Dr. Dale Tuggy vs. Steve Hays

It seems that my self-imposed, two month hiatus from the internet (apart from emails and sports) has come to an end—I am replacing my 'cloistered', 8-10 hours of intense off-line reading/study, with my more customary 4 hours.

My entry back into cyberspace began with a look at the Beggars All blog (see the previous thread here at AF). Yesterday, I peeked in on the Triablogue blog, and immediately noticed a large number of threads (authored by Steve Hays), dedicated to a specific individual named Dale Tuggy. The name sounded familiar, but for awhile, I could not pinpoint where I had come across the name (I later realized that back in January 2011, I had read Dale's essay, "The Trinitarian Dilemma", published in The Trinity - East/West Dialogue, 2003—I had purchased the book in January 2011 for Dr. Alfeyev's essay, "The Trinitarian Teaching of St. Gregory of Nazianzen").

It seems that Steve has developed an obsession, he has devoted no less than 23 threads (between June 10 - July 7), to Dr. Tuggy; here are the threads in chronological order:


http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/arianism-redux.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/revealing-and-being.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/no-one-who-denies-son-has-father.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/foolish-nonsense.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/and-word-was-god.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/king-is-dead-long-live-king.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/defining-identity.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-is-god.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/blessed-quaternity.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/does-trinity-contradict-monotheism.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/unitarian-apostates.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/name-above-every-name.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/unitarian-conundrum.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/blasphemy-and-exaltation.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/tuggys-intellectual-shortcuts.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/tuggys-pseudo-logic.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/isaian-monotheism.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/unitarianisms.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/infernex.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/unitarian-dress-code.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/tuggys-shellgame.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/identity-and-counting.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/our-lord-jesus-christ-glory.html


Dr. Tuggy has produced the following related threads at his blog:

http://trinities.org/blog/archives/2739

http://trinities.org/blog/archives/2802

http://trinities.org/blog/archives/2837

http://trinities.org/blog/archives/2856

http://trinities.org/blog/archives/2872


Seems that a lot has transpired on this topic (i.e. the doctrine/nature of the Christian God) during my hiatus...

I would now like to go back to Steve's first thread (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/arianism-redux.html), and provide a few of my own reflections. Steve wrote:

Dale Tuggy wrote the entry on the Trinity for the Stanford encylopedia. That's unfortunately inasmuch as Tuggy is an anti-Trinitarian.

In the combox, Dr. Tuggy denies the charge that he is "an anti-Trinitarian" (LINK), clarifying why he believes the charge to be false:

First, I wouldn't call myself an anti-trinitarian. I'm not from any such denomination or group, and I think believers ought to believe what seems true to them, and that they have the right to speculate. Thus, I would not break fellowship with someone, or accuse them of misc. bad stuff because they accept some Trinity theory or other. I am certainly a non-trinitarian, i.e. a small-u unitarian. I've been dragged there by the texts, and by the desperate problem faced by every Trinity theory out there.

I think one can see that Steve's charge is false—one can be a non-Trinitarian, without being an anti-Trinitarian—but no apology and/or acknowledgment is offered by Steve.

[FYI: Dr. Tuggy's entry on the Trinity in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy can be accessed online HERE.]

Steve then proceeds to throw a number of other baseless assertions at Dr. Tuggy throughout his opening post, and Dr. Tuggy responds to those charges in the combox. One of those assertions in particular stood out to me:

ii) There's no reason to equate Yahweh with God the Father. That's highly anachronistic.

Wow, I mean WOW; IMO, Steve needs to read the Bible a bit more. Note the following:

Ye do the works of your father. They said unto him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me. (John 8:41, 42 - ASV)

For those Jews contesting with Jesus in the above passage, who were they referring to as "one Father, even God"? Clearly, they were referring to Yahweh/Jehovah.

The concept of Yahweh/Jehovah as Father (i.e. the Fatherhood of God) to His chosen people was clearly taught in the OT (e.g. Is. 63:16; 64:8; Hos. 1:10)—equating God the Father with Yahweh is certainly not "anachronistic".

[For some extended reflections from my pen on this issue, see the following thread: http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/10/back-to-bible.html.]


I would like to wrap up this opening post by pointing out that Steve's thread title, Arianism redux, is seriously flawed, for neither Dr. Tuggy nor Dr. Samuel Clarke (the two individuals he specifically castigates therein) are Arian; but then, those familiar with Steve's polemic are cognizant that he does not let facts get in the way of his caustic and skewed polemics.


Grace and peace,

David

Does the Roman Catholic Church teach either Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism? - When facts and objectivity take a 'backseat' to polemics

As I mentioned in my last post, "I have been in one of my intense reading modes", but I am a big fan of tennis, as such, I have been 'multi-tasking' during this 2011 Wimbledon season. Today was the men's quarterfinals and of the four gents I had hoped would advance into the semis, only one did so (Andy Murray). I was a bit 'bummed' by the other outcomes, and not in much of a mood to continue today's studies, so I thought I would check in on some of the apologetics sites that have been of interest to me. Those familiar with my blog are aware of my past interest in the Beggars All blog, especially those threads that reflect on Catholicism. With the departure of John Bugay, the number of anti-Catholic threads at BA seemed to have dropped off the high level of intensity that persisted during John's presence as a "contributor", but the month of June has seen a significant upturn in polemical threads directed at Catholicism (many, but certainly not all, revolve around the Vulgate version of the Bible). I went back through the new threads posted at BA over the last three weeks and counted no less than 19 threads devoted to one aspect or another of BA's negative stance on Catholicism; of those 19 threads 2 in particular caught my attention: Orange and Trent and In Catholic theological anthropology, human nature is not selfish or sinful; human nature is good.

These two threads touch on an issue that I have spent of good deal of time researching: whether or not the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. doctrine delineated in the accepted Catholic councils) is either Pelagian or semi-Pelagian.

In the Orange and Trent thread penned by Ken Temple, we read:

“Semi-Pelagianism condemned at Orange in 529 AD, but reaffirmed at Trent” (1545-1563) (Basically, the essence of statements by Bavinck, Berkouwer, and Sproul; see below)


Ken then links to two "articles that focus on the beneficial canons of the Council of Orange that Protestant Reformers also emphasized in their battles against the false doctrines of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism and how the Council of Trent is contradictory to much of the council of Orange."

It seems that Ken has pretty much relied on the conclusions drawn by the above two articles, along with those of R. C. Sproul; unfortunately, many of those conclusions are fundamentally flawed. I am going to focus on Sproul in this thread, for I have read a good deal of Sproul's treatments on this subject, and have already touched on some of his skewed assessments here at AF. Once again from Orange and Trent we read:

Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification, by R. C. Sproul. Baker, 1995.

In chapter 7, entitled “Merit and Grace”, R. C. Sproul discusses the issues of merit and grace, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, the Council of Orange in 529 AD and the council of Trent (1545-1463), which seems to affirm semi-Pelagianism.

“Rome has repeatedly been accused of condemning semi-Pelagianism at Orange [in 529 AD] but embracing it anew at Trent. Herman Bavinck held that “although semi-Pelagianism had been condemned by Rome, it reappeared in a ‘roundabout way’”. G. C. Berkouwer observed:


“Between Orange and Trent lies a long process of development, namely, scholasticism, with its elaboration of the doctrine of the meritoriousness of good works, and the Roman system of penitence . . .”

Bavinck and Berkouwer are cited by Sproul in Faith Alone, pages 140-141.


I touched on Sproul's Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification in my thread, An Evangelical Critique of R. C. Sproul's "Faith alone", but address the issue of semi-Pelagianism more directly the thread, Why terminology is important, which interacts with Sroul's subsequent book, Willing to Believe (1997). [BTW, Sproul has certainly misread Berkouwer concerning his reflections on Trent and its relationship to Orange and semi-Pelagianism; hope to post a thread on this in the near future.]

I do not wish to duplicate the entire thread here, so I shall focus on but one of Sproul's faulty assessments; Sproul penned (provided in the above thread):

The classic issue between Augustinian theology and all forms of semi-Pelagianism focuses on one aspect of the order of salvation (ordo salutis): What is the relationship between regeneration and faith? Is regeneration a monergistic or synergistic work? Must a person first exercise faith in order to be born again? Or must rebirth occur before a person is able to exercise faith? Another way to state the question is this: Is the grace of regeneration operative or cooperative?


Dr. Sproul is just plain wrong here, and I clearly pointed this out in the same thread:

...a careful reading of the historical context of the birth of semi-Pelagianism reveals a much different landscape. And what is disconcerting to me, is that Sproul, in his Willing To Believe, has obviously read the history behind the emergence of semi-Pelgaianism, as well as the early Church’s reaction to it. Sproul in pages 69-76 gives a brief, but for the most part, accurate portrayal of the rise of semi-Pelagianism, citing three esteemed authorities, whose primary discipline is that of Christian history: Philip Schaff, Adolf von Harnack and Reinhold Seeberg. Yet amazingly, Sproul, in spite of the very quotes he provides from these scholars, misses THE KEY INGREDIENT which distinguishes semi-Pelagianism from all forms of Augustinianism! That KEY INGREDIENT is this:

Semi-Pelaganianism teaches that an individual apart from grace can accept the offer of salvation, and that once accepted one then cooperates with the grace that God gives. In other words, semi-Pelagianism denies the necessity of grace for one to believe/accept the gospel.


While Pelagianism denies that ANY grace is necessary for salvation (both before and after the acceptance of the Gospel), semi-Pelagainism only denies that grace is necessary for one to accept the gospel.


Note the following:

SEMI-PELAGIANISM. The doctrines on human nature upheld in the 4th and 5th cents. by a group of theologians who, while not denying the necessity of *Grace for salvation, maintained that the first steps towards the Christian life were ordinarily taken by the human will and Grace supervened only later. (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed. 1974 - 1985 reprint, p. 1258.)


SEMI-PELAGIANISM. Doctrines, upheld during the period from 427 to 529, that rejected the extreme views of Pelagius and of Augustine in regards to the priority of divine grace and human will in the initial work of salvation...


Cassian [one of the early leaders of semi-Pelagianism] taught that though a sickness is inherited through Adam's sin, human free will has not been entirely obliterated. Divine grace is indispensable for salvation, but does not necessarily need to precede a free human choice, because, despite the weakness of human volition, the will takes the initiative toward God [apart from supernatural grace]. (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1984, p. 1000.)


Sproul in Willing to Believe even quotes the following from Dr. Philip Schaff (History of the Christian Church) which affirms the above:

In opposition to both systems he taught that the divine image and human freedom were not annihilated, but only weakened, by the fall; in other words, that man is sick, but not dead, that he cannot indeed help himself, but that he can desire the help of a physician, and either accept or refuse it when offered, and that he must cooperate with the grace of God in his salvation. The question, which of the two factors has the initiative, he answers, altogether empirically, to this effect: that sometimes, and indeed usually, the human will, as in the cases of the Prodigal Son, Zacchaeus, the Penitent Thief, and Cornelius, determines itself to conversion; sometimes grace anticipates it, and, as with Matthew and Paul, draws the resisting will—yet, even in this case, without constraint—to God. Here, therefore, the gratia praeveniens is manifestly overlooked. (Sproul, Willing, p. 74; Schaff, History, 3.861)


How Dr. Sproul could miss THE key distinguishing feature after citing the above is quite baffling to me. That Ken and so many others mistakenly attribute the charge of semi-Pelagianism to the Roman Catholic Church, seemingly relying on such flawed assessments, comes as no surprise to me.


Grace and peace,

David

Göbekli Tepe: the world's first temple?

To those who may be wondering why I have not posted a new thread here at AF in a little over a month now, I have been in one of my intense reading modes; and when I have not been reading, I have stepped up my work-out schedule, leaving little time for the internet, other than checking my emails. In an email I received yesterday, a topic totally new to me was brought to my attention: the Göbekli Tepe archeological site in southeastern Turkey. I was linked to the June 2011 National Geographic online entry, "Göbekli Tepe" (HERE), which inspired me to put down my books, and engage in a bit more online research.

I found the Smithsonian.com contribution, "Gobekli Tepe: the world's first temple?", to be of value, and worth the time it took to read (LINK).

I also enjoyed the following YouTube video:

Anyway, wanted to take a brief break away from my studies, and share this fascinating information (IMHO) with others...



Grace and peace,

David

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.

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

John Bugay's recent rant

I suspect that this thread will bore many readers, but please forgive me for taking up cyberspace, for I think it prudent to respond to John Bugay's early morning diatribe...

It took John less than 20 hours to type up a response (LINK ) to my March 31st post (LINK). IMHO, John should really think about taking a bit more time digesting and reflecting upon the material that he critiques. I am going to repost the bulk of John's diatribe in red (I see no need to reproduce the video, and his comments on it); my reflections on his diatribe will be in black.

In a way, David Waltz is playing Costello to my Abbott. Except, I’ve always laid all my cards (and definitions) on the table.

This is quite simply false; I shall provide two recent examples that demonstrate this: first, John has failed to give us his definitive definition of the term "liberal" which he has used in a good number of contexts; and second, John described Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as, "a full-blown pantheist", but never really tells us exactly what he means by this (instead, he provides a few quotes out of context, and then gives Michael Horton's highly debatable definition).

He said in his most recent post: John (and others), continues to ignore the fact that presuppositions have serious implications concerning one's assessment of raw data that can legitimately be interpreted in more than one sense, and there is no question in my mind that this is especially true when one attempts to determine the form/type of ministry that Jesus' apostles had intended/instructed to be functioning after their departure into heaven. And further, it is one's view of the Christian ministry which constitutes one of the preeminent factors in determining the very nature of the Church founded by Jesus and His apostles.

David muddles things, and he does so pretty badly. I do not “ignore the fact that presuppositions have serious implications.” There are presuppositions all over the place. Some people try to slip in presuppositions without us knowing it. That’s where these folks find me so frustrating. I isolate Rome’s presuppositions, and I say, “let’s start without these.” That’s the main thing I try to do.

Yet another prime example of John's penchant for double-standards, he isolates Rome’s presuppositions, and asks us to start without these; but then, he refuses to isolate HIS presuppositions, and Dr. Lampe's presuppositions, and start without these. David is not even talking about the right set of presuppositions.

A purely subjective assertion with no proof.

My goal all along, and I’ve stated this many times, is “to understand what [the early church] knew, and when they knew it.” Direct question for David Waltz: Have you ever seen this in any of my blog posts?

Here is yet another example of where John has failed to give us a definition: exactly what does John mean by the early church? Does John realize that a number of the scholars that he cites in his posts believe that it is impossible to speak of 'a church', but rather, that one must speak of 'churches'?

The effort to “understand what they knew and when they knew it” is an effort to exclude all presuppositions about what the early church believed. It is an effort to create a “presupposition-less” understanding of what the early church believed.

I sincerely believe that John is either being grossly naive here, or dishonest with us—it is impossible to approach what the 'early church' believed without presuppositions.

Now, to be sure, nature abhors a vacuum, and trying to create a “presupposition-less” understanding, is to try to create a kind of vacuum.

Finally some sound thoughts John's from pen.

If the early church truly believed certain things, I want to understand what those were. But if they did not believe things, then to suggest that they did, in any way, would be equally wrong. And as I’ve stated many times, it is necessary to exclude one particular, pernicious modern-day Roman belief as a presupposition of what the early church believed:God the Father passed His authority on to Jesus (cf. Matthew 28:18 ), Who passed it on to the apostles (cf. Luke 10:16 and Matthew 28:19 ), who passed it on to their successors.

This is not something that the early church believed. And if you think they did, in this presupposition-less world, it is up to you to show where they believed it.

First, it is certainly not a presupposition-less world that we are dealing with; and second, John has yet to interact with 'conservative' Anglican and Catholic scholars who defend the conception of the 'early church' he cited above.

This statement is a conception of authority that Roman Catholics today believe, and at every occasion, they try to say, “It was this way with the early church, too, they just didn’t know it.” Now, that is the unstated presupposition that Roman Catholics, especially the Called to Communion sort, try to impress upon us. They just simply assume that’s the case.

I am not here to defend the folk at Called to Communion, I am here to defend what I have written. In any discussion of “church history,” you have to understand, as Turretin says, Thus this day the Romanists (although they are anything but the true church of Christ) still boast of their having alone the name of church and do not blush to display the standard of that which they oppose. In this manner, hiding themselves under the specious title of the antiquity and infallibility of the Catholic church, they think they can, as with one blow, beat down and settle the controversy waged against them concerning the various most destructive errors introduced into the heavenly doctrine (Turretin, Vol 3 pg 2).

What has the above quote to do about what the 'early church' believed, and what I have written on this matter—can you spell 'red-herring'?

And what is “the controversy waged against them”? In Turretin’s day, it was the Protestant Reformation. And what did the Reformation say? It said, repeatedly, “Roman authority is not God-given authority.” “Roman authority is not God-given authority.”

Yawn...can we get back on track...

I ask them to show where this authority came from; the most that I get in response is a variation of the “authority” quote above. They can’t prove it from the records. Instead, they have to come up with nonsensical explanations such as, “they believed it ‘implicitly,’ they just didn’t know it. It took ‘further reflection’. What did Newman say? “No doctrine is articulated until it is opposed.” That’s just a nonsensical way to look at things, and it did not in any way correspond with the historical facts on the ground.

John, have you lost your mind...can you prove to me what you think the 'early church' believed? And perhaps more importantly, do you honestly believe that the Reformed paradigm is devoid of significant development?

If you look at the actual historical events, you’ll see raw power struggles and a Roman authority that was determined to assert itself at every turn.

Yawn...

The thing that I am most trying to do is to provide a positive picture of what the world was like in the days of the early church. Lampe is not the only writer I’ve cited. I’ve been citing from F.F. Bruce and Roger Beckwith - not liberals at all, to be sure - and many others as well. I do this because, when you try to understand what the church, as a whole really believed (in various places and at various times), you first have to understand the world as it existed in those times and places. What it was really like.

You are limiting yourself here; try reading Aland, Barker, Dunn, Hanson, Kümmel, Küng, Segal, and then get back to me.

Lampe is one of those historians who genuinely succeeds in reconstructing that ancient world, its ancient beliefs. To do so, he has done actual historical work – “historical-critical” work.

William Dever, Mark Smith, Othmar Keel, Christoph Uehlinger, and a consensus of modern day OT/Ancient Near East scholars have done the same with the OT period; yet in another thread, you explicitly rejected the bulk of their assessments—I sense yet one more double-standard at work here.

These historians (Bruce and Beckwith and Lampe and others) go to those places, and cite not just religious documents, but all documents – they check the archaeology for what the land structure was like, what the topography was like. Where the rich people lived, where the poor people lived. Where they worshiped. What they worshipped. The kinds of building structures they worshipped in. The kinds of authority structures that were existent in the ancient world. Where these folks died and were buried. And they create a picture of that ancient world that is more complete, more complex in all of its interactions, than anything else that any writer in the 12th or 15th or 17th or 19th centuries can imagine. They don’t take a video camera back there, but the work that is produced is probably as close as we will come to that ideal.

You make it sound as if there are no 'gaps' in the historical record and that a unified theory exists among NT scholars as to the precise nature and theology of the early church/churches...I don't buy it John, I am just too well read on this issue to do so.

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.”

Your charge of “smear by association” is false and misleading; all I have done is provide areas of agreement between scholars who are dealing with the same genre.

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.”

Once again, false and misleading; I do not, nor have I said, that their work is flawed in exactly the same way; your putting, “Lampe and Von Harnack both believe the Pastorals were not written by Paul. Therefore, their work is flawed in exactly the same way.”, in quotation marks and ascribing it to my pen is dishonest, and misleading. Further, it sure sounds like you are trying to smear Dr. Harnack!!! (Ooops...I forgot, it is OK for you to smear...)

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.

I am not asking anyone to, “Take my word for it,”; in previous posts I have already provided quotes from Dr. Lampe that clearly support my first two statements, and the third is supported by the entire tone of his work on this issue—and you charge me with a deficiency in my ability to comprehend what I read—my goodness!!!

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

False; now I know for sure that you have not carefully read what I written.

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.

ROFL

This is not an analysis. It is a smear tactic. Pure and simple.

John, you are the grandmaster of smear tactic; it will take me a lifetime to even approach your level of expertise...

If Waltz ever wanted me to take him seriously, he would have dived into Peter Lampe’s work and show, not some kind of implied “guilt-by-association,” but rather, thought-by-thought, how Lampe’s portrayal of historical facts somehow becomes corrupted.


I do not contest any of the historical facts that Dr. Lampe portrays, what I contest is his theories.

But Waltz does not do that. He is not capable of doing such a thing.

Nice smear John...I am now going to return back to reality...


Grace and peace,

David

John Bugay, Dr. Peter Lampe, and the early ministry of the Christian Church

John Bugay in three recent threads at the Beggars All blog (first; second; third), has been attempting to defend his particular view of the early ministry of the Christian Church, and his use of liberal/revisionist scholars such as Dr. Peter Lampe in doing so. I have shed some light on this issue in previous threads here at AF (LINK), and shall now add to those contributions.

John (and others), continues to ignore the fact that presuppositions have serious implications concerning one's assessment of raw data that can legitimately be interpreted in more than one sense, and there is no question in my mind that this is especially true when one attempts to determine the form/type of ministry that Jesus' apostles had intended/instructed to be functioning after their departure into heaven. And further, it is one's view of the Christian ministry which constitutes one of the preeminent factors in determining the very nature of the Church founded by Jesus and His apostles.

Prior to the Reformation, apart from small, heretical sects, there was little doubt in the minds of Catholic Christians (Western/Latin and Eastern/Greek) just what type of church and ministry was instituted by the apostles—it was a visible society of believers/disciples (and their children), with a structured leadership (i.e. apostles/'bishops', elders/presbyters, and deacons). But the Reformation brought many novel concepts into play, including a new concept of what "the Church" is, and the type of ministry instituted by the apostles of Jesus—the church was no longer primarily conceived of as a visible society, "outside of which there is no salvation", but rather the concept of an "invisible church", was introduced, pushing the visibility of the church into obscurity. Concerning this 16th century innovation, Dr. Herman Bavinck wrote:

Not until the sixteenth century was a fundamentally different concept of the church posited by the Reformation as an alternative to that of Rome...The church was not simply a congregation of the predestined, nor of such people who conducted their lives in keeping with a few rules from the Sermon on the Mount. But it was a congregation of believers, of people who through faith had had received the forgiveness of sins and hence were all children of God, prophets, and priests. For that reason it naturally had an invisible and a visible side. According to Seeberg, this distinction was first made not by Zwingli but by Luther. (Reformed Dogmatics, 4.287 - bold emphasis mine.)

The Anglican scholar, A. J. Mason, in his essay, "Conceptions of the Church in Early Times", confirms Dr. Bavinck's assessment:

The Church was the visible organization which bears that name.

We must proceed to ask whether the fellowship thus denoted was the historical—the ' empiric '—body which passes under the name, or whether it is an ideal quantity, whose very existence is known only by faith. In this enquiry the modern scholar is aided by a very remarkable work. The publication in 1892 of Rudolf Sohm's Kirchenrecht may be said to mark an epoch in the study of the doctrine of the Church. The theory set forth in it has not been left uncriticized, but on certain points the assertions of Sohm will hardly be called in question again. In this work and its sequel Sohm has shewn clearly that the distinction between the Church as a religious conception and the Church as a concrete institution—a distinction upon which he himself insists with vehemence—was wholly unknown to the Christians of early times...The notion of an invisible Church of the Predestinate, Sohm says, came into men's minds before many centuries after Christ had elapsed. Augustine, Wiclif entertained it. But Luther was the first to whom the contrast between the two things became a religious certainty. No one before Luther had been able to emancipate himself in conscience from the visible Church. (Essays On The Early History of The Church and The Ministry, ed. H.B. Swete, pp. 9, 10.)

The concept of the Church as being primarily a visible society was (and still is) rejected by most of Protestant Christendom, being replaced by the notion that the Church is essentially an "invisible", "spiritual" entity. This 16th century concept of the Christian church not only dominates most 'conservative' scholarship on this issue, but it is also one of the fundamental presuppositions of modern higher critical scholarship, which, applies this presupposition not only to their conceptions and theories of the post-Biblical church/churches, but also to the New Testament period itself. One early representatives of the modern higher critical school summed up this, and some of the other presuppositions, that are not to be questioned:

IN no other department of Church history is the opposition between the ecclesiastical and the historical stand point so great as in that dealing with the earliest constitution of the Church and the history of ecclesiastical law. According to Catholic doctrine Christ founded the Church, placed Peter at its head, associated with Peter a governing body of apostles, who were to be succeeded by the monarchical episcopate just as the primacy was to devolve upon the successors of Peter, and established the distinction between clergy and laity as fundamental. In addition, all the rest of the constitution of the Church as it exists to-day is carried back to Christ Himself, and the only points about which there is a minor controversy are : how much He commanded directly during His earthly life ; how much He ordained as the Exalted Lord in the forty days of His intercourse with the disciples ; how much the apostles added subsequently, led by His Spirit; and what less important and alterable additions have been made in the course of the history of the Church. In any case He founded the Church as a visible kingdom (regnum externum), equipped with a vast jurisdiction, which has its root in the power of binding and loosing, and both pope and clergy derive their authority from Him. He entrusted the Church with the right and duty of universal missionary activity, and thereby gave to her the ends of the earth for her possession, and He granted infallibility to her and to her decrees by promising that through His spirit He would be with her all the days. The Church is thus set over against the secular kingdoms of the present and the future as a kingdom of a unique kind (regnum sui generis), it is true, but yet as a kingdom in face of which the sovereign rights that still belong to the earthly kingdoms can have only the most restricted scope and in all “mixed cases” must yield to the decision of the Church. But, according to the old Protestant doctrine also, the Church is a deliberate and direct foundation of Christ, and although the Catholic conception is radically corrected by the doctrine that the Church is “a congregation of faithful men” (societas fidelium) based on the Word of God, yet in Calvinism and parts of Lutheranism considerable theocratic and clerical elements, although latent, are not entirely absent.

Both views have the whole historical development of the apostolic and post-apostolic age against them, and besides, they stand or fall with the question of the authenticity of a few New Testament passages (especially in the Gospel of Matthew). If we put these aside—and by all the rules of historical criticism we are compelled to do so—then every direct external bond between Jesus and the “Church” and its developing orders is severed. There remains the inner spiritual bond, even if Jesus neither founded nor even intended the Church. (Adolf von Harnack, Constitution and Law of the Church In the First Two Centuries, 1910 English ed., trans. F.L. Pogson, pp. 1-4).

To sum up, the idea that Jesus and His apostles, "founded the Church as a visible kingdom", must be rejected; such a concept did not exist in the minds of either Jesus, nor his apostles. Biblical texts which seem to support "the Catholic conception", cannot be apostolic (i.e. written by one of Jesus apostles), and hence, texts like the Pastorals, 1 and 2 Peter, etc. are essentially 'forgeries', not written by any of the apostles, and belong to a later period than any texts deemed to be written by one of the apostles. One of the greatest Biblical textual scholars of our modern era, Kurt Aland, fully embraces these assessments of the modern higher critical school, and adds yet another presupposition to the mix:

If we attempt to summarize the internal development of Christianity in the early centuries, we discover a decisive turning point in the second half of the second century. The second century is not only a watershed, but her there is also something decisive for the development of the Christian church. In a manner of speaking, what comes before the end of the second century can be called the "prehistoric" age of Christianity. Up until the middle of the second century, and even later, Christians did not live in and for the present, but they lived in and for the future; and this was in such a way that the future flowed into the present, that future and present became one—a future which obviously stood under the sign of the Lord's presence. It was the confident expectation of the first generations that the end of the world was not only near, but that it had already come. It was the definite conviction not only of Paul, but of all Christians of that time, that they themselves would experience the return of the Lord. (A History of Christianity, vol. 1, p. 87).

Dr. Aland then goes on to comment on the authorship and dates of the NT corpus, rejecting apostolic authorship for the Pastorals, and most of the other NT texts. All this helps to form his theory (accepted by the vast majority of critical scholars) that the original Christian ministry consisted of "charismatic offices" and that these "offices" were "gradually" replaced by the offices of presbyters, bishops and deacons—"In place of these charismatic offices, what gradually enters is presbyters, bishops and deacons."

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.


Grace and peace,

David

P.S. I was in a bit of a hurry to publish this post, and have not fully edited the grammar, spelling and other possible typos; expect some editing after my coffee and breakfast.