David Waltz keeps saying that it is inconsistent for any of us (especially John Bugay) who believe in inerrancy and that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles, 2 Timothy being the last before his execution by Nero in 67 AD, to use Peter Lampe's historical post- canonical/post-apostles evidence that Rome did not have a mono-episcopate bishop until after the middle of the second century.
John Bugay did the research and is presenting the evidence from Peter Lampe (click under Peter Lampe in the side bar of categories) in many articles lately.
David bases this on saying that Lampe has three presuppositions that are the foundation for his belief that Rome did not have a mono-episcopacy bishop.
For the sake of argument, I will take these 3 points as David sees them, although it seems it could be argued that there are other presuppositions that are earlier in the thinking of Lampe. These don’t seem to be real pre-suppositions, but rather deductions based on other presuppositions.
See David Waltz’s article here where he outlines Lampe’s 3 presuppositions:
The three presuppositions are:
1. Paul did not write the Pastorals. Lampe’s first presupposition: the Pastorals were not written by Paul, and were composed at a much a later date
2. The writer of Revelation does not mention elders or bishops for the local churches in chapters 1-3, but emphasizes the "earlier", charismatic gift of prophesy. (but he does mention 24 elders in heaven in Revelation chapters 4, 5, 7, and alludes to this by the twelve gates (12 tribes of Israel) and twelve foundation stones(12 apostles) in chapter 21 - is this symbolic of the saints of OT and NT ? ie, 12 tribes of Israel (OT) and 12 apostles (NT) ? Is this a symbol of the Universal, invisible Church? This shows the Reformers were not so off in emphasizing the Universal, invisible Church, of the elect among all the nations, while not neglecting the visible church on earth.) Lampe says Revelation emphasizes only the charismatic office of “prophesy”, assuming a later date for Revelation. Lampe’s second presupposition: the original Christian ministry consisted of "charismatic offices".
3. 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.
I would like to show that agreeing with a form of no. 3 does not necessarily depend on agreeing with no. 1 or no. 2, but especially no. 1. (for the sake of space and time, I am putting no. 2 about the book of Revelation aside for now; it does not directly affect the charge that David is making, in my opinion.
David calls no. 1, Lampe’s first presupposition. But there is evidence of a presupposition even deeper than that. First, Lampe is assuming and demanding that the travel details of the Pastorals must be fitting into the travel and prison details of the book of Acts.
Since we believe that Paul was released from prison in Acts 28, went on to make other missionary travels, wrote 1 Timothy and Titus then, and then was arrested again and then executed by Nero around 67 AD; then John’s (and our support for this) using Lampe’s historical details to bolster the case for a plurality of elders as the original biblical church government (Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5-7; I Peter 5:1-5) is not inconsistent, for the historical details of the plurality of elders vs. the mono-espicopate issues do not depend on rejection of Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.
David Waltz claims that using Lampe for the history of the church in Rome is inconsistent; because Lampe does not believe in inerrancy. However, it seems Lampe’s deeper presupposition than than is specifically that he assumes that the Pastoral epistles must fit into the end of the book of Acts, when Paul is in prison under house arrest for 2 years somewhere from 60-62 AD. We know this because of internal historical markers that are well documented and beyond the scope of this post. Since the information in the Pastorals and Romans 16 does not fit into Acts, and creates a contradiction, Lampe assumes that what follows is that these are real historical contradictions to the text and therefore not inerrant.
But, Lampe does not seem to understand or believe that Paul was released from prison in AD 62; Luke wrote Acts then while Paul was still in prison there, hence the abrupt ending; and went on to further missionary journeys and was arrested again in 67 AD and executed then under Nero.
See several good commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles that discuss these issues:
1. George Knight,The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary) Eerdmans, 1992.
2. William Hendrickson, Thessalonians, Timothy and Titus, New Testament Commentary. Baker, 1957.
3. J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Thornapple, Baker, 1963.
4. Donald Guthrie. The Pastoral Epistles. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Inter-varsity, 1957, 1984.
5. Philip Towner. The Letters to Timothy And Titus (New International Commentary on the New Testament, 2006).
6. William D. Mounce — Pastoral Epistles (Word Biblical Commentary, 2000).
They all agree with the conservative traditional scenario that Paul was released from prison after Acts 28, and wrote I Timothy and Titus later and then was arrested again, and wrote 2 Timothy right before his execution by Nero around 67 AD.
Here is a longer quote that David Waltz provided me with from Lampe in some email exchanges: (David also provided this more fuller quote earlier in his arguments against John.)
"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. In 2 Tim. 1:16-18; 4:13, 16ff., 20, the author attempts to place himself in the situation of Acts 28:16-31 and in the previous journey, whose purpose was the collection (Acts 20:2f., 5ff., 15ff.). But at least during the sojourn at Corinth, Timothy is present (Acts 20:4; Rom. 16:21), so that for Timothy, who is the recipient of the letter, the information "Erastus remained in Corinth" in 2 Timothy 4:20 is superfluous. In no way did Trophimus remain "ill at Miletus" (2 Tim. 4:20); rather, he accompanied Paul heartily to Jerusalem (Acts 21:29; 20:4)." (Lampe, From Paul To Valentinus, pp. 158, 159)
To which I responded with embedded comments into Lampe’s quote. My words are in blue.
"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.
But there is no necessary inconsistency here, on the face of it. Paul is writing from Rome and 2 Timothy is written in 67 AD, much later than Romans in 57 AD, so it is no problem that Aquila and Prisca went back to Ephesus from Rome (Romans 16:3).
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; (see? Lampe is trying to fit it into Acts – don’t you see that? That is my main point.) 2 Cor. 1:1; Rom. 16:21. In 2 Tim. 1:16-18; 4:13, 16ff., 20, the author attempts to place himself in the situation of Acts 28:16-31 (see? he is assuming this; and again trying to fit the Pastorals into the Acts Roman imprisonment) and in the previous journey, whose purpose was the collection (Acts 20:2f., 5ff., 15ff.) (again, depending on Acts details) . But at least during the sojourn at Corinth, Timothy is present (Acts 20:4; Again Acts details Rom. 16:21), so that for Timothy, who is the recipient of the letter, the information "Erastus remained in Corinth" in 2 Timothy 4:20 is superfluous. In no way did Trophimus remain "ill at Miletus" (2 Tim. 4:20); rather, he accompanied Paul heartily to Jerusalem (Acts 21:29; 20:4). (see again! ? Attempts to harmonize with the Acts scenario) " (Lampe, From Paul To Valentinus, pp. 158, 159)
David wrote:
“Anyway, one of these days it seems I need to address Lampe's musings, for to date, I am not aware of any solid critique of his bold claims.”
Can’t you see [David !] that these arguments do not have a necessary logical demand that his arguments against the Bible (Pastorals written by Paul in 67 AD; inerrancy, etc.) are the same as against the early post canonical period ( 71 AD – 150 AD ?) of Roman church polity (plurality of elders, mono-episcopacy) ?
So, John’s using Lampe’s historical details of the early church in Rome does not demand that those arguments are inconsistent or being based on other arguments against Pauline authorship of the Pastorals or against the inerrancy of Scripture. It is not inconsistent for Protestants to use Lampe’s historical post-canonical, archeological evidence, but at the same time, reject his rejection of inerrancy and his rejection of Paul as the author of the pastoral epistles.
A form of that 3rd presupposition, is based on the Bible verses of “elders in every church/city” (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) and the other pertinent passages on the work of elders being “shepherding the flock” and “able to teach”, and “overseeing the flock” (see below), and I Clement, Hermas, and that Ignatius leaves out the bishop in his letter to the Romans; ) and maintain inerrancy and not be inconsistent in using Lampe’s other historical information on the early church. The development from a plurality of elders for each church (Acts 14:23 – very early – for Galatia; and Titus 1:5-7; I Clement, Hermas) to the mono-episcopate (Ignatius and beyond) does not depend on Lampe’s first two presuppositions.
As John Bugay noted in his excellent article,
"This Bridge should be Illuminated" the extended quote from Lampe is mostly based on I Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas, and so does not depend on rejecting Paul as the author of the Pastoral Epistles.
Lampe based his arguments on I Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas. This is, in my opinion, the best of John’s posts in this subject matter, because of the evidence Lampe brings from I Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas. I would add that Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17, 28; I Peter 5:1-5, and Titus 1:5-7 all confirm that the Biblical and historical record show that the original church government/polity was a plurality of elders (presbuteroi) for each church.
David Waltz calls Lampe’s belief that he does not believe that Paul wrote the pastoral epistles as his first presupposition. Yet, it seems that the reasons for Lampe’s belief that Paul did not write them is because he assumes that the historical and travel information must fit with the sequence of historical events in the book of Acts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
Hi John,
I think, perhaps, we are finally getting to 'meat' of the issue(s) at stake; the following that you posted has significantly assisted in helping to crystallize why I believe ones position on the authorship of the Pastorals is very important in determining just what type of church structure (particularly, though not exclusively, concerning the form/type of government/hierarchy) that was in place at Rome at the end of the first century. You wrote:
"Can’t you see [David !] that these arguments do not have a necessary logical demand that his arguments against the Bible (Pastorals written by Paul in 67 AD; inerrancy, etc.) are the same as against the early post canonical period ( 71 AD – 150 AD ?) of Roman church polity (plurality of elders, mono-episcopacy) ?"
Before one can even begin to adequately discuss whether or not one of the elders of the house churches at Rome (or for that matter, any city that had multiple house churches) functioned as a president/bishop before the end of the first century (as attested by the numerous bishop lists), one needs to determine when the hierarchy of the Pastorals was in place, and if an apostle wrote them. Why are these two issues important? First, if Lampe is correct, that there was no apostolic warrant for the hierarchy of the Pastorals, it allows him to date them at the end of the first century. Second, it also opens the door for him to theorize the following:
"The household rules of the New Testament are often named as chief witnesses when one wants to describe how post-Pauline Christianity adapted to the world in a "civilized" way. The are often considered the prime example of how in post-Pauline times Christian ethics became conformed to the world and conservative and how the original "revolutionary" impetus of Gal. 3:28 ("there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female") was lost. In what ways do the household rules represent assimiltion to the world? They do indeed adapt to prevailing pagan structures of oikos. The respect the power or the paterfamilias and demand the submission of wife, children, and slaves to this rule, the call to obedience and the readiness to suffer can even be christologically motivated (1 Peter 2:18-23)." (Peter Lampe and Ulich Luz, "Post-Pauline Christianity and Pagan Society", in Christian Beginnings: Word and Community from Jesus to Post-Apostolic Times, ed. Jürgen Becker, p. 272)
And:
"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)
Me: Now, pretty much none of the above that has come from Lampe's pen can be maintained if the apostle Paul WAS the author of the Pastorals (contra Lampe).
cont'd
cont'd
And if the apostle Paul WAS the author of the Pastorals, there is much greater support (and logical consistency) for the following assessments of Dr. Caragounis:
"This brief scrutiny of the theory that Roman Christianity consisted entirely of separate house groups has hopefully indicated that the theory lacks sure foundation. On the contrary, house churches found in other cities than Rome existed side by side with the main city church, and their existence was not owing to divergencies in belief or to conflicting standpoints, but rather to zealous initiative to evangelize, to win one’s neighbors. Such house churches were to be found in Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:19), Colosse (apparently two: Nympha’s [Col. 4:15] and Philemon’s [Philem. 2]), and, on the analogy of Romans 16:10-11 (τοὺς ἐχ) perhaps also in Corith (1 Cor. 1:11: ủπὸ τϖν). Thus, even though house groups existed in the different cities, there was but one church for each city: e.g., Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch. We have no concrete evidence that the situation in Rome was different. (Chrys C. Caragounis, “From Obsurity to Prominence: The Development of the Roman Church between Romans and 1 Clement”, in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, ed. Karl P. Donfried, 1998, pp. 259, 260.)
Grace and peace,
David
Hi, i´m from Brazil (sorry about my english, but I can read fine). Let me ask you a question. I´m studying protestant apologetics and I think: it is correct to say that the opinions of Church Fathers are not normative or infallible. But, if some opinions maintained by protestantism as essential parts of faith (like a strong monergism, or imputational justification) are not present in ancient times, what was the situation of Christianity? It seems to me very strange that history of Christianity that is necessary within a protestant point of view. Basically, the Church begins to ruin as early as second century, and sudden (at reformation) became pure. So what we make of our history?
David,
I wrote this article - Ken T.
(smile)
Ken, I'm moving this entry up to Wednesday, I like to have one entry per day.
Thanks!
R.N.
Welcome to Beggars All ! Your question is the crux issue of a lot of what we write here and what others write about and debate on.
See
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/12/evangelical-introduction-to-church.html (Part 1)
and
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/12/evangelical-introduction-to-church_15.html (Part 2)
More is planned, but they take lots of time to write.
Be sure to look at James Swan's articles on Luther and Justification here is one - http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html
the other very helpful is on Alistar McGrath, that I link also at end of my first article.
Also, you could listen or watch all of Dr. James Whites' Debates with Roman Catholics, available at www.aomin.org . (under resources) Read David King and William Webster’s Holy Scripture: the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith; William Webster’s The Church of Rome at the Bar of History; and Jason Engwer’s articles at Triablogue (I give the reference and links at the end of my first article.)
That some extra biblical traditions began to creep in in the second century does not mean that the church was completely corrupt.
We are "catholic" also - we believe in the first 500 years of the early church - but they did
make three big mistakes in the early post-apostolic era:
1. by the mono-episcopacy (Ignatius and beyond) rather than a plurality of elders;
2. and baptismal regeneration was wrong and unbiblical (and the combination of that with infant baptism later created a lot of nominalism and trust in rituals)
3. and the neglect of justification in Romans and Galatians and the focus on penance, and related questions of sinning after baptism, church discipline, venial and mortal sins; etc.
These three early issues were the first small steps of drifting away from the truth and purity of the gospel in the Holy Scriptures. But the Roman church did not become totally corrupt until it condemned justification by faith alone at Trent.
A fourth step came later – emphasis on Mary as “Mother of God”(431 AD), Perpetual Virginity(5th-6th Centuries and beyond), Advocate, co-Mediatrix,
Then developed into things like her Sinlessness, Immaculately conceived (1854), Bodily Assumed (1950)
4. Other external emphasis on relics, visiting saints graves, icons, statues, physical blessings from rituals and touching things, the eucharist as sacrifice and transubstantiation ( 8th Cenury to 1215 AD) prayers to Mary and extra biblical dogmas about Mary (all not Biblical) and other saints, purgatory, etc. exalting virginity over marriage, etc. came a little later.
James,
no problem - you are right; I forgot in my zeal to get it out there.
Ken
No problem Ken. It's been a Waltzathon this week.
There's a pun in here somewhere for a post: "The Last Waltz", but I'm not nearly as clever as Steve Hays, so I wouldn't dare attempt anything like that.
Justin Martyr (around 155 AD) calls the leader of the worship service, "president".
So, there is no problem with one of the elders being a more prominent leader, teacher, preacher, pastor and doing most of the leading in teaching and officiating.
Since the word episcopas (bishop, overseer) is there in the Scriptures - Philippians 1:1 and Titus 1:1-5 and I Timothy 3:1; there is no problem as a description of his role and work. It is not until Ingaitus do we see a heirarchy of the bishop over the elders. In the Scriptures, the elders and bishops are the same.
David Waltz wrote:
Before one can even begin to adequately discuss whether or not one of the elders of the house churches at Rome (or for that matter, any city that had multiple house churches) functioned as a president/bishop before the end of the first century (as attested by the numerous bishop lists), one needs to determine when the hierarchy of the Pastorals was in place, and if an apostle wrote them. Why are these two issues important? First, if Lampe is correct, that there was no apostolic warrant for the hierarchy of the Pastorals, it allows him to date them at the end of the first century.
Depends on what you mean by “hierarchy of the pastorals” – if you think they communicate what Ignatius around 107-117 AD (?) does, namely, that the overseer/bishop/episcopos is over the college of elders in an authoritative “buck stops here” kind of way, then I think you are wrong. Since Titus 1:5-7 shows that the bishop is the same as the elder and the Greek word “for” in verse 7 makes it clear, then there is no hierarchy of “one bishop over the college of elders”. Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17, 28, I Peter 5:1-5, confirms this, that the word of elders is to “oversee” and “teach” and “pastor-shepherd”.
If you mean that one of the elders is prominent, out front, but still equal and accountable to the other elders, but leads the worship services and preaches and teaches more and is a gifted leader –but is still accountable to the other elders, then that is ok and biblical and apostolic and Pauline.
Since Paul was executed in 67 AD by Nero and wrote 2 Timothy from prison, then the “plurality of elders” as leaders/teachers/pastors/overseers is in place at that time. But it the plurality of elders is even earlier - Also, Acts 14:23 shows that a plurality of elders for each church was the ideal that an apostle-missionary should strive for and that was on the first missionary journey in Galatia, around 45-48 AD.
So, the structure of elder leaders was very early and that one of them may have functioned as the main leader or preacher is not a problem. And Paul did write I Timothy, Titus, and 2 Timothy.
that the word of elders is to “oversee” and “teach” and “pastor-shepherd”.
should have been:
that the work of elders is to “oversee” and “teach” and “pastor-shepherd”.
Also one of the references says Titus 1:1-5 - It should have been Titus 1:5-7, which it does in other places.
I'm glad to see the name Caragounis be brought up here.
David Waltz, I am going to guess that, given your strenuous personal commitment to "consistency," that you are citing Caragounis because you find him to be a sound, conservative scholar, and not simply because he disagrees with Lampe on this one issue.
Caragounis's argument is largely philological; that is, it is based on his own analysis of the verbiage in Romans 16. In his introduction to the work you cite ("Judaism and Christianity in First Century Rome", ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson, Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, (c) 1998), Donfried notes that Caragounis "challenges much of the consensus concerning the social situation of Roman Christianity presented in many of the contributions of this volume and elsewhere. ... Caragounis challenges the thesis that the ecclesial structure in Rome consisted only of a series of house churches and that there was, as a result, no unified ecclesial structure. Furthermore, he rejects the suggestion that the absence of the term εκκλησια in Romans supports this perspective. The failure of Paul to use the word εκκλησια in the prescript of Romans is irrelevant, as is shown by Philippians. Further, there is no evidence for the close proximity of the earliest Roman Christianity with the synagogues, Finally, the reference to individual house churches in Romans 16 does not substantiate the thesis that "Roman Christianity consisted entirely of separate house groups...."
I am more than happy to discuss the individual elements here, on their own merits, without the introduction of alleged "presuppositions," which allegedly affect the processes of reasoning of these two scholars whom I respect very much.
Caragounis's strength is in the area of philology (a study of the words), and there is a lot to be said for that. On the other hand, Lampe's work, while incorporating philological details, goes far beyond what Caragounis is able to bring to the table in this particular matter.
Caragounis cites Meeks (pg 256, fn 49. I have that work at home and can't reference it at the moment; in it, Meeks apparently argues for a larger "city" church surrounded by satellite groups.)
Even so, Lampe puts the number of house church congregations at 5-8; Caragounis is willing, "if we stretch the evidence to its breaking point," allow for "five such groups."
In case you hadn't noticed, both of these individuals have the number "five" ("5") in their paradigms. If there were five house congregations, they still agree with each other on this one point.
Moving further along, though, Caragounis has a reason for stating that there is one person, Clement, in charge, and that is to say, "he wants to have the power to 'command' the Corinthian church, but he does not actually have it." He says, "The Roman church has no formal right to demand these things."
In a footnote: Similarly Wellborn: "That the author did not possess the authority he claims is evident from the rhetorical character of the letter: He must persuade by argument and induce by example; that is, it is not yet his to command."
And so, whether or not there is anything like a "unified ecclesial structure" in Rome, even, per the first-person, eyewitness Hermas, the other presbyters in that city do not acknowledge the authority of any one of them; instead, (and I am paraphrasing Lampe's use of Hermas here; see the link that Ken provided): "they argue with one another as to who is greatest."
There are loads of details that we could and should discuss on their own merits; dismissing any of these arguments on the grounds of imagined "presuppositions" is a bogus way out.
James,
"The Last Waltz" comment was actually pretty funny and creative!
Ken,
Thank you. I already read texts in this blog and others related (triablogue, turretinfan). Something that makes me perplex is that you (protestants) have ONLY a critical approach to Church History before Reformation. When Church Fathers anticipated Reformation (like Augustine´s monergism, although it is not like Calvin´s monergism), it is good, but its never good enough when compared to Reformation theology. And everything that is proper of their time is bad. That is, christians have misinterpreted the Bible in a lot of issue (invocation of saints, propitiatory eucharistic sacrifice, synergism, etc) during 1500 years, and then, suddenly, a good (and almost perfect) interpretation appear in Calvinism system. Everything that Calvinism call, not only error, but also satanic, can be found in ancient christian leaders... and not only ancient christian leaders, but the very people that first delivered to us the NT canon. It seems like Christianity has been defeated centuries before Reformation. If seems to me that, if your reformed churches begin to adopt, not today Roman catholic dogmas, but simply some of things Church Fathers explicitly and repeatedly (without protests within them) you will call these churchs apostate and satanic. But you don´t call Augustine, Chrysostom, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, etc. apostates and satanic because of their doctrine. It doesn´t seem coherent to me, and doesn´t seem that God would act this will in his religion history. And I think it is totally deceptive to say that only at Trent the Roman church became totally corrupt (from the protestant point of view).
And I say this, even if I, personally, have great admiration for Reformation theology. Without any knowlegde of church history, I would keep protestant interpretation of Bible (maybe lutheran). But, when I see history, I rethink: is these texts REALLY clear enought to reject all interpretations of Church Fathers that contradict protestantism? And I think it isn´t. That never cross your minds?
I´m not defending Roman catholic dogmas, but just the Patristic Church (in a lot of points Roman catholics go beyond the Fathers).
Isn´t the Trent doctrine of justification just Augustinian?
Hi R.N., I see that one of your comments was caught in the spam filter. James Swan checks that frequently and it should be released soon.
Meanwhile, as far as the pattern of gradual "corruption" in the church, I've outlined that to some degree in this thread:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/06/answers-for-dozie.html
As to your question about the doctrine of justification as articulated at Trent being "Augustinian," I would say that Augustine was a bit mixed up, and whereas the Reformers sought to "unmix" him, Trent adopted the areas that Augustine got wrong and then they amplified and dogmatized that which he misunderstood.
Bear in mind, there were a number of reformers, and also, the various groups of Reformers came to their own, somewhat different conclusions over time.
But Augustine, not knowing either Greek nor Hebrew, applied his own (erroneous) Latin terminology to concepts that existed in Hebrew and then Greek. So whereas the Hebrew term "sedeq" and the Greek "δικαιω" word group, all referred to an external, declarative (legal, forensic) "justification," Augustine misunderstood this to mean an internal, "make righteous" sort of thing.
It was this misunderstanding that Trent dogmatized. It didn't help that they also anathematized the Lutheran and Reformed understanding of "justification," upon which, as some have said, the church would stand or fall. Trent fell hard at that moment. As far away from the truth as it had gone up till that point, it made its own fate irrevocable with that anathema.
R.N. wrote:
Isn´t the Trent doctrine of justification just Augustinian?
Short answer:
No
But, I am not saying Augustine was full blown in articulating imputation, because the Latin word obscured the "declaration" aspect. The problem was basing things on Latin (for centuries, rather than the Greek; penance also was a problem), and "iustificare" ("to make righteous") was a bad translation of "dikaiao" ("to declare righteous"). (I am not taking the time at this point to get all the Greek words in Greek font; just going off the top of my head in the com box for now.)
Part of what awakened Luther was the Greek text itself of Romans and Galatians and other NT books; but also it was Augustine's "On the Spirit and the Letter" (that righteousness was a gift from God to us by faith; not something we worked for) that contributed to his discovery of the gospel and the heart of it in justification by faith alone, apart from works.
See Luther's own account and his reference to Romans 1:17 and Augustine's "On the Spirit and the Letter", chapter 15 - I just googled and found this link - it looks very good for a quick reference.
http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/mlconversion.htm
I see John answered also well and is more specific on Augustine; so both together should help you, R. N.
I guess what John is saying is that Trent codified and dogmatized a form and extension of what they derived from Augustine.
So Trent may have been an Augustinian emphasis on the infusion of righteousness; it was not what the Bible taught earlier than Augustine. The Reformation took us back to the Scriptures.
But Augustine was not infallible, the NT Greek Scriptures are and they needed to be brought back as the foundation and source for all doctrine and practice, (not the Latin).
The “justify” verbs in Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:28, Romans chapter 4 and 5, are from δικαιοω,
“to declare righteous”.
Galatians 2:16
εἰδότες δὲ ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.
Galatians 2:16 (NASB)
16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
Hi Ken,
Thanks much for correctly pointing out that it was you, and not John, who was the actual author of the opening post. I start many combox responses with an opening greeting, and then copy and paste the comments I wish to respond into the same document. Though I initially thought John was the author, I soon came to realize that it was actually you, but totally forgot to change the opening greeting before posting (I am getting old!). [BTW, I also noticed that I double typed "as respects" in the quote I provided from John Murray in the "Ever seeing..." thread; will try to remember to go back there later and make a note of it.]
In your opening post you wrote:
"Lampe based his arguments on I Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas. This is, in my opinion, the best of John’s posts in this subject matter, because of the evidence Lampe brings from I Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas."
Me: Excellent point. Now, a couple of questions: first, of the historical data that Lampe presents, what specific elements would you say directly effects how one should read 1 Clement and Shepherd of Hermas; and second, if indeed Lampe has presented historical evidences that directly effect the reading of 1 Clement and Shepherd of Hermas, what, if any, of those evidences has not already been discussed by previous generations of scholars?
Grace and peace,
David
Thanks Ken and John,
I know what you talking about. I even read Alister Mcgrath´s "Iustitia Dei". But, still, I don´t see how Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, AND Trent´s doctrine of justification could be, in light of Scripture, intolerable. And I dont see one can say that Trent is apostate (because of his doctrine of justification) without saying that the whole Church before Reformation is apostate (from very early centuries), even if Trent is not pure augustinian.
You point to clear verses of Scripture, but they´re just not clear as you think. For example, the distinction between justification and sanctification is fine and reasonable in light of Scripture, but the traditional distinction between initial justification and second justification is ALSO reasonable and a good interpretation of the biblical "paradoxes" of how faith and works relate.
Hi John,
You posted:
"I am more than happy to discuss the individual elements here, on their own merits, without the introduction of alleged "presuppositions," which allegedly affect the processes of reasoning of these two scholars whom I respect very much."
Me: I am also "more than happy to discuss the individual elements"; but first, I would like you to clear up some earlier issues that you have completely ignored; I shall begin with the following:
In your the opening post of your "Ever seeing..." thread, you wrote:
John Bugay: "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."
Me: Why did you write this when you know for a fact that I did "point these out", BECAUSE YOU QUOTED THEM IN A THREAD THAT YOU POSTED THE DAY BEFORE.
Once you have answered the above, I would then like you know, of the three presuppositions that I listed, which do you reject as NOT being held by Lampe?
Thanks much in advance,
David
Hi E.N.,
I think you may find the following three threads of interest:
articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/01/justification-always-forensic.html
articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/04/evangelical-critique-of-rc-sprouls.html
articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/09/development-justificationsoteriology.html
[Note: I have not used the html link code for the above URLs because Google's spam filter has a tendency to reject posts that contain them; so just copy and paste the URLs.]
Grace and peace,
David
OOOPS...yet another typo from yours truly: E.N. should read R.N.
Thanks. I will read some of yours recommendations and then make new comments.
David, prefacing my comment here, your use of the word "presupposition" is a misuse and an anachronism.
The word "presupposition" in theological discussions has a very definite meaning, and you have completely misused it, not only by using it incorrectly, but by anachronistically bringing in later (2010) writings (out of context, again, by the way) and then telling us that these were "presuppositions" of Lampe's in 1987 when he wrote the work in question.
That in itself is dishonest.
Beyond that, you have not just moved the goalposts, but you have changed venues by by citing from a [much later] Lampe work, the Lampe/Luz work. That second work is dealing with rhetoric. And it is dealing not with the development of the monarchical episcopacy [specifically] in Rome. But from the context you are giving, it is merely alluding to the overall "structure of offices" [in a very general way] that "emerges in post-Pauline Christianity."
So you've not only moved the goalposts, but you've changed the whole venue. That is an illegitimate way to have this discussion.
You have completely avoided the work in question, his "Paul to Valentinus," and you are throwing your mud with out-of-context quotations from a work he wrote 30 years later.
Second, you fail to place this "Pastoral/deutero-Pauline" issue within the context where Lampe places it, and again, it is in the context of his analysis of Romans 16. It does not affect his other analysis -- and his is real analysis, unlike your smear-by-association methodology.
Third, on the "charismatic offices" and the supposed "structure of offices that emerges," Roger Beckwith does a very fine job of placing Jesus, Paul, and the other Apostles into "offices" that were already existing in the synagogues. In case you missed it, before you came here with your baseless accusations, I was patiently working through Beckwith's treatment of the evolution from the Jewish system of elders to the Christian eldership. This is the system that was in place in the New Testament, and Lampe's out-of-context comments had very little to do with this at all.
At any event, your contextless quotes, again, from a work that is not the work we had been discussing, do not speak at all to that Jewish/Synagogue/eldership structure.
As for your third "presupposition,"Lampe’s third presupposition: the "Catholic" concept of the ministry did not have apostolic warrant -- you have not proved in any way that his analysis did not demonstrate the conclusion to him. That is, his work concludes with, "the Catholic concept of the ministry did not have apostolic warrant." This does not come up until after the analysis. It cannot be a "presupposition" or even anything he assumed beforehand.
These are all reasons why I say your line of inquiry is nonsensical. You are not addressing the work at all; you are just making accusations in directions that have nothing to do with the work that should be being discussed.
It is smear by innuendo. Which is what I have been saying from the beginning.
R. N. -- still, I don´t see how Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, AND Trent´s doctrine of justification could be, in light of Scripture, intolerable.
Nobody said these were "intolerable". I'd ask you to articulate, in your view, "just what are Augustine's and Ambrose's and Chrysoston's doctrines of justification," but this is not a justification thread.
Maybe we could start one for you if someone here would like to discuss this with you.
David Waltz wrote:
Me: Excellent point.
Thank you! I appreciate that. (the evidence Lampe brings by using I Clement and Hermas to show it was a plurality of elders first; that episcopos (overseer/bishop) and presbuteros (elder) are interchangeable and the same person/office, which is confirmed by Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17, 28; I Peter 5:1-5; and Titus 1:5-7.)
Now, a couple of questions: first, of the historical data that Lampe presents, what specific elements would you say directly effects how one should read 1 Clement and Shepherd of Hermas; and second, if indeed Lampe has presented historical evidences that directly effect the reading of 1 Clement and Shepherd of Hermas, what, if any, of those evidences has not already been discussed by previous generations of scholars?
Since I don't have Lampe, I cannot answer those questions.
Focus on the two quotes from Lampe, especially the one where I embedded my blue comments. (the other one is the one about I Clement and Hermas and the plurality of elders.)
I will let John B. deal with the rest because he has the book and has plans for more articles on this issue.
I was going simply by the extended quote that John B. provided from Lampe about elders and I Clement and Hermas; and also mostly by the extended quote that you yourself provided, where I show in blue that Lampe's deeper assumption than your first "presupposition" is that he is assuming that everything has to be fit into the historical and travel details of the book of Acts.
Conservative scholars do an excellent job of showing that Acts was written in 61 AD (or 62), before Paul's release, that is why the abrupt ending without telling us of the outcome of his trial. Even Harnack, the classic liberal admitted this. Because of Luke's accuracy in so many other historical details, it is a key starting point for dating the other books of the NT around it.
Anyway,
one of the main points of this post was the blue comments in that quote from Lampe that show Lampe's assumption which is a step back from what you label as his first presupposition; and therefore there is no logical necessity of dependency on Lampe for both his post canonical views that requires us to accept his Scriptural views. It seems to me that it is not his first presupposition. Since that is clearly shown, then there is not inconsistency in using Lampe's historical studies on post canon history and yet rejecting his rejection of inerrancy and Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.
David, you don't interact with the blue comments much and you are mostly avoiding that. Why? Don't you see that is a deeper assumption on Lampe's part, and therefore, you are wrong to say what you said was his "first presupposition"; and you are wrong to charge John B. with inconsistency.
R.N.
You should also read James Swan's article on McGrath and Justification.
He shows by providing more context and more from McGrath that RCs quotes of his about a "theological novum" do not have enough context.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/08/alister-mcgrath-on-augustine-and.html
I also noticed my link to this in my "Evangelical Intro to Church History" needs to be fixed. (Part 1)
Hello John,
You wrote:
JB: "David, prefacing my comment here, your use of the word "presupposition" is a misuse and an anachronism."
Me: Sigh. You are deflecting the obvious with tangents not directly related to the basic issue that I raised nearly a year ago, namely that the issue of inerrancy is indeed relevant; you say it is not, but have offered no convincing evidence to the contrary, instead you keep repeating the charge that I have not dealt with Lampe's arguments, spiced up with a heavy dose personal insults thrown in for good measure. I ask point blank questions and you refuse to answer them directly. For you to say that one's position on inerrancy and the related authorship of the Pastorals is not a presupposition is ludicrous, and to borrow a phrase from your pen, is " in itself is dishonest".
QUESTION: how does the presupposition that the Pastorals were not written by Paul, but rather, by a much later author, NOT have direct bearing on the dating of the rise of hierarchical offices in the house churches in Rome?
JB: "The word "presupposition" in theological discussions has a very definite meaning, and you have completely misused it, not only by using it incorrectly,..."
Me: A presupposition is quite simply something that one presupposes. Now to presuppose is: to assume or suppose in advance.
QUESTION: are you saying that Lampe does NOT assume in advance (i.e. prior to his archeological and historical research) that the Pastorals were not written by Paul, but rather, by a much later author?
JB:"...but by anachronistically bringing in later (2010) writings (out of context, again, by the way) and then telling us that these were "presuppositions" of Lampe's in 1987 when he wrote the work in question."
QUESTION: are you saying that Lampe's evolutionary view of church government was NOT "seen as an 'assimilation' to the social forms of the world" in 1987? (If so, please offer some proof to back this up.)
JB: "That in itself is dishonest."
Me: Your charge is baseless.
In ending, I would like to ask, rather plead with you, that you directly answer the above questions instead wondering off in John Bugay tangents.
Thanks much in advance,
David
David Waltz: the "presuppositions" are all yours. You assume, you smear, and then you accuse me of not responding. There is no substance to which to respond. It is all a figment of your imagination. You assert, and re-assert this figment, and it has somehow become the reality for you.
From my perspective, I am responding to hot air.
I don't deny, I have never denied, that Lampe thinks the Pastorals were "deutero-Pauline."
What I deny is that it is a "presupposition" that somehow affected his argument. His argument is far too detailed, he brings in too many different elements, which he analyzes, for you to be able to say you've made any kind of a meaningful statement.
If you say "it affects his argument," then you must say precisely where. But you don't. You bring in a work writte 30 years later and say, "there, there's his presupposition; it affected his work 30 years ago". And you don't make that connection, either, except in the arcane linkages in your own mind. But to really reinforce it, you put it in bold face and red. There's academic rigor for you.
It is not a "tangent" to go directly into the work, and show, precisely where, he uses that "assumption" about the Pastorals.
It does not bear on his later analysis in any way. If you're going to say it does, you must be able actually to trace that line of thinking through that work. But you don't, because it's not there.
That is why we are going around and around with this: you are slurring his work with a charge that has no basis in reality. A genuine analysis of his work will reveal that there is no thread that runs from your charge to his conclusion.
I am sorry about the spam filter. It does not like you, and I am very much inclined to agree with it.
I check the spam filter every day. I would look over comments before publishing, and attempt to take out the material blogger sees as spam.
Hello again Ken,
Thanks for responding; you posted:
"Anyway,
one of the main points of this post was the blue comments in that quote from Lampe that show Lampe's assumption which is a step back from what you label as his first presupposition; and therefore there is no logical necessity of dependency on Lampe for both his post canonical views that requires us to accept his Scriptural views. It seems to me that it is not his first presupposition. Since that is clearly shown, then there is not inconsistency in using Lampe's historical studies on post canon history and yet rejecting his rejection of inerrancy and Pauline authorship of the Pastorals."
Me: I apologize for not been entirely clear on this matter—the three presuppositions that I list are all inter-related, meaning that one does not necessarily take absolute priority over the other(s). And, perhaps just as importantly, I think Jamie Donald's question [articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/04/assisting-john-bugay-part-1.html - April 5, 2001] needs to be seriously pondered:
Jamie Donald: "...could Lampe suffer from a more basic presupposition; where the more basic presupposition influence both his belief about the pastorals and his method for investigating and making historical conclusions?"
As for your request to "interact with the blue comments", it will probably be tomorrow before I can do so (the Lord willing). My eyes are getting tired, which leads to even more than my usually typos...I am off on an extended bike ride for some much needed exercise and fresh air.
God bless,
David
David Waltz: I apologize for not been entirely clear on this matter—the three presuppositions that I list are all inter-related, meaning that one does not necessarily take absolute priority over the other(s). And, perhaps just as importantly, I think Jamie Donald's question ... needs to be seriously pondered:
Now there's a rigorous proof for you. Ask the question, and the charge is as good as certified!
You do the same with Fathers and scholars: you take from them only what you apriori agree with, and dismiss everything else: and it's obviously a double-standard.
Post a Comment