuals who are part of the Reformed tradition as brothers in Christ. This fact can sometimes be under-emphasized when we are engaged in discourse with the more vocal, hostile, bigoted, members of that great tradition; and it is they, unfortunately, who seem to receive a much greater degree of attention than their more charitable brothers.


Grace and peace,

David

Reginald de Piperno said...

To Bugay’s credit it appears that yesterday’s pantheism post will be removed tomorrow.

But the real credit, I think, goes to Mr. DiGiacomo (spelling?) for taking what was, disappointingly, an unpopular stand. Disagreements surely can be handled by dealing with arguments rather than defamatory nonsense like what was in that post. The cause of truth isn’t advanced that way.

RdP

Lvka said...

Link.

Lvka said...

Another link.

TheDen said...

Hey...I follow your blog on occasion and you write good stuff. I occasionally post on BA.

Did you notice Bugay's name's been removed from BA?

I wonder what happened?

Paul Hoffer said...

Hi TheDen, They do not state why he left there or under what circumstances, but in addition to his name, BA also pulled the last couple of articles he posted touching on Pope Benedict XVI's supposed belief in pantheism.

He is now posting over at Triablogue in case anyone is interested.

God bless!