Friday, December 03, 2010

An Army of Scholars Studying Ancient Rome, the Church of Ancient Rome, and the Book of Romans

Some time ago, it was pointed out to me that Peter Lampe was a flash in the pan. That his work was insignificant.

Several days ago, Steve Hays suggested to me and several other of us that we look up Robert Jewett’s commentary on Romans (a $90.00 retail value!) and check out the information on Romans 16 and the early Roman church.

Matthew Schultz has done so, and the link to the pages is here. I highly recommend you take a look at this, if you’re interested in what the church in ancient Rome was like – my hope is to go through this and post some of the more relevant passages, but for now, this is an exceptionally rich source.

Meanwhile looking up more information on Robert Jewett, and I came across this:

D. THE ROMANS ARCHIVE IN HEIDELBERG
A large bibliography of critical studies on Paul's letter to the Romans written from 1830 onwards has been assembled and many of the articles and monographs have been copied and gathered into a research archive now located in Heidelberg. The list of titles is presently more than 1000 pages long, single spaced, and will probably grow to 1500 pages when the project is compete. At present approximately 25% of this bibliography is available either in duplicated form in the files of the Heidelberg archive or in the monograph collection associated with the project.

The plan is to scan the entire bibliography and in cooperation with the university computer office, to place it on a website that would be available to students and scholars around the world. Since more has been written on Romans, verse for verse, than on any other biblical writing, or indeed, any other classic in the western world, and since only partial bibliographies are presently available, this project would provide a significant service. We hope that by 2004 the photographic scans of the bibliography would be available to scholars, and that by 2008 each item would be available in a version that could be downloaded and searched. In view of the thematic range of Romans, this bibliography would be useful to scholars in a number of fields.

Background and Development of the Project
The initial bibliography has been collected by Peter Lampe in connection with his book, Die Stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987, 1989); English translation, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) and by Robert Jewett in connection with writing the Hermeneia Commentary on Romans since 1980, including a series of preliminary publications. The agreement to create a united research archive was made in 1995, to be located in Kiel where Lampe was serving as Professor of New Testament. When he was called to the chair in Heidelberg in 1999, an invitation was extended for Jewett to become a guest professor in connection with locating the archive here. An agreement on this was reached as Lampe negotiated his post with the university. The Evanston research archive was brought to Heidelberg in the summer of 2000 and was joined with Lampe’s archive in a renovated portion of the WTS building at Kisselgasse 1.

The scanning project is associated with the Forschungsstelle für die Wirkungsgeschichte des paulinischen Briefes an die Römer, attached to Lampe’s chair in Heidelberg.

[W]ith the commencement of a research grant for the bibliography project from the University of Heidelberg at the beginning of 2002, many of the technical aspects of the project have been researched and resolved; arrangements with the university computer center and the university library are in progress; the first staff persons were engaged; and the process of scanning with newly purchased equipment will begin later this spring.

The Need for a Comprehensive Bibliography on Romans
Romans is the only biblical book for which no comprehensive bibliography has been published; it remains the sole biblical writing on which a bibliographical article in the Theologische Rundschau article has never appeared. The reason for this is that the bibliography is so immense that no one has been able to master it...

While it is self evident that reliable, comprehensive bibliographies are needed in every field, the crucial role that Paul’s letter to the Romans has played in theological development since the Reformation makes this an urgent desideratum. Now that computerized techniques of assembling bibliographies are available, and scanning techniques well developed, it is possible to break this deadlock and make this rich research available to scholars everywhere. Since so many of the items in the current bibliography that have been located through library and journal searches are available only in limited locations, they are available only to those with the means and time to travel. Most scholars and theological students around the world do not have such resources. The development of an on-line bibliography with the full texts of these studies will thus contribute to the productivity of scholars. Increased access to the scholarship of other nations and earlier generations will also encourage ecumenicity.

The Scope and Organization of the Bibliography
The Romans bibliography is organized in three sections: introductory issues; studies related to specific pericopes; and theological, thematic studies. In view of the range of the argument of Romans and its decisive role in ecclesiastical debate over the centuries, the latter section includes most of the important themes in biblical theology. The table of contents for the bibliography is attached.

Scholarly studies from all over the world are included. Since there is such a large polemical literature on Romans, only critical items of scholarly interest are included For the most part such articles discuss the Greek terms and the historical and cultural background of the argument. Important theological studies are included but merely polemical articles defending ecclesiastical traditions are not. If all articles and books related to Romans were included, the bibliography would be twice or three times as large, and far less useful for scholarly work. Although Romans research in Europe and North America has long restricted its bibliographic interest to the North Atlantic, Joseph A. Fitzmyer’s commentary in 1993 listed hundreds of Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Latin American items for the first time, some of which predated the development of the bibliographic surveys in Biblica, New Testament Abstracts, and Internationaler Zeitschriftenschau für Bibelwissenschaften und Grenzgebieten. Fully one third of his commentary consists of bibibliography he gathered over the years of working in the libraries of Italy and Spain. Jewett has conducted similar bibliographic surveys in Switzerland, Scandinavia, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States. The plan is for Lampe and Jewett to extend such surveys into the Netherlands and eastern Europe over the course of the next several years...

I'm amazed at the power of the Internet; I have said in the past that I believe that the Internet in our day will have the same kind of effect on the message of the Reformation that the printing press had in Luther's day.

As I said, I just found this off the cuff. It would seem as if the sheer weight of this effort has already had an immense effect on Roman thinking on the papacy. (See my articles on the non-existent early papacy). It will be interesting to follow up and see where all of this continues to lead.


Update: I do need to apologize. It was not Blogahon who was arguing that Lampe wasn't a serious scholar. On the other hand, Sean was noting that Lampe was "arguing from silence":

you should expand your reading a bit. There are many very smart and equally challenging Catholic theologians who don't argue from silence as much as Peter Lampe and who don't draw the same conclusions as your go to set of texts.

http://deregnisduobus.blogspot.com/2008/08/god-said-it-i-believe-it-but-what.html

And again:
You are very selective in the church historians that you embrace...very selective. Lampe's argument is one from silence and even if it wasn't it does not destroy the papacy.

http://deregnisduobus.blogspot.com/2009/01/bono-luther-and-seeds-of-modernity.html


It was another writer over there who was saying that Lampe was essentially not a serious scholar.

I have been unable to turn up any indication that serious scholarship is interested in his work. I haven't found any reviews discussing his work or that other scholars are basing their work on his. This suggests to me that Lampe is not quite in the mainstream as you think he is....

Again, Lampe doesn't seem to have made much inroad into scholarly discussions. Fly-leaf recommendations don't count, particularly if they are from liberal Catholics like Duffy who are on record as advocating for a weakening of the authority exercised by John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger.


http://deregnisduobus.blogspot.com/2008/09/scratching-surface-of-pivotal-passage.html

51 comments:

John Bugay said...

By the way, Jewett's work is from 2006, so he's had a bit of time to assemble more of the scholarly studies that have been done since Lampe's work in 1987 (and translated into English in 2003).

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Some time ago, it was pointed out to me by the all knowning, all seeing [in his own mind] Blogahon, that Peter Lampe was a flash in the pan. That his work was insignificant, and he'd be dying out soon, blah, blah, blah.

Blogahon is good for some occasional laughs!

John Bugay said...

Well, I wouldn't say "laughs..."

Blogahon said...

John,

I need to break my self-prescribed moratorium on posting here. I woke up this morning with an email from a Presbyterian friend who is concerned that you are misrepresenting me. It is truly ironic that the man who goes around calling others dishonest has published statements actually being dishonest.

I do not think that I am “all knowing and all seeing" and I do not recall ever calling Peter Lampe a "flash in the pan” nor have I called his work is “insignificant” nor have I said that he would “die out soon.”

If anybody is interested, this thread discusses some of the problems with Peter Lampe’s thesis. Here is another conversation about Peter Lampe. These threads aptly describes some of the problems with Peter Lampe’s approach to the data – an approach that John would do well to distance himself from as Lampe’s approach leads to some unorthodox views of scripture which no PCA elder would endorse.

John, I do want to thank you on one account. Your apologetics has been driving people to Called to Communion for almost two years now. Several people who are now in RCIA have told us that they first started examining the Catholic Church by stumbling upon this blog and other's like it. You are ringing the bells for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and you don't even realize it. Thank you.

Now, please don't let me get in the way of your continued musings about how our Holy Father is a pantheist or how the first Pope was actually Pricilla. I don’t want to get in the way of your mission.

* It has been years since I first encountered your ‘Peter Lampe’ argument so I do not recall every utterance I’ve ever made in this regard but it is not my position that Peter Lampe’s work is ‘insignificant’ and I do not even know what you mean by ‘he will be dying out soon.’

John Bugay said...

Sean -- I'm obviously paraphrasing and speaking with some hyperbole. However, the actual comment was on Jason Stellman's old blog, De Regnis Duobus; I haven't found it yet, but I have a very clear memory of telling you just how important this work was going to be.

As far as your opinions of Lampe's methodology or why PCA ministers shouldn't consider his work, your opinions are worthless. Both Schreiner and Moo rely heavily on Lampe's analysis of Romans 16. And they are as expert as you will find on Romans, and they are as conservative as you get.

steve said...

John Bugay said...

"As far as your opinions of Lampe's methodology or why PCA ministers shouldn't consider his work, your opinions are worthless. Both Schreiner and Moo rely heavily on Lampe's analysis of Romans 16. And they are as expert as you will find on Romans, and they are as conservative as you get."

We could also add Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer to the list of those who make approving use of Lampe (in Fitzmyer's commentary on Romans).

louis said...

"Several people who are now in RCIA have told us that they first started examining the Catholic Church by stumbling upon this blog and other's like it."

"According to Tacitus, 'all things vile and shameful' were sure to flow from all quarters of the empire into Rome as a common sewer." (Schaaf's History, vol.I,p.362).

Times haven't changed much.

Matthew D. Schultz said...

Sean writes:

I need to break my self-prescribed moratorium on posting here.

You professed this on various forums as well, and somewhat emphatically. While you have returned in attempt to salvage credibility, breaking your word does exactly the opposite. It's also not helpful that the reason you broke it was not to engage a particularly pressing or misleading argument, but merely to defend your reputation. What does that say about your priorities?

I woke up this morning with an email from a Presbyterian friend who is concerned that you are misrepresenting me.

Do you mean David Meyer? A Presbyterian in process of conversion to Catholicism wouldn't carry the kind of weight you're trying to impute to this comment.

And dropping this kind of unsubstantiated comment on a public forum is irresponsible, bordering on slander.

John, I do want to thank you on one account. Your apologetics has been driving people to Called to Communion for almost two years now.

And Christ's ministry resulted in many being driven away from both him and God's kingdom. Whether the "driving" is good or bad depends only on the objective goodness of the destination. Since the current debate between our sides is whether Rome's teachings are valid and true, your comment serves as neither an indictment of Beggars All nor a commendation of Called to Communion.

Now, please don't let me get in the way of your continued musings about how our Holy Father is a pantheist or how the first Pope was actually Pricilla. I don’t want to get in the way of your mission.

What purpose does your deeply sarcastic derision serve? That kind of behavior has its occasional and rightful place, yet you never seem to season your comments with grace. It's all taunts, all jabs, all mockery.

I don't see how that's properly reflective of someone who has finally come to discover the dispenser of grace--the Holy, Apostolic, Roman Catholic Church--and is so melted by this unmerited favor that he is desirous for others to see and savor its beauty and rejoice with him. Instead, your actions here, as elsewhere, constitute the kind of behavior that drives people away from your cause.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

FWIW, I don't mind Blogahon commenting here or any other blog. If he wants to refrain, that's his choice.

Rhology said...

Your apologetics has been driving people to Called to Communion for almost two years now.

If they hate the truth that much, it'd just be a matter of time before they left a Bible-believing church anyway. Better sooner than later, especially if they leave sooner w/o trying to bring down weaker brethren with them. Better for everyone.

Blogahon said...

John - You double standard is noted. I am saving this link for anytime that in the future you call me 'dishonest.' Now I actually have proof that you are dishonest as oppossed to your mere assertions.

Matthew -

While you have returned in attempt to salvage credibility, breaking your word does exactly the opposite.

Salvage credibility? No. I posted here because I wanted to catch John red-handed lying about me.

not to engage a particularly pressing or misleading argument, but merely to defend your reputation. What does that say about your priorities?

The arguments presented here are really not worth engaging. And, I am not even defending my reputation but rather demonstrating that John is dishonest. I honestly don't care what John thinks of me. But I do care to point that John is a hypocrite and love the fact that he has proven it.

Do you mean David Meyer?

No. I don't mean David Meyer. Somebody completely different and somebody who is not becoming Catholic as far as I know. Just an honest person who cares about truth enough to stand on the right side when somebody is being wronged.

And dropping this kind of unsubstantiated comment on a public forum is irresponsible, bordering on slander.

Sure, Matthew. There is one person in this thread who has engaged in slander and it is not me. What does it say about you that you are completely unwilling to call John out? If you are so darn concerned with people avoiding slander than on what basis do you give him a pass for the falsehoods he has stated about me in the original post????

What purpose does your deeply sarcastic derision serve? That kind of behavior has its occasional and rightful place, yet you never seem to season your comments with grace. It's all taunts, all jabs, all mockery.


Please...

John's incredibly reckless mission of trying to prove that the Pope is pantheist is a riot. Not even worthy of serious engagement which is most likely the reason that nobody has engaged it. Same goes for the 'Pricilla' idea that he was floating around the internet lately.

The more John does this the better it is for us. That isn't mocking. That is reality.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"If they hate the truth that much, it'd just be a matter of time before they left a Bible-believing church anyway. Better sooner than later, especially if they leave sooner w/o trying to bring down weaker brethren with them. Better for everyone."

Never thought of it that way before.

I hope Blogahon and the rest of his Called to Communion cohorts all left their previous Protestant churches quickly without dragging others down with them.

Matthew D. Schultz said...

Sean,

You write:

I honestly don't care what John thinks of me.

But you also write:

I posted here because I wanted to catch John red-handed lying about me.

Why do you care about demonstrating that John is a liar about you? What's the relevance? You think that's a good use of our time and energy to read your work on this subject, and a good use of your time and energy? What greater purpose does it serve, if not to merely defend yourself from such accusations?

But I do care to point that John is a hypocrite and love the fact that he has proven it.

Do you find schadenfreude to be Godly? I don't. If you are right about John, then Proverbs 24:17-18 applies to your conduct.

What does it say about you that you are completely unwilling to call John out? If you are so darn concerned with people avoiding slander than on what basis do you give him a pass for the falsehoods he has stated about me in the original post????

If I thought John was slandering you, I'd call him out on it. Not in public, given the precepts of Matthew 16:18, but I would.

As it stands, I don't think he is.

That, however, is a deflection from your behavior. You raised behavior as an issue of driving people to or from causes, but now when you are pressed on it, you avoid your conduct, and the Biblical precedent on the matter, and try to question mine. I think you'll find that this kind of aggressive salesmanship won't work here.

Please...

Again, there is no grace. You won't even entertain what I've said to you. And it does not seem to bother you.

You're a representative of what happens when someone converts from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism. So how is your attitude reflective of something anyone Godly would want? It makes Rome look like the house of Pharisees, a place where its members are always looking down their noses at the publican Protestants.

The more John does this the better it is for us. That isn't mocking. That is reality.

It's a taunt. It's jeering. It's not an objective, factual representation of "reality." You couched your observation in sarcastic language, "thanking" John for his work.

It's also an avoidance of the Scriptural precedent. Whether a ministry drives people away from it is insufficient to judge its merits. (Indeed, the parable of the narrow road suggests something quite the opposite.)

Matthew D. Schultz said...

(The above reference should be Matthew 18:15-17.)

Blogahon said...

Matthew,

If I thought John was slandering you, I'd call him out on it. Not in public, given the precepts of Matthew 16:18, but I would.


: /

But you'll call me out in public? What about the precepts of Matthew 18:15-17?

What greater purpose does it serve, if not to merely defend yourself from such accusations?


I don't think you understand. John Bugay has been going around the blogosphere for more than a year calling me dishonest. Now, he had never cited a single instance of dishonest, but he will shout from the rooftops that I am huge liar to anybody that will listen. Therefore, I can quite easily put a stop to it now because I have in this thread proof that he is guilty of what has charged me with all this time. So, in the future when John tells 'x' person to be wary of me because I am so dishonest I have a 'go-to' link in this thread demonstrating the duplicity in that charge. It makes my life easier.

To your accusations about ‘tone.’ My tone with John here is not necessarily cuddly but I am not ashamed of anything I’ve written here. I am meeting John in his own terms. Need I cite examples of his tone in the past for illustration? I have not called anybody names. I have not purposefully misrepresented somebody else’s words. I have not attempted to read somebody’s mind and accusing them of having thoughts of grandeur. Maybe you should save some of your righteous indignation for those that could actually use it.

Rhology said...

But you'll call me out in public? What about the precepts of Matthew 18:15-17?

1) Um, you started the public denunciation...Should it then go private?
2) You're no brother. Matthew is criticising your alleged Presbyterian dissident. John B is a Presby. Shoulda stayed between them, not gone to you, much less should you have outed it publicly.

Blogahon said...

You're no brother. Matthew is criticising your alleged Presbyterian dissident. John B is a Presby. Shoulda stayed between them, not gone to you

He is not a 'dissident.' He is not even cozy to Catholicism. He simply saw a friend being slandered and pointed it out to me. How is that dissident?

My goodness.

So Matthew 18:15-17 only applies if both of the people are Presbyterians???? If that is the case than how am I guilty of transgressing Matthew 18:15-17 since I am not a Presbyterian?

Finally:

1) Um, you started the public denunciation...Should it then go private?

Absolutely false. John has been publically denouncing me for over a year. Most recently in the “Verses that Changed Luther” thread on GreenBaggins (or it could have been the “Oral Tradition” thread)

Were you and Matthew Schultz talking to him about him transgressing Matthew 18:15-17 when that was happening?

You guys will back your guy no matter what...

Rhology said...

I said "dissident" in terms of disagreeing with John B. Sorry, meant nothing more than that.

So Matthew 18:15-17 only applies if both of the people are Presbyterians???

It's a discussion of what to do between BROTHERS. I don't deal with fellow Babdists in the same way as I deal with you, EOdox, or atheists.


If that is the case than how am I guilty of transgressing Matthew 18:15-17 since I am not a Presbyterian?

Your Presby friend is guilty of it. You're guilty of sthg else.



Absolutely false. John has been publically denouncing me for over a year.

Really? Your public discussion of this Presby's comments about John B has been going on for over a year?
No. I'm talking about sthg specific here.



Were you and Matthew Schultz talking to him about him transgressing Matthew 18:15-17 when that was happening?

Oh, have you been a member of my church all this time w/o my knowledge?
Look, I know that you, as a modern RC, would have a hard time understanding this, but there's this NT concept called "church discipline". RCC has forgotten about it lately, but it's a great thing to know about, even if you'll never see it enacted in your own church.

Peace,
Rhology

Blogahon said...

Rhology.

I am simply left shaking my head.

It's a discussion of what to do between BROTHERS. I don't deal with fellow Babdists in the same way as I deal with you, EOdox, or atheists.

Where does that passage or any other passage define 'brothers' as merely Christians that are in your denomination?

Your Presby friend is guilty of it. You're guilty of sthg else.

No, my Presby friend is not guilty of it. My friend told me that somebody was lying about me. He doesn't know John.

Look, I know that you, as a modern RC, would have a hard time understanding this, but there's this NT concept called "church discipline". RCC has forgotten about it lately, but it's a great thing to know about, even if you'll never see it enacted in your own church.

Very convincing argument there Rhology.

John Bugay said...

Sean, in retrospect, I probably should not have mentioned your name, but not for the reasons you say. I'm very comfortable not getting into this kind of spitting match.

This is an incredibly impressive project, and Dr. Peter Lampe is at the heart of it.

Moreover, as Steve noted, not only conservatives like Schreiner and Moo have no problem quoting him, but Roman Catholics like Robert Eno, S.S. ("The Rise of the Papacy") cite him extensively.

("S.S." means "Order of Sulpicians," by the way; their mission is to teach Catholic seminarians. And so if Eno's work is used in seminaries, then you can bet the latest generation of priests has been taught Lampe's work, as history.)

Blogahon said...

Rhology - besides, by your definition of 'church' and 'brother' my Presbyterian friend is not in the same church as John as my friend is a member of an OPC church. Therefore, according to your logic, he is not transgressing Matthew 18:15-17 regardless.

Blogahon said...

Sean, in retrospect, I probably should not have mentioned your name, but not for the reasons you say.

Thank you. I guess?

I don't know what reasons you might have. That they were slanderous should be reason enough.

If you should not have mentioned my name than perhaps you would not mind removing the reference to me in the OP?

You can then delete all my comments here if you want since they won't be applicable.

Your call.

John Bugay said...

You do try to portray yourself as a serious Catholic thinker. I think it's important to know the kinds of research projects that you find to be objectionable.

I'd rather spend some time finding that comment thread in DRD.

For the sake of the memories, you know?

Matthew D. Schultz said...

Sean writes:

But you'll call me out in public? What about the precepts of Matthew 18:15-17?

It's not obvious you're a brother. You willfully left the PCA and entered communion with a denomination I think preaches a false Gospel. I have no idea what your state before God is, but I do need to respond to the available facts.

Now, he had never cited a single instance of dishonest, but he will shout from the rooftops that I am huge liar to anybody that will listen.

I've seen him cite evidence in the past. I've also seen you deny that the evidence is of a sufficient quality to demonstrate the charge. But those are two different things.

There's also the public record of your behavior at Triablogue, if you truly wish us to furnish examples of dishonest actions on your part.

You are also not addressing my questions. How do your actions serve a greater purpose than defending your own reputation? And why do you "love" that John has proved himself a hypocrite?

You later write:

You guys will back your guy no matter what...

You have no way of knowing that, Sean. As it stands, I have spoken with fellow blog members about behavior that has seemed unacceptable to me, and they have done the same in return.

Blogahon said...

You do try to portray yourself as a serious Catholic thinker. I think it's important to know the kinds of research projects that you find to be objectionable.

So – you should not have included my name in this thread but you’ll leave it up there? I tried to give you an out but you won’t take it? OK.

I don't think this research project is objectionable. What I find objectionable is being slandered.

Further, I am not sure what you mean by 'serious Catholic thinker.' I am just a guy who cares enough to try to understand as much as I can understand.

I'd rather spend some time finding that comment thread in DRD.
I remember you saying how important Lampe's work was going to be but I don't remember ever saying that his work was 'insignificant' or that he would 'die out.' I do know that the thesis of his that you have tied yourself to is a relatively minor thesis of his and that he presents no evidence for that thesis that is more compelling than the list of St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3).
I also know that you reject other conclusions of Lampe but simultaneously act is if we have no right to do the same. We’ve been down the Lampe road plenty of times.

*I also know for a fact that I do not think of myself as all knowing or all seeing.

Blogahon said...

It's not obvious you're a brother.

OK, Matthew.

I've seen him cite evidence in the past. I've also seen you deny that the evidence is of a sufficient quality to demonstrate the charge.

What you have seen is John citing a handful of other people (people like him) calling me some variation of 'dishonest.' That is not the same as citing me being dishonest. As I told him, I can cite people calling him dishonest yet that does not itself make him dishonest.

There's also the public record of your behavior at Triablogue, if you truly wish us to furnish examples of dishonest actions on your part.

The same Triablogue that is so honorable that they recently concluded a series about how nuns are dominatrixes? Yeah, I am pretty proud to have been banned over there.

You are also not addressing my questions. How do your actions serve a greater purpose than defending your own reputation? And why do you "love" that John has proved himself a hypocrite?

A) John is a visible figure in Reformed apologetics, albeit a poor apologist if you ask me. Demonstrating his willingness to attempt to deceive others by slandering me hurts his cause therefore serving a good purpose.

B) I don't really 'love' it. That was a bad choice of words. I am rather feeling vindicated that he did it.

You have no way of knowing that, Sean. As it stands, I have spoken with fellow blog members about behavior that has seemed unacceptable to me, and they have done the same in return.

Well, that is good.

Rhology said...

The same Triablogue that is so honorable that they recently concluded a series about how nuns are dominatrixes? Yeah, I am pretty proud to have been banned over there.

Speaking of dishonest things you've said. Here's one.

john said...

I don't really know who you are Blogahon, to me you are just another RC "e-pologist". But JohnB has only confirmed what I have found on my own before I ever heard of him and Beggars All. I use to be like you Blogahon in defending Rome as a Roman Catholic. It wasn't until I started reading real, honest academic Scholarship, both Catholic and Protestant and stopped taking all the Catholic "epologists" and "pop" Catholic Apologists like Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, James Aiken etc. word for it.

This is why I am no longer Roman Catholic, the facts of History and honest exigesis of Scripture both refute Roman claims and prove Roman Roman claims to be false.

Blogahon YOUR OWN Roman Catholic Scholars disprove Roman claims and many Roman Dogmas and show them to be false.

Unless you are a fanatic who has lost touch with reality this post on Beggars all is yet more proof that Rome is wrong plus the mountains of evidence against Roman claims that are already there, with more being added exponentially. Those who defend Rome at this point are the true-believer fanatics who will believe Roman lies no matter how much evidence is shown them Rome is wrong and her claims are lies. Such people who still defend Rome now have lost touch with reality and have some real psychological issues.

Matthew D. Schultz said...

For examples of Sean's behavior at Triablogue, see the comments in these threads (to get past the censored comments, click "Post a Comment" in each individual thread; the hidden comments will then appear):

1. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/justification-through-foot-washing.html

2. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/12/sola-fide-between-apostles-and.html

3. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/12/baptismal-justification.html

4. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-was-john-35-interpreted-prior-to.html

Sean posted under three screen names there, "Sean and Stephanie," "SP" and "Blogahon".

Also consider where Sean said he was done with posting at Triablogue, but later came back later, under a different screen name:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/theological-chicken.html

As Jason Engwer summarizes his behavior while addressing Sean's third blogger identity "SP":

"Before you post anything else, you need to answer a question. Are you the same person who posted under the screen names Sean and Stephanie and Blogahon? (For those who don't know, Sean and Stephanie claimed to be leaving the blog, but then came back and began posting under a different screen name within several hours, without telling us who he was. Later, under that new screen name, he lifted a large amount of material from a Catholic web site and presented it as if it was his own material, among other things. He was then banned.) A reader of this blog sent me an email noting some similarities between your profile and behavior and that of Blogahon. Are you the same person?"

Readers can decide for themselves whether this kind of behavior is dishonest or not.

steve said...

Of course, the dominatrix riff was satirical, not literal. As fine an example as any of Sean's moral blindness. Because mendacity is second nature to him, he can't even recognize his mendacity.

On the other hand, you do have real-life nuns (Nazareth House) that was knee-deep in child abuse. But, of course, that's just another day at the office for Sean. Sean is proud of that association.

Blogahon said...

Matthew.

I have different email addresses and my wife and I share several. Depending on who is on the computer the 'default' is one of several GMail accounts which carry over into blogger. I try to keep it straight but sometimes I leave comments with different usernames. This isn't a problem for most people out there but for some reason certain individuals treat it as some nafarious cover-up.

My only mistake was going back after saying I was done. But I am not the first to do that - although I have not been back on Triablogue since that time.

And, I only came back here because I was being slandered.

I was hoping that John would say, 'You are right, I should not have slandered you. I will ammend my post.'

I would have said, "Thank you John. That is honorable. I therefore give you credit."

But that didn't happen. Instead John's dishonesty gets a free pass and I am accussed of breaking various biblical mandates.

Until next time that I am slandered...adios.

Blogahon said...

One last thing...

Speaking of memory lane...

I recall John being banned from DR for his 'tone.'

Too bad Rhology and Matthew weren't there to see John in his glory days. I am sure that they would have been busy admonishing John.

On the other hand, you do have real-life nuns (Nazareth House) that was knee-deep in child abuse. But, of course, that's just another day at the office for Sean.

So you are accusing me of child abuse now?

Actually, child abuse is extremely upsetting to me. I take it serious enough not to make light of it by using it has ammo against another guy on a blog.

I saw you accuse David H of ‘poisoning the well’ on Green Baggins. I had a laugh in that it was coming from you.

louis said...

I'm not sure why I'm even following this thread, but for the sake of clarity, what exactly is the alleged slander? What did John say that allegedly wasn't true?

John Bugay said...

I was hoping that John would say, 'You are right, I should not have slandered you. I will ammend my post.'

I did not slander you; I reject the charge that I slandered you. "All knowing, all seeing" should give you some notion that this was a poke.

Matthew D. Schultz said...

John,

It might be time to help Sean enforce his own promise not to visit Beggars All. If you'd like, I'll open a new post to discuss the scholarship this post was originally intended to engage.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

An Army of Scholars Studying Ancient Rome, the Church of Ancient Rome, and the Book of Romans

LOL! While the title's true, the thread should be titled:

An army of bloggers studying Blogahon, John Bugay, and the charge that Blogahon is dishonest or whether John Bugay is dishonest.

Nobody's backing down, nobody's apologizing, so why not just talk about the substance of the post?

John Bugay said...

Truth and wisdom ...

Turretinfan said...

And Blogahon loved darkness rather than Lampe?

(For the humor impaired, that's a joke.)

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Joke or not,

That's an ad hominem, whether one is laughing or not, and as such (due to the urging and watchful eye of Blogahon to monitor whether non-Catholic Christians do police themselves), I throw my yellow penalty football flag for unsportsmanlike conduct at the player wearing the jersey "TurretinFan."

15 yard penalty, loss of down, and grievious loss of face.

Blogahon, you can stop crying and whining now. The Reform Correctness Police have arrived.

John Bugay said...

And Blogahon loved darkness rather than Lampe?

(For the humor impaired, that's a joke.)


It took me a second, but I got it :-)

steve said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
steve said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
EA said...

"Salvage credibility? No. I posted here because I wanted to catch John red-handed lying about me."

I know I'm late to this shootin' match but, how is it a necessity to create a post on a blog that you "swore off" in order to catch someone lying?

Isn't it possible to simply post on your own blog comparing what was said about you to your own words?

EA said...

"Actually, child abuse is extremely upsetting to me. I take it serious enough not to make light of it by using it has ammo against another guy on a blog. "

I'm not exactly sure how using "it as ammo" is making "light of it".

The charge seemed to me to infer that revelations of child abuse occurring in the RCC have numbed the laity. I didn't read that as Steve was treating that abuse lightly. Quite the opposite, in fact.

John Bugay said...

For those of you who are subscribed to comments, I've changed the front post a bit. As it turns out, it wasn't Blogahon who was calling Lampe an insignificant scholar. It was someone else, and I've provided quotes and a link.

On the other hand, Sean was saying that Peter "Comprehensive Bibliography on Romans" Lampe was, with all of the sources he consulted, making an argument from silence, which continues to make my "all seeing, all knowing" comment a funny one.

Blogahon said...

Update: I do need to apologize. It was not Blogahon who was arguing that Lampe wasn't a serious scholar.

Thank you John for doing the honest thing.

steve said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Turretinfan said...

Steve: CCC 2352 is clear (especially that last sentence of it), but there's nothing in the catechism that says they can't support Cardinal Law (who recently turned 79).

- TurretinFan

James Swan said...

FWIW, I don't mind Blogahon commenting here or any other blog. If he wants to refrain, that's his choice.

"Blogahon" vowed not to return to this blog here:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/clueless.html

He was not banned. He disapproved of a deleted comment, which violated one of the only rules of blog. He was allowed to post a majority of comments here that weren't deleted. He was allowed to defend his beliefs almost entirely unedited. I even posted those comments that he made that were sifted over to blogger spam (once I cracked that mystery).

Keep in mind, CTC likewise doesn't post all the comments left on their blog. If I recall correctly, John Bugay said his comments pointing out their recent botched Luther quote about Luther & Peter wasn't posted.

Now if I recall that correctly (John can correct me),that's sad, and shows the CTC crowd isn't interested in truth, but rather propaganda.

On a related issue, I'm a Reformed seminarian (in a Reformed seminary). Taylor Marshall likewise recently posted propaganda Luther material. He was given clear evidence that his posting was entirely bogus. He retracted nothing.

Why would I want his book (which CTC was giving away to Reformed seminarians)? These folks clearly aren't truthful.

Perhaps Blogahon can explain why CTC is so dishonest before he leaves again.

John Bugay said...

Blogahon said: Thank you John for doing the honest thing.

Don't patronize me. I'm still convinced you are dishonest, and I'm still having recollections of it being you telling me, somewhere, that Lampe was insignificant.

natamllc said...

And, so I will hope in the Hope that comes from the book of Romans:

Rom 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.