What on earth would the magisterium have to learn from Southern Baptists about the family and marriage?
The Vatican will host religious leaders from across the religious spectrum later this month for a conference where they are expected to defend traditional marriage as between a man and a woman.
While hosted by Vatican officials and scheduled to open with an address by Pope Francis, the conference will include Muslim and Jewish representatives, as well as American leading evangelicals like megachurch pastor Rick Warren and Southern Baptist ethicist Russell Moore.
The gathering comes just weeks after Pope Francis and senior Catholic leaders wrapped up a two-week Vatican Synod of Bishops on the family, which highlighted tensions within the Catholic hierarchy over gays and lesbians and cohabiting couples.
Despite initial overtures toward gay and lesbian Catholics and the “gifts and qualities” they had to offer the church, the final synod report scaled back that language. Conservative and traditionalist Catholics said any attempts to soften the church’s teaching on homosexuality was a “betrayal” and akin to heresy.
Organizers say the new conference will show that while the Catholic hierarchy is split on how to address contemporary challenges to marriage and family life, the church can nonetheless seek common ground with religious leaders outside the Vatican.
If all those claims that Bryan Cross makes about logic and paradigms is true — and nothing I have posted has yet to disprove such truth — then why do his church rulers act like they aren’t?
Old Life 
They didn’t learn their Machen.
But Bryan did, and therefore, we will always and forever beg that question, yo. Give me Bryan over Francis any day of the week, and two times on Sunday, It’s a shame they won’t make him pope.
LikeLike
“What on earth would the magisterium have to learn from Southern Baptists about the family and marriage?”
Actually, it looks like the SBC has been learning more from Pope Francis:
http://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/southern-baptists-gay-community-break-bread-at-conference/
LikeLike
For anyone who is interested, the Arminian philosopher from Notre Dame, Jerry Walls (who wrote a recent work on Purgatory), announced on Facebook that he is writing a book entitled “Why I Am Not a Roman Catholic”. Bryan has shown up on a couple of his threads. In fact, Bryan persuaded Jerry to explore “the certainty of faith” provided by papal infallibility. Here is the link to the latest of several FB threads:
LikeLike
Quoting:
LikeLike
If you click the link at the bottom check out the length of Bryan & friends response to Brandon’s guest article. 412 footnotes. Someone throw a Bic lighter and that essay in my casket and I might have time to peruse it after I’m dead.
Anyone who is going to all this effort without getting paid handsomely for it is nuts.
LikeLike
@Erik —
Lots of people spend tremendous time on their hobbies. I think Bryan wanted to put together in one place his critique of the Lampe argument as understood by many conservative Reformed Protestants. Lampe, is I believe primarily due to John Bugay, gaining a lot of attention among conservative Reformed to Lampe’s comments on the evolution of the monarchical episcopate. Lampe’s focus is on defending the thesis that there were different Christianities in Rome. That among the different social classes these acted mostly in parallel, and were only later pulled together by the Catholics. His big contribution is using the graves to get population counts and then reading the literature about Roman Christianity back in terms of the evidence the graves provide. IMHO his demonstration of multiple Christian sects is far more damaging to the CtC claim about a universal church than his critique that the belief in a monarchical episcopate evolved later. Lampe proves definitely there was not one Christianity using the most conservative assumptions possible still consistent with the observable evidence. It should be said that Lampe is in reality a moderate, quite conservative for a mainline Christian in his scholarship, but still to the left of conservatives who frequent CtC and here.
To fully challenge Lampe would require a lot of knowledge about Roman archeology. But to mostly challenge Lampe would require walking through Lampe systematically and addressing the issues of how interests of the various social classes resulted in the creation of Roman Christian (i.e. especially early Catholic religious doctrine).I suspect the article is Bryan’s attempt to try and avoid really digging into the evidence and keep this at the level of philosophy.
Lampe’s book in full is more damaging to the CtC case then just looking at monarchical episcopate. He presents a plausible theory of how Catholicism (at least in Rome) developed that has nothing to do with a deposit of faith being handed down via. apostolic succession.
LikeLike
CD,
Thanks.
I’m actually considering reading both Brandon’s article & Bryan & friends response, although I’m shuddering at how much paper it’s going to take to print them both out. I’m not reading anything that long sitting at the computer.
So do you think Bryan invited Brandon to write the article with this agenda in mind? Very strange that Bryan would allow a Protestant to write an article unless he was just setting him up as a vehicle against which Bryan could give a response.
I am wondering how many of those 412 footnotes are Bryan citing himself.
LikeLike
Save your time, and search for Andrew Buckingham, Erik. I read Brandons article running on my Elliptical in my garage, you could probably do it in 30 minutes if pressed. Hint, they end just telling us we are Mormons and that we beg the question.
Lame foxes (I would link to “what does the fox say? On YouTube) but I don’t believe in my comments being held in purgatory. Same stuff, different day but Brandon did quite well.
Ciao.
LikeLike
I thought Brandon did well also, but I noted that CDH took a different opinion, at least from the debating perspective.
LikeLike
The new atheists all sound like they are singing gibberish, but CDH strikes me as more classical (Sartre) with more BF Skinner mixed in than Richard Dawkins. Yo. I dig his tune on occasion.
LikeLike
CD is Christopher Hitchens and Hugh Hefner all wrapped in one neat little package.
LikeLike
With a dash of Sartre.
Hi CD.
Regards, AB
LikeLike
No fox here.
LikeLike
Erik —
Sean’s short piece on Lampe (http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/09/modern-scholarship-rome-and-a-challenge/) you could read first since it does provide useful context for both and will take about 2 minutes. In terms of Bryan and Brandon well let me just say they are mostly independent of one another. They don’t address one another’s points — shockingly given that they titled as a response — you can read them in either order. There are mostly independent.
Here is the cliff notes:
Brandon presents a solid defense of the mainstream literature on the episcopate holding to a mainstream position that CtC’s version of history is pure fiction. Bryan presents a more traditional Scholastic defense of the faith. yan develops a partial epistemology that contradicts the scholars that Brandon was working with, which Brandon doesn’t dispute and that leaves him with a hopeless board. He creates some subtle pre-conditions in an epistemology and then Brandon steps on them. Jeff’s analogy to the “all triangles are equilateral” is very fair, that’s more or less how Bryan beat him. Bryan also states a few things that he knows to be false at crucial points (ex. A Silent Ecclesial Revolution?), and Brandon didn’t catch them. A solid win for Bryan in the debate though Brandon had the better case.
Of course if you are interested in the development of Roman Christianity I’d say of all of them I’d read Lampe. No offense to Brandon, Bryan or Sean intended here, this is Lampe’s job not his hobby, but his book is a truly excellent survey of what is known in light of Lampe’s own archeological evidence. I don’t agree with a good deal of what Lampe wrote but as I mention he is being as conservative as the evidence allows, and I’d just rather go with the most likely conclusions given the evidence rather than the more cautious position Lampe takes.
(almost?) none. They are mostly citations of ancient sources from New Advent, plus a whole bunch of miscellaneous references. There are quite a lot of facts in that article of the form that person X said Y and Bryan accurately documents them.
Yes. I think Bryan is seeing this argument being used more and more. So as an apologist he wanted to create his counter and test it out. Some of the issues were specific to Brandon, I think Bryan knew Lampe better than Brandon did (I suspect he read it or at least chunks of it), but Bryan likes debating. But for example had Brandon attacked his epistemology he would have had an opportunity to test that out and tighten the argument there. Had Brandon done some judo and made the affirmative case that the graves and the mid 2nd century Roman literature we do have are more proximate than Irenaeus and thus under the proximity criteria Bryan loses Bryan would have had a chance to refine that….
He has to battle test his argument out before he sends his followers who haven’t read Lampe. He has to test whether Brandon will go all the way and accuse
Sean, Ray,.. raised this objection (which IMHO is fair): Relying upon a methodology which yields a result which one favors in one instance, while decrying or challenging that very same methodology when, in a different context, it yields a result one dislikes; is the deep inconsistency which Catholics (and in this case Dr. Owen an Episcopalian) are pointing out, and which you are not facing squarely IMO.
But that doesn’t seem to be working so they built a more detailed case and gave it its first run.
LikeLike
http://news.yahoo.com/hard-line-us-cardinal-loses-another-vatican-job-131111993.html
Francis: “Say one more GD thing, Burke!
Burke:” I want to ban homosexuals and politicians who favor abortion from communion”
Francis: “That’s it! It’s Malta por tu, Ratzinger wanna be”
Burke: “I’m keeping the vestments, you Jesuit arse”
Francis:” This Jesuit arse took on the fascists in Argentina, while you were busy cultivating Scott Hahn acolytes in St. Louis. You overstuffed, privileged American(spitting), prima donna”
Btw, this is also how Francis and Ratzinger actually regard each other.
LikeLike
CD – They don’t address one another’s points — shockingly given that they titled as a response — you can read them in either order. There are mostly independent.
Erik – Perhaps Bryan accused Brandon of committing a logical fallacy and then went on to write 2 million words on the topic of his choice.
Hey, there’s a first time for everything.
LikeLike
CD – They are mostly citations of ancient sources from New Advent
Erik – Yeah, I see New Advent lists the Popes unambiguously from Peter all the way to Francis so obviously that’s the place to go for objective historical facts.
LikeLike
Brandon’s truly The Freak of these interwebs to endure the treatment he does at CtC.
Brandon, behind you all the way. Fwiw
LikeLike
Maybe I’ll just buy Lampe first before reading either of them. It’s holding it’s value quite well on Amazon. $20 or so for a book published in 2003. That tells you that people are still buying it.
LikeLike
sean, we need an updated Borgias TV series. West Wing has nothing on Vatican City.
LikeLike
CD-H, thanks for the cliff notes.
If I understand you, it sounds like Bryan is all epistemology and Brandon brought history to the table. Because Bryan believes epistemology trumps all, he wins every argument (even if he winds up having to live like a Christian Scientist — the pain in the jaw of the Roman Catholic Church is simply an illusion)?
LikeLike
D.G. – sean, we need an updated Borgias TV series. West Wing has nothing on Vatican City.
Erik – It’s “The L-Word” meets “7th Heaven”
LikeLike
D.G.,
Actually after taking a brief glimpse I think Bryan and his 2 partners brought in history as well.
This might be a debate that is worth you checking out, given your skill set.
How well do the two sides evaluate historical evidence?
LikeLike
Here’s the theme song for the TV drama, as we open to a scene in the dungeon under the abbey………
LikeLike
I see that smile
I see that smile
I see that smile on your face
We hear you cry
We hear you wail
We see that smile on your face
We see you laugh
We see you dance
We take that away every day
We see you cry
We turn your head
Then we slap your face
Bow down
Bow down
Bow down with your life
Head down
Head down
Head down hide that smile
Head high
Head high
Head high you’ve got to smile
Head high
Head high
Head high you’ve got to smile
I see you try
I see you fail
Some things will never change
We hear you cry
We hear you wail
We steal that smile on your face
Bow down
Bow down
Bow down with your life
Head down
Head down
Head down hide that smile
Head high
Head high
Head high you’ve got to smile
Head high
Head high
Head high like a song you like
LikeLike
If I may be permitted, a little more Machen:
CD, it’s your turn. Let’s see your swing.
LikeLike
@DgH
No that isn’t fair to Bryan. Bryan gets the knife under Brandon’s armor and disembowels Brandon on the issue of epistemology. But even if we ignore that on history alone Bryan still takes it. For example Bryan makes use of a select quote from 1Clement. Lampe on the 10 page section on the monarchical episcopate spends quite a lot of time showing how 1Clement uses the term bishop and what it means. This analysis is dependent upon Lampe’s deconstruction of Roman christianity into at least 7 factions separated by geography and sometimes social class. Brandon never comes back on him his purely historical evidence. Brandon doesn’t want to argue the internals of these books, he just makes an appeal to authority.
In certain other places Bryan uses Lampe and other authors against his points directly. Again Brandon had a winnable case. Bryan’s version of history doesn’t allow for the graves we see in the vatican mausoleum but he never plays through the evidence piece by piece by piece while Bryan to some extent does when he can easily attack Brandon’t citations. I’m not going to say Brandon didn’t read these books, but he wrote as if he hadn’t actually read these books but only the Cliffnotes. So Bryan took him even on a purely historical argument excluding the epistemological issues.
We’ll take the core one. For Lampe teacher, presbyter and bishop are 3 offices with some overlap in persons until the mid 2nd century. During the mid 2nd century they start to unify. By Victor I you really do have a monarchical episcopacy (FWIW I find Lampe’s timeline plausible in terms of non-Roman evidence as well). This happens arguably in reaction against Marcionites, Valentinians, Carpocratians, as Catholicism is drawing the line both doctrinally and structurally from broader Christianity and integration with Jewish Christianity no longer is a relevant objective for Catholicism. Brandon cites the result but not the steps in Lampe’s argument. And there is a reason for that Brandon I believe holds that presbyter signified the same individuals as bishop i.e. these are offices which would mean he disagrees he doesn’t agree with Lampe’s argument. Bryan is willing to cite the steps in his conclusion. Brandon can’t because he hasn’t really thought through the details. So Bryan beat him even on a purely historical basis.
___
As for the jaw comment… This is not to say that Bryan doesn’t know he’s full of crap on the larger issue. Like I mentioned he knowingly presented false and misleading arguments to Brandon. Brandon didn’t see it, but Bryan knew he was doing it, he was testing them out. I suspect Bryan at the very least read chunks of Lampe and so for example I don’t know how Bryan explains to himself that the graves in the Vatican don’t match his theory of history. I’d love to be able to give Bryan a truth serum and see how much of his own apologetic he really buys in his own heart.
LikeLike
@AB
My swing on what? Machen wasn’t a big fan of Catholic ecclesiology. What am I supposed to be responding to in that?
LikeLike
Thanks, CD. However you like. When I get around to it, I’ll ping you on Machen on the posts you’ve done him at your blog. It was just weird that the day I was driving to work, wondering why I hadnt seen your avatar are and for a while was the day you showed back up. I meant no disrespect, and I hope you and your family are well since we last connected. Until next time, friend.
LikeLike
CD – I’d love to be able to give Bryan a truth serum and see how much of his own apologetic he really buys in his own heart.
Erik – I’d settle for throwing some water on him to see if he short circuits.
I’m thinking Yul Brynner in “Westworld”
LikeLike
Erik,
I think that CD has some helpful things to say but I think he has not quite accurately “scored” the debate. I’m going to be a bit biased though 🙂
One of the things that I should point out though, because it appears CD is unaware, is that I wrote a review of Lampe here: http://reformation500.com/2014/01/24/extended-review-of-peter-lampes-from-paul-to-valentinus/
Don’t go to the article at CtC for a review of the thesis of fractionation. The only thing I was doing in the article was showing that the claims of numerous people at CtC that Lampe only presented one opinion on fractionation while others disagreed with him. I demonstrated why that is a very poor argument, though I did not explain *why* fractionation is a legitimate position to hold. If one approach the original article as if that portion of my essay was trying to argue for its validity, then they would not have a full understand of fractionation.
Bryan’s response is largely philosophically oriented. He wants to ask questions of methodology and expose inconsistencies while also showing that the data itself is preferable in a Catholic paradigm.
There is a significant amount of historical information that they attempt to synthesize. In evaluating the two articles I think it is important to consider the following:
1. Is my methodology inconsistent for my Christian belief (and is it inconsistent for the Christian belief of nearly every scholar who agrees with me)?
2. Are the pieces of evidence truly inscrutable between the case I’ve made and the case that CtC has made?
3. Which article regards the silence in early literature in the most compelling way? Does my paradigm limit the data set or does the CtC paradigm unduly expand it?
LikeLike
Brandon,
I think the fact that you are taking on three guys there, all of whom are presumably older, at least one of whom is a full-time academic who gets paid for doing this kind of thing, is impressive.
Keep up the good work. Hopefully you can go on in your formal studies at some point. I think you would make a good seminary professor (based on my limited exposure to your work).
I like that you are willing to mix it up with these guys on hostile turf. You can learn a lot doing these kinds of things, being willing to stick your neck out and take a risk.
I have Lampe’s book on the way.
LikeLike
In Brandon’s link to his book review I found this nugget from Bryan:
Bryan Cross says:
January 26, 2014 at 10:45 am
John (Bugay),
If in order to defend your position you have to resort to accusing me of being intentionally deceitful, because the evidence from history isn’t sufficient to make your case, I understand. This is your site, and you can run it as you wish. But I will not participate proactively or fully in a forum where impoliteness and incivility are allowed free reign, because, among other things, I believe in the interdependence of truth and love. So I won’t be participating in the discussion here on this site. But thanks very much for hosting Brandon’s article, and may you have blessed Lord’s Day.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Erik – If Called to Communion ever puts on a cruise they’re going to need to get “The Love Boat” out of mothballs.
No Love, no truth.
LikeLike
Erik –
If Called to Communion ever puts on a cruise they’re going to need to get “The Love Boat” out of mothballs.
Now that is entertaining!
LikeLike
CD-H, thanks.
LikeLike
You are correct I was unaware of that. That’s a good thorough review BTW. I followed up by reading the debate in the comments and then the later debate you had on Sean’s post. So hopefully I now have the context. Anyway I think you did better in that earlier debate, I’d give it to you. Bryan’s “that doesn’t disprove a monarchical…” over and over and over is tortured. If Christianity consists of a bunch of geographically, ideologically and socio-economically divided sects the idea of a single unifying Bishop figure is refuted. You had it in the earlier debate. He came back with a stronger argument in the rematch.
I should mention the closing comment on February 11th, 2014 9:13 pm on CtC post where you say the Gnostics did in fact object to apostolic succession and to Irenaeus list is killer evidence. It kills their whole argument of no evidence for a change in doctrine regarding apostolic succession. At the very least when he comes at you with his June 25th, 2014 1:04 pm post you should have brought this back up. As a point of information for the next go around, you also have evidence from the Encratites and other possibly other Docetic sects as well. This is the big historical claim that is unrefuted in the later debate on the history point. You should have hit on that more in your response to Bryan.
I agree you did do that. The problem is you don’t carry it to the conclusion fractionation implies there isn’t a single church and there isn’t a single hierarchy.
That’s a very good question. It is a claim they make. You argue that lots of scholars hold these views and they retort they are liberals and thus don’t count. They also retort that the same historical-critical methods disprove inerrancy and the original authorship of gospels, and many epistles. And you never retort.
I don’t know the answer to that consistency question for you even after having read both 3 articles and 4 discussions. Which means I gotta score the point for them.
Now IMHO Lampe is a moderate, not a liberal. The scholars you are citing like Brown are moderates. It is possible (I really don’t know your theology) that you are comfortable with moderates. If not … you do have an epistemological problem of selective evidence.
Hell no! The evidence is clear cut in your favor for the negative case. They beat you holding the worse hand. But if anything they get bonus points in the debate for beating you with the worse hand. The problem though is had you really debated fractionation full on you would have run right into the ecclesiastical deism point that Bryan makes: (a few examples):
* The former option leaves us with the paradox that the Apostolic seat widely believed to be the touchstone of orthodoxy in every respect for hundreds of years, was terribly wrong about its own identity, and therefore unsuited to be anyone’s touchstone of orthodoxy. In this way, we are left either with some form of ecclesial deism, or the unavoidable conclusion that the Catholic Church, consisting of all those particular Churches throughout the world in full communion with the episcopal successor of St. Peter in the Apostolic See, is the Church Christ founde
* more than it justifies calling into question every patristic claim, something Brandon does not do, because to do so would be to embrace ecclesial deism to the full ”
* The only way to remove this contextual evidence is to stipulate that not only were Sts. Hegesippus and Irenaeus untrustworthy witnesses regarding the episcopal succession in Rome, but that St. Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Origen, Eusebius, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, Socrates Scholasticus, and Theodoret were also untrustworthy witnesses regarding the first-century episcopacy in Jerusalem. In short, if we want to reject the testimony of St. Irenaeus, we have to be prepared to reject the testimony of the other Church Fathers as well, and thereby embrace the ecclesial deism that implicitly underlies such a large-scale rejection of the patristics.
In the debate you don’t really take this on. You absolutely have to. If the church fathers are fabricated polity for political ends what assurance do you have that they aren’t fabricating other points of doctrine? It is a good card he is going to keep playing it. You have gotta get clear in your own head what you believe happened to the early church. Your losing because you aren’t clear.
Let’s try this in a non debate way. Don’t worry about what you can or can’t defend but give me what you think is true…
If I went to an orthodox Christian church in 100CE what would I see? What about the other sects? What percentage of the churches fall into these categories?
LikeLike
CD – Now IMHO Lampe is a moderate, not a liberal. The scholars you are citing like Brown are moderates. It is possible (I really don’t know your theology) that you are comfortable with moderates. If not … you do have an epistemological problem of selective evidence.
Erik – It’s a bit disconcerting that scholars have to be labeled as “liberal”, “moderate”, or “conservative”.
My atheist professor of Religion friend wrote a book called “The End of Biblical Studies” and I got the idea from talking to him about it that he basically wrote it because he was frustrated that most of the scholars of religion that he encountered were Christians!
Perhaps there is no such thing as “objectively” evaluating evidence without bringing our personal preferences and dearly-held beliefs into it. One would like to think that scholars would do their best to be objective, though.
LikeLike
Hey CD,
Thanks for the interaction.
In terms of the “debate,” I’m not too disheartened that very intelligent individuals like yourself score the debate for Bryan. Bryan is a really sharp guy and has a ton of experience debating. I’m honestly Bryan is even willing to have the conversation with me. Ultimately I think I’ve got the better end of the deal, but if my presentation is poor or incomplete I’m seriously more than willing to be corrected. For me it’s not so much about winning a debate as it is finding the truth. If finding the truth means I need to get beat up a little bit, that’s alright.
I also want to emphasize that I am planning on offering a response. My comments on their thread are piecemeal. The reason I stopped commenting is because I need to actually take the time to carefully answer them on various points. I have started here: http://hakalonhumas.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/thats-what-they-said-1st-clement/
The past number of months have been busy for me and I’m back in school full-time while working full time, so as much as I want to continue down this road, I don’t have the time to do so. I do intend on releasing a section on Ignatius by January though. Hopefully those sections will at least give you a fuller understanding of my response.
Regarding scholarship, I think that much of the scholarship from Lampe, Brown, et. al. is–get this–compatible with my conservative Presbyterian paradigm. I don’t agree with everything they believe, but I think that I can use the same tools and methods to engage on areas of disagreement.
Off the top of my head, if you went to an orthodox church in 100 CE I believe that you would see the sorts of things Trajan reports. Songs to Christ as a god. A communal (Eucharistic) meal. There would be a scriptural (that would include things that were and were not part of what I consider the legitimate canonical Scriptures) reading. In different areas you could very well welcome in a travelling prophet who would lead you in the Eucharistic meal. There would most likely be widespread diversity though, as even something as large and important (liturgically anyway) as the celebration of Easter was celebrated on different dates by groups from different geographic areas.
In terms of the activity of other sects, I think there would be varying degrees of behavior, but you would see much similarity between the other sects and the “orthodox.” The Ebionites may have been less enthusiastic about singing to Christ as a god. They probably also had strong Jewish elements to their gatherings (like potentially observing Jewish holy days and customs). In other words, in 100 CE we would see sects functioning in very similar ways to orthodox groups in their liturgies. The real points of tension would be in the theology under-girding those liturgies.
The final thing I’ll note is that Bryan and I had correspondence on his response section in Hegesippus. I told him I was very disappointed with that section because he has not taken the time to actually understand the argument and as a result even attributes latent anti-Semitism. It’s such a ludicrous reading I asked Bryan to take it down because it distorts what I’ve said, but Bryan insisted on retaining it. The reason those charge ring hollow are manifest, but the primary reason is that Hegesippus was not lying, about anything.
As I understand him, Hegesippus is writing a list of men who have been bearers of the tradition, but he is not talking about a monarchical bishop, much less a Petrine succession. This sort of apologetic trope arose out of the debate with Gnostics and it would have been laborious to list the succession of every presbytery (especially as the office of bishop was becoming solidified) in the church. So Hegesippus (who is reportedly Jewish) adopts a Jewish apologetic utilized against Greeks to show the same doctrine has been taught in the churches from the beginning.
In other words, the historical conditions produced a subtle historical misunderstanding by later writers about the historical conditions of the early Church. There is no duplicity or insidious development intended here (so far as this thesis goes, anyway). The episcopate arose for cultural, social, and theological reasons simultaneously with the apologetic tactic of citing bearers of tradition with the Apostolic message. They may have in fact been mutually reinforcing.
You may not find this explanation very persuasive, but it does provide a potential answer. The response article does not anywhere show any understanding of this and it is why their accusations don’t really stick. They need to engage me on the facts because if my proposal is legitimate then their claims of “ecclesial deism” are weakened.
LikeLike
@Erik —
I agree is is disconcerting. I think your friend Avalos’ book covers the issue nicely. His thesis:
1) The bible is a human product and a product of cultures whose values and beliefs are so alien to our own they aren’t relevant to our culture.
2) What supports biblical studies is not the academic importance but the sociological / political importance.
Objectively the evidence for the atheist thesis are IMHO crushing. The people who are drawn to biblical studies as a profession are personally invested in the Christian story. Worse for neutral scholarship the funding funding mechanism: i.e. church members fund the religious infrastructure including indirectly biblical studies creates a dilemma. They want conservative scholarship. So the process of reform happens at an achingly slow pace. Much more like how legal systems are reformed than how history is typically done.
LikeLike
CD,
Secular scholars at major universities no longer study the Bible?
That seems a shame considering it’s the most influential book ever known to man.
LikeLike
An interesting question to ask about all of this is, what exactly is at stake?
To what degree should the development of Christianity in the earliest days be normative? To what degree should the development of Christianity over the past 2,000 years be normative?
What happened and what should have happened always seem to be two different questions. Bryan’s apologetic wants to link the two (at least until the Reformation when it all went to s**t).
LikeLike
@Brandon —
(response part 1)
Yes he is and don’t forget CtC is a team effort. He may have had other CtCers help construct that article as well. There is no shame
That’s a good attitude, that is what really matters that you come to a position that you can believe in fully. IMHO “the truth” is well to the left of the thesis you are defending. As you and I talk about how the debate went / is going to go obviously you can use me for a sounding board on what I think is genuinely true rather than what’s the best debate tactic given your thesis. I’ll focus on the debate since Bryan is unlikely to attack you from the left in many places. What he is doing to do though is point out hypocrisy in your thinking and that’s where the truth vs. your debate thesis is most likely to come up. Remember the bad hand that Bryan is trying to defend, “There was a unique type of Christian church in the ancient world as long as you exclude all the other ones. This church taught a unique theology, as long as you exclude all but one of the theologies it taught. The leaders within it were subject to a binding leadership, as long as they didn’t suffer from ‘personal failings’ and do something this leadership didn’t approve. And the fact that the entire literary record reads as if this binding structure teaching a unique theology to a unified church doesn’t exist, and in fact frequently indicate the opposite, shouldn’t be counted as any evidence against this position because in context there is some good reason.”
Now in terms of the article you are writing let me go back to that after the 100 CE Christianity discussion. You are still being vague and you have got to tighten up what you are defending in your own head.
OK good. Now keep going. You are describing something fluid using words like “gathering”. Is your 100CE Christianity:
a) A movement mostly within Judaism and among God fearers which hasn’t yet become a sect?
b) One or more sects which still has ties to the synagogues?
c) One or more sects which has established its own synagogues?
d) One or more sects which have established their own churches but still draw mainly from Judaism and God fearers?
e) A separate religion with multiple sects operating within itself?
When you talk about “orthodox” what does that mean? That is what distinguishes the orthodox from other sects: structurally, theologically, …? You are saying these other churches are functioning similar but theologically distinct. OK then where did the non-orthodox sects come from? And for that matter where did the orthodox churches come from? Are members passing between them? What are the relative percentages of orthodox and non-orthodox?
For example Lampe doesn’t have much structural distinction between orthodox and non-orthodox there is just a pool of teachers and ideas some of which will evolve into heresies and others that will evolve into orthodoxy. The separations are being driven by geography within the city and socio-economic class. Proto-Catholicism is more popular among the lower classes which is why it will eventually win in the decades to come. Is that the model you are picturing or something else?
By way of contrast Bryan has a picture of a unified hierarchical organization which has undergone 4 successful changes of leadership already. These other sects mostly haven’t formed yet and there teachings are being widely rejected. The religion of this unified hierarchical organization is very close to modern day Catholicism. The other sects emerged from heretics within Catholicism.
So Bryan’s is clear but easily falsifiable. You need to get your’s more clear. Otherwise as you respond you are going to contradict yourself. If you can avoid contradicting yourself you can comfortably work with the fact to poke holes in Bryan’s theory.
LikeLike
The doctrine of Scripture channel at OLTS is a favorite of mine as well. I don’t go spouting off about golf on just any thread. Toodles.
https://oldlife.org/2014/10/tale-two-petes/#comment-157109
LikeLike
Bryan actually tips his hand in the conclusion:
In response, we have argued first negatively that Brandon’s article does not sustain his conclusion that the governance of the early Church was “presbyterial” in such a way as to exclude both a universal monepiscopate instituted by the apostles and also the particular monepiscopacy at Rome after St. Peter’s sojourn in that city. Either Brandon’s evidence is indeterminate as to the question at hand, or abstracted from the full literary and social context of the early Church. Moreover, even if his conclusion were somehow true, we have shown that it would have disastrous consequences for ecclesiology. Secondly, we have made the positive argument that the Catholic Church’s teaching on the episcopate is more plausible than Brandon’s mere presbyterianism on a full consideration of the historical evidence, as well as on the theological implications. In this way the reader can see that the Catholic tradition accounts for the historical data just as well as, and in fact better than, Brandon’s Presbyterian account. Furthermore, the Catholic tradition surmounts the theological problems that the Presbyterian account generates for itself, while simultaneously being able to express why the Presbyterian account generates precisely those intractable problems. For this reason, the Catholic tradition’s approach to the historical data is demonstrably the superior paradigm when looking for the visible Church in history.
The whole response is largely an exercise in handwaving. On the surface level it looks impressive because it is so long and even attempts to deal with the historical evidence. But as with much at CTC, its only impressive on the surface level. Drill down to the presuppositions, and it is clear that they govern the data. This is something to which none of us is immune. The annoying thing about Bryan et al is that they can never see how their paradigm determines the evidence and not the other way around.
Just look at the first sentence I bolded. How in the world does Brandon’s thesis have a disastrous impact on anyone’s ecclesiology except an ecclesiology that embraces the monoepiscopacy in the particular way Rome does? Even then, it is only disastrous if you assume the church must be infallible. Protestant forms of church governance that embrace a fallible episcopate aren’t destroyed by this evidence, but only Romanism. I don’t even think EO is necessarily destroyed by it.
The second sentence confirms that. Bryan’s paradigm is only better for finding the visible church if you assume that monoepiscopacy was instituted by Christ. If the church is what Protestants says it is, then the actual historical evidence is not a problem for finding the visible church.
Other than that, a lot of the historical considerations in Bryan’s essay fall along the “well, the evidence is not incompatible with my paradigm.” That may be true in many cases, but it’s a rather lame response. It’s like saying, “well, the fact that the moon isn’t made of green cheese doesn’t mean that it is incompatible with an undiscovered planet on the other end of the Milky Way being made of green cheese. Sure it’s not, but that’s somewhat irrelevant.
The best such that could be proven is that the episcopate could be a development, even a providentially guided and ordained development. CTC would do better if they went that route. But then they’d have to deal with whether things could not also later providentially develop away from the episcopate.
In sum, Bryan’s case is one big “begging the question.” Yeah, if you assume the church must be what he says it is, then Brandon’s essay is disastrous of ecclesiology. If not, ecclesiology is just fine. This is the problem Bryan has—he determined that the church Jesus founded must look a certain way, then he went and found the church to which he could fit the evidence, and he’ll keep on doing it apart from some radical divine intervention.
LikeLike
@ Robert: I don’t rate a bell, so “clank, clank”
It’s been a while since I read the exchange, but my impression is that Bryan’s responses were boilerplate “argument from paradigm” stuff that he’s been holding to for a long time now.
Since those arguments have long since been shown to be circular, I found them entirely unconvincing. That’s why I disagreed with CD-H on the scoring of it.
LikeLike
@Brandon
(part 2)
First off Bryan didn’t actually accuse you of anti-Semitism. You are letting the word freak you out. Take a breath. No one is reading it that way.
OK now for Irenaeus if we are just concerned about preservation of doctrine you have (according to Irenaeus):
Jesus -> Apostle John -> Papias -> Polycarp -> Irenaeus. So he’s got a good list in place for teachings. So second, you need to get clear in your own head. Do you believe that list? If you don’t you can stop hedging regarding Irenaeus. If you do then things get trickier because you only have 2 steps for Irenaeus to be wrong about his ecclesiology unless you want him to be making stuff up. Under your theory about succession Irenaeus is a bishop and then decides after that bishops have always existed in a hierarchy?
On the same theme third: do you believe that Irenaeus believes in apostolic succession and a monarchical episcopate? I’ll assume the answer is yes. You then present an argument that Irenaeus is either mistaken not inventing this doctrine based on either a misunderstanding (or possibly deliberate exaggeration) of Hegesippus? Which are you claiming misunderstanding or exaggeration? In either case you are getting very passive here when you want to have Irenaeus being sloppy.
You believe a process of doctrinal evolution occurred. Which is fine but Irenaeus makes claims that the apostle gave this structure. Is he dead wrong? Is he lying?… You are presenting that Irenaeus is untrustworthy. But you don’t want to call him either sloppy or dishonest and that’s where Bryan keeps landing punches. You can’t make the case you are making without addressing this switch.
Now let’s get to Hegesippus.
Bryan, “ Here again, Brandon uses an argument from silence, claiming that because St. Hegesippus does not use the word “ἐπίσκοπος,” [i.e., bishop] in the immediate statements about succession, therefore St. Hegesippus is not talking about a succession of bishops, but rather a succession of teaching. ” Which is a correct restatement of Lampe’s and your position. He then goes on to present a linguistic argument why he finds the Brandon/Lampe read implausible. He then says, “ If one claims that St. Hegesippus is simply making up a line of episcopal succession for the Church in Rome, where previously there had been only groups of presbyters all having equal authority, one has to claim that St. Hegesippus is fabricating such lines for all the cities through which he has travelled, not just for Rome.”
…
Bryan presents a long series of arguments about why he finds
either:
a) Hegesippus was writing a succession of teachings
b) Hegesippus was fabricating a succession of bishops
unlikely.
I’d have to do more research on this to respond to the linguistic argument, but there are a lot of points here. The Jewish thing is a minor point but again you are waffling and Bryan is sensing that. Do you believe Jews made use of false succession lists or not? High Priest was most certainly a political office so the analogy doesn’t help unless you are willing to say they are fabricated. Bryan is countering both the “yes” and the “no” response to that question and constructing two different hypotheticals based on the answer. But because you are being vague he gets to use two different arguments.
You’ll notice a theme repeating?
I agree the episcopate arose for cultural, social, and theological reasons simultaneously. I’d argue that Catholicism and for that matter Christianity arose for cultural, social, and theological reasons simultaneously. But I believe that religions are cultural institutions the same way that languages or sports are. There are no actual truths about the supernatural world because there is no supernatural world. That’s me. You have a trickier position where you have to argue that this kind of change can happen but not others…
Not really. If you want to assert that major doctrines can and did change in under a generation then how can you be assured that others doctrines didn’t change? Your 100 CE Christians don’t have any concept of apostolic succession. Your 200 CE Christians consider it one of the defining characteristics of their faith.
Given your theory why weren’t the groups that rejected apostolic succession and supported sola scriptura right? Why trust that the Catholics got the creeds right? Heck Irenaeus is the guy who picked the four gospels. Why trust he got that right?
LikeLike
@Erik
Not that much, a small percentage. Biblical studies are dominated by the religious. Secularists tend to focus on other areas of ancient history. So someone like Birger Pearson or John Turner does their biblical studies only indirectly by studying things related to the bible.
You mean normative of how new sects / religions develop or normative of what Christianity is like now? Anyway for Bryan he needs the tie to Jesus. Take my position that there is no Catholicism or even a distinct proto-Catholicism prior to the Kitos war and there is no “church that Jesus founded”. I didn’t believe in that when I was a Christian so I don’t think it is much of a problem for Protestantism but it is a problem for Bryan’s Catholicism.
LikeLike
Guys,
Can we heed the Dude:
Interesting discussion so far. Thanks to you all. I could probably read a few more comboxxes of it.
LikeLike
And one other thought for those assembled. While Bryan may have loose circuits, it is CDs soul that for our r purposes is in the most danger. It will come time to focus on him and his atheism eventually, is all.
Bye.
LikeLike
CD – normative of what Christianity is like now? Anyway for Bryan he needs the tie to Jesus.
Erik – Yes, like now.
I agree. You can tell where Bryan realizes the chinks in his armor are based on what he is working on, in spite of his claims that his armor is chinkless. Any logical gap must just eat away at him when he wakes up at 3:00 a.m.
LikeLike
The problem they have if they can’t trace it back to Jesus is the rupture caused by the Reformation. Protestants can argue that the dominance of the RCC, although lasting for a long time, was more an accident of history via Constantine. If this is the church that Jesus founded, however, the Reformers erred gravely in overthrowing its hegemony. The theory would be that if Luther hadn’t jumped the gun, Rome would have cleaned up its act on its own.
LikeLike
Erik,
The theory would be that if Luther hadn’t jumped the gun, Rome would have cleaned up its act on its own.
Of course, we know that prior to the Reformation, Rome had tried to clean up its act at several councils. The problem is that it didn’t stick. It took the prospect of losing all of Europe for the Vatican to get more serious.
LikeLike
@Erik & Robert
It is arguably worse than that. There were several attempts at what would be the reformation, since the Pataria movement had been suppressed in the 11th century which ended in slaughter. The church wasn’t just failing to reform it was actively using massive and increasing state violence to prevent reform. It had employed genocide multiple times. It has a secret police courts. It made routine use of torture….
Frankly I’ve never understood why CtCers et al aren’t more bothered by this. Even if one believed the RCC was the church that Jesus founded, by the time of the Reformation its actions had put in the same camp as Stalinist Russia. Morally overthrowing it would be like overthrowing a government that had long since lost moral legitimacy. One of the most important things the Reformation accomplished was creating in the west a tolerance for religious diversity. The reason anyone has to bother to debate is because of the effects of the Reformation, creating the idea that salvation is an individual and not a collective act.
Or they can argue the church fell. I was raised that Matt 4:8-10 was prophecy. When the church faced that temptation in 311 CE it answered “yes”. Up until that point it had erred but at that point the nature of the corruption changed. It spent the next few centuries falling into further debauchery of true religion then crushed true Christianity and set off the 1260 years of darkness per Daniel / Revelations. It wasn’t an accident of history at all but a triumph of Satan that he had corrupted what should have been the instrument of salvation.
Don’t get me wrong. I was also raised the Jesus never founded an institutional church, such a thing would be an idol. But one could accept their fake 1st century, still believe the church got more corrupt with time and then fell.
____
Of course you run into the problem that 311 CE is before all the church councils. So the creeds aren’t binding because they are the product of a corrupted church. One of the arguments I think the CtCers are very strong on is that most of what the Reformation was objecting to was either fully or mostly in place by the late 2nd century. Yet most confessional Protestants want to act as if the Reformation was a response to late developments in Christianity. As a matter of historical record if you are going to object to the church’s view of justification, the monarchical episcopate, the enhanced role of Mary… you are objecting to the 4th century church not merely the 14th century church.
This is key CtC arguments that IMHO the Baptists and Pentecostals can answer but conservative Reformed not so much. Was Innocent III when he successfully thwarted what should have been the Reformation 4 centuries earlier the leader of Christianity or the leader of the opposition to it? Saying “both” is an untenable position as is why I think the CtCers usually win these debates with the conservative Reformed.
LikeLike
Robert – Of course, we know that prior to the Reformation, Rome had tried to clean up its act at several councils. The problem is that it didn’t stick. It took the prospect of losing all of Europe for the Vatican to get more serious.
Erik – (Sigh) if only Francis had been Pope all the bad priests and bishops would have given up their mistresses, lived in the gardener’s shed, and given the laity the cup.
LikeLike
CD, and all the while, I wonder what all the fuss is about. All about me and my wilderness wanderings on the webernet:
Would you like to read more?
LikeLike
@AB
Trust me they like me better here as a cynical atheist 🙂 When I talked about an aspect of my old faith in gushing, glowing terms the regulars were put off: https://oldlife.org/2014/08/evangelicals-sexy/comment-page-2/#comments
LikeLike
What I call it.
LikeLike
I’ll take a read, CD, thanks as always. Remember, this is Xtian territory. Our banner yet waves. Cold hearted Calvinists, we may be. For those of us raised Baptists, we won’t rest until we have a convert to take down to the river with us. Have a good day, Colin.
LikeLike
CD,
Yet most confessional Protestants want to act as if the Reformation was a response to late developments in Christianity. As a matter of historical record if you are going to object to the church’s view of justification, the monarchical episcopate, the enhanced role of Mary… you are objecting to the 4th century church not merely the 14th century church.
There is a good deal of truth in this, but I think it has to be qualified. If you are defining the church as a formal institution that makes declarations on beliefs, then yeah, things like the monarchical episcopate are quite early. Justification it is much harder to tell since there is no real pronouncement on it until the Reformation, where the formal separation between justification and sanctification became codified as confessional Protestantism. One could argue that that was as much due to historical circumstances as other things. Don’t get me wrong, as a Presbyterian I believe the distinction is good and biblical, but sometimes I wonder what would have happened had the church not developed a system of indulgences, etc. It seems to me that a lot of the ECFs don’t distinguish between the two, but then again, so do most common people in the pew fail to distinguish them. But there’s a difference between confusion or lack of clarity and formal definition of error.
Was Innocent III when he successfully thwarted what should have been the Reformation 4 centuries earlier the leader of Christianity or the leader of the opposition to it? Saying “both” is an untenable position as is why I think the CtCers usually win these debates with the conservative Reformed.
But I’m not sure the conservative Reformed say both. It seems to me that the Reformed hold on to what they think is good from anyone before them and reject what is bad. To be fair, however, with a guy like Innocent III, your probably looking at more of a villain from our perspective.
The very best that we could say about the papacy at all was that God providentially used it to accomplish certain things. But that doesn’t mean the institution itself was ever proper. I think that would be the standard Reformed line. The idea of a papacy is inherently bad, but that doesn’t mean God couldn’t use it.
LikeLike
@Robert
I would disagree here. I think the trial of Jovinian established the church definitely taking a position that rejects (what would be) Luther’s on justification. If a woman’s (or a man’s) spiritual state is permanently and irrevocably damaged by engaging in sex how is that not a firm denial of sola fide. If heaven has layers and those unchaste in marriage are unable to receive the full reward of heaven for their lack of chastity how is that not a work. And if fasting is intrinsically more pleasing to God than eating is displeasing how is that not a work? Also unrelated to works Jovinian argued that all sin was equally damaging that there was no meaningful difference between mortal and venial sin. Again a core doctrine of the Reformation. A synod was conducted to uphold view that Jovinian was a heretic and these views were heretical.
That’s all happening during the 4th century. In every way possible the Catholic church of the 4th century rejected what would later become the Protestant position on justification.
Well I think we’ve talked about this before. I’ve said that what was unique about the Reformation was that 3 groups that allied during the 16th century which prior to had been fighting. They agreed to fight the common enemy and then settle the issues between them. The Political Reformers were mostly OK with the church on doctrine but wanted to change the people running the church. Whether it be financial corruption, moral corruption, a desire for the church to be more subservient to the state governments they didn’t like the what the church was doing and who they were. Prince Frederick (Luther’s patron), Henry VII or Elizabeth of York (Henry VIII’s mother) would haven fallen into this group). Their willingness to ally with the Doctrinal Reformers (wanted minor doctrinal reforms but wanted to keep the structure of the Catholic religion mostly intact. Calvin and Luther are in this group) is what changed. And that wasn’t about indulgences or justification. OTOH the Doctrinal Reformers had other issues. So if there weren’t indulgences maybe the reformation centers on priestly celibacy and its practical effect of encouraging financial corruption because of all the bastard children and the expense of supporting an institutional class of prostitutes and mistresses. Or maybe it focuses on liturgical reform. There were so many issues the Doctrinal Reformers were unhappy about. I suspect it wasn’t justification that got them ready to form an alliance with the Political Reformers rather justification was just the issue that came along at the right moment.
Well that’s the Baptist position. Argue that “church” just means the local church and not the entire institution and you pretty much kill the CtC apologetic. I ran the Baptist apologetic by Bryan before he started CtC and it holds up.
The question is for you all who want to claim continuity is to ask Bryan’s question “how do you define heresy as anything other than ‘disagrees with me on biblical interpretation about something I care about'”? For the Baptists that is what heresy means. They take sola scriptura to be I am ultimately responsible for my beliefs, the church is a guide and teacher but… AFAIK conservative Reformed reject that wholly. They want to argue for a historical objective standard. How to reconcile?
LikeLike
CD,
I would disagree here. I think the trial of Jovinian established the church definitely taking a position that rejects (what would be) Luther’s on justification. If a woman’s (or a man’s) spiritual state is permanently and irrevocably damaged by engaging in sex how is that not a firm denial of sola fide. If heaven has layers and those unchaste in marriage are unable to receive the full reward of heaven for their lack of chastity how is that not a work. And if fasting is intrinsically more pleasing to God than eating is displeasing how is that not a work? Also unrelated to works Jovinian argued that all sin was equally damaging that there was no meaningful difference between mortal and venial sin. Again a core doctrine of the Reformation. A synod was conducted to uphold view that Jovinian was a heretic and these views were heretical.
Well, no doubt the difference between mortal sin and venial sin goes back pretty far. As far as much of the rest that you mention, there has been a long tradition in Reformed theology of talking about various levels of reward in heaven. I would say that a lot of what you say is the church’s early attempt to work that out, and they’re simply getting it wrong in many of these cases.
As far as a spiritual state being permanently and irrevocably damaged, what does that mean? Even Rome says you can recover from that (if you go through enough purgatory), but there’s nothing inherently anti-Protestant to say grave sin is going to impact one’s level of blessing in the afterlife.
What is more problematic is the idea that justification can come and go, which doesn’t really become fully codified until the Reformation. That’s why there were many RC sympathizers with Luther et al and even attempts at rapproachment that got very close. That’s not really possible if there is unified teaching on the matter on the part of the tradition.
The question is for you all who want to claim continuity is to ask Bryan’s question “how do you define heresy as anything other than ‘disagrees with me on biblical interpretation about something I care about’”? For the Baptists that is what heresy means. They take sola scriptura to be I am ultimately responsible for my beliefs, the church is a guide and teacher but… AFAIK conservative Reformed reject that wholly. They want to argue for a historical objective standard. How to reconcile?
I think that what we are dealing with here is the essential problem of epistemology. Knowledge in any area of life is a combination of the subjective and at least the purportedly objective. What is disingenuous about Bryan’s question is that he can’t answer it either. He defines as heresy whatever disagrees with his particular reading of the Magisterium. It’s what we all do, to some extent. That’s why we must be aware of our biases and attempt, as best we can, to look at objective evidence outside ourselves and exegete it, whether it is Scripture or tradition. The view that Bryan and the institutional Roman church seems to take makes this impossible. I’ve had many RCs tell me that it doesn’t matter what the church of the moment said at a particular council, Rome today tells us what they meant. I don’t know how you even have a discussion with somebody who takes that position that can even look like its remotely a talk about evidence.
Bryan’s problem is that Rome doesn’t take his side, and this is one thing Darryl and the rest of us constantly harp on. Romanism is much bigger than he wants it to be, and while I as a conservative sympathize with his attempt to read things in the most conservative way possible, it just ends up denying actual church life and practice. It’s gnostic.
To some extent, all Christians define heretics as those who disagree with us on issues we care about. We choose churches based on issues we care about. I’m not arguing for a full-on subjectivism, but I’m just trying to deal with the epistemological reality that all of us go with whatever it is that agrees with our particular reading of the evidence. We do this in choosing a church, political parties, what to believe from the historical record, etc., etc. The thing that grates me about CTC is their adamant refusal to admit that this is the case. It also bothers me when others outside the church do it as well. Particular new atheists such as Richard Dawkins come to mind, but it comes up in any heated discussion about just about anything.
LikeLike
@Robert —
Well that’s interesting that you don’t hold to the equality of all the saved in the afterlife. OK
4th+ century Catholics hold that there are (to use modern terminology) 3 genders: sexually active men, sexually active women and virgins (either sex). Virgins have a spiritual state unattainable to the two non-virginal genders. The sex act engaged in even once damages the person profoundly both physically and spiritually. The sex act fundamentally damages the soul imparting into it animalistic urges both in areas like lust and in things like a focus for caring for their young. Virgins conversely have many of Christ’s (who was virgin) attributes. This is why Mary had to be perpetually virgin since a vessel so holy as to have borne the savior could not have voluntarily entered into the corruption of sex.
They see this is a moderate position BTW. Saint Ambrose definitely while seeing it as a tough call advocates marriage over suicide as a remedy for sexual desire. Again the point is not that they don’t share the current attitude regarding sex, but rather that this is a works theology. Works directly alter one’s spiritual state.
____
As for Bryan there are two issues in your response.
1) The Catholic church doesn’t agree with CtC’s theology. Here you and I agree.
2) Bryan’s system in theory (i.e. if the Catholic church did agree with him) isn’t objective. Here I don’t agree.
For example let’s take New Jersey law. My original name for my company was declared to be too close to another company by the New Jersey Division of Revenue. Reading the law or judging this on the merits is complex, I would have disagreed. But the division of Revenue has the final say. The law doesn’t actually exist for me in a meaningful sense the law regarding corporate naming is whatever the New Jersey Division of Revenue says it is. I don’t have a complex hermeneutical problem, I have a simple one. In theory this is what Bryan believes the Catholic system acts like.
So his problem isn’t a theoretical one, rather it is a purely practical one:
a) Unlike the New Jersey Division of Revenue that got back to me with a definitive ruling on a question of interpretation within 48 hrs. no such vehicle exists
b) Unlike the New Jersey Division of Revenue which does in fact believe itself to have final say on the application of the law to each and every individual corporate name in New Jersey, the RCC doesn’t believe itself to be so empowered and is not staffed to handle those question. That is the entity he wants to assign this authority to doesn’t believe they have such an authority.
And don’t get me wrong those are large practical problems. But they are practical problems not theoretical problems. Theoretically I think he makes a good case.
It is only when you combine that theoretical prima ecclesia with other claims like:
a) The church cannot contradict scripture
b) The church cannot contradict tradition
c) The church cannot contradict itself
(none of which by analogy apply to the New Jersey Division of Revenue) that you run into problems.
As I think we both agree Catholics for Choice’s defense on abortion and contraception where they pit the magisterium against tradition being a wonderful example that you can’t mix those claims.
Finally I didn’t understand the comment about Richard Dawkins in this context.
LikeLike
CD-H: The law doesn’t actually exist for me in a meaningful sense the law regarding corporate naming is whatever the New Jersey Division of Revenue says it is. I don’t have a complex hermeneutical problem, I have a simple one. In theory this is what Bryan believes the Catholic system acts like.
But actually, no! If you press him, he denies that the Church creates doctrine. He will assert rather that it infallibly interprets Scripture and tradition. So even though his model functions pragmatically as “doctrine by fiat”, just as NJDR’s does, he actually denies that this is his model.
There’s more.
He claims that the Protestant is his own highest interpretive authority because, although Scripture has the meaning intended by the HS, the Protestant is not able to infallibly read it. Therefore, he must rely on his own interpretation.
But he claims that the Catholic is not his own highest interpretive authority because, even though the Catholic is not able to infallibly interpret the magisterium, he is still subject to it. Therefore, he is relying on the magisterium’s interpretation (rather than his own interpretation of the magisterium’s interpretation).
So I don’t think Bryan has a strong theoretical case at all, and I never have. He employs two different models of how exegesis works when it comes to Catholics and Protestants.
LikeLike
CD,
Well that’s interesting that you don’t hold to the equality of all the saved in the afterlife. OK
I would say that all are equal in terms of righteousness and holiness but that some get more rewards than others.
LikeLike
@Jeff
I don’t follow the difference with respect the NJDR. In the analogy:
New Jersey Law on naming corporations:: Scripture
NJDR :: Magisterium
NJDR ruling on specific corporate name :: Magisterium interpretation of scripture
The NJDR is issuing a perfect interpretation because their interpretation is what effectual happens in New Jersey. Obviously this is somewhat vacuous in that it happens because of their interpretation but in Bryan’s theory the Magisterium being the very representative of the body of the Logos has a similar role. So I don’t see how the analogy doesn’t hold.
______
Well yes he did address this
The follow-up objection to our argument takes the form of a dilemma. The dilemma runs like this. Either the individual needs the guidance of an interpretive authority when interpreting Scripture, or not. If the individual needs the guidance of an interpretive authority when interpreting Scripture, then he will need the guidance of another interpretive authority when interpreting the first interpretive authority. And he will need the guidance of third interpretive authority when interpreting the second interpretive authority. That would lead to an infinite regress. But there cannot be an infinite regress, hence the individual does not need the guidance of an interpretive authority when interpreting Scripture.
The problem with this dilemma is that it ignores the qualitative ontological distinction between persons and books, and so it falsely assumes that if a book needs an authoritative interpreter in order to function as an ecclesial authority, so must a living person. A book contains a monologue with respect to the reader. An author can often anticipate the thoughts and questions that might arise in the mind of the reader. But a book cannot hear the reader’s questions here and now, and answer them. A living person, however, can do so. A living person can engage in genuine dialogue with the reader, whereas a book cannot. Fr. Kimel talks about that here when he quotes Chesterton as saying that though we can put a living person in the dock, we cannot put a book in the dock. In this respect, a person can do what a book cannot; a person can correct global misunderstandings and answer comprehensive interpretive questions. A book by its very nature has a limited intrinsic potency for interpretive self-clarification; a person, on the other hand, by his very nature has, in principle, an unlimited intrinsic potency with respect to interpretive self-clarification. This unlimited potency with respect to interpretive self-clarification ensures that the hermeneutical spiral may reach its end. A book cannot speak more about itself than it does at the moment at which it is completed. A person, by contrast, remains perpetually capable of clarifying further any of his previous speech-acts.
So he admits that he’s using two paradigms because one is interpreting a dead book and the other is having a dialogue. Now again as I said to Robert, no such dialogue exists. In that sense the Magisterium is totally unlike the NJDR which got back to me with a ruling quickly upon my request and for each $15/50 would be happy to go making additional ruling at my request indefinitely. But if we ignore the reality and just deal with the theoretical Magisterium that is responsive in that sense then I think he’s right that there is a fundamental difference regarding interpretation paradigms. The distinction is called for. As I said, as a DBA filer :: believer I don’t have to engage in hermeneutics regarding the laws for naming corporations in New Jersey.
LikeLike
CD your problem like Mr. Ecclesial Deism is that you don’t understand that Scripture tells us that it is a living word, not a dead letter.
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart Heb. 4:12.
Consequently when the Magical Magisterium tells us that it essentially needs to supplant the Holy Spirit and infallibly interpret the Word for us, it’s a nonstarter.
And once the infallible interpreting starts, where do you stop? Vide the CtC website. Unauthorized but nonetheless authoritative pronouncements that never end. But protestantism is all about provisional.
Maybe liars should have better memories than that.
IOW Their alternative universe is one that is supported by turtles all the way down.
LikeLike
@ CD-H:
The difference is that Bryan believes in principle that the text has a meaning and the magisterium discovers it.
That legal theory is a decided minority, and is possibly non-existent in NJ.
LikeLike
CD-H:So he admits that he’s using two paradigms because one is interpreting a dead book and the other is having a dialogue. Now again as I said to Robert, no such dialogue exists.
Exactly. Earlier, many years ago, I got BC to admit that asking questions of the authority does not grant mind-melding ability. He is still relying on his understanding of words, and the priest’s understanding of the bishop’s words, and so on.
What he would not concede (but is obvious) is that there is no principled difference between
Protestant: the text of Scripture is my authority. Here is what I think it means.
Catholic: the teachings of the Church are my authority. Here is what I think they mean.
LikeLike
CD, you oughtta go on a field trip some Sunday, sit in the back of an OP worship service, slink out afterwards as easily as you slank in, just to say you did, and let us know. Or not, whatev. Auf wiedersehen.
LikeLike
*slunk
LikeLike
@BobS
I’m not sure that matters. Let’s assume New Jersey Corporate naming law told us it was a living word, how would that model change? It doesn’t matter what Corporate naming law says at all in this model.
That’s you rejecting the theory in favor of your interpretation of the text. That’s an entirely different objection to Bryan’s model has a problem theoretically (and not just practically) or he is being hypocritical and applying two standards.
I don’t actually see that. I see a finite number of stages in his theory. But FWIW I don’t see much difference between starting with an infinitely perfect being and starting with an infinite succession of beings. The infinite succession and the infinite being are both equally semi-testable theories in that I can never falsify whether the being is close to perfect but has some imperfections that I haven’t yet detected nor I can know whether just because N turtles exists the N+1th turtle doesn’t.
LikeLike
@Jeff
Sorry still don’t agree. Let’s make this a bit more specific:
Text has an objective meaning = Random knowledgeable readers converge towards agreement. So in particular given two committees X and Y of random knowledge readers of size N, as N increases the probability that X and Y arrived at the same interpretation increases.
Text has a subjective meaning = Only specific readers converge towards agreement. Random knowledgeable readers won’t converge or might diverge on their interpretation.
Bryan’s entire theory is that the bible has a subjective meaning and thus knowledgeable readers form distinct communities that share their interpretation with no way to decide between them. That’s a key part of his apologetic. His argument isn’t that the sola scriptura doesn’t currently work but will eventually converge, but rather that with time we should expect to see more and more fragmentation. That is it can never work. Which is the very definition of a text lacking an objective meaning.
He doesn’t use this terminology. There is two reasons:
a) He wants an objective meaning in terms of God / Jesus not in terms of man. But that’s simply meaningless for the purpose of our discussion.
b) Because he’s a right-winger and wouldn’t want to associate himself with postmodernism because it has cooties.
He’s preaching postmodernist biblical theology that biblical interpretation is a social construction and as such the changing parameters of the society in which it emerges is likely to induce text. The “true” meaning of scripture is inaccessible to Protestants (or for that matter other objective observers like atheists) as demonstrated by their diverging opinions. Only particular observers have access to the truth, which means the text is not objectively meaningful in the normal usage of those terms.
So I don’t agree he believes the biblical text has an objective meaning the way you mean it. That is a point of disagreement between the two of you.
___
As for the practical difference… I don’t see the problem you do. Because there are religions that have the equivalent of a functional magisterium. The LDS mostly have one, though in the current generation (since the early 1990s) it is becoming as ineffectual as the Catholic system. But at least today on most practical matters information flows quickly up and down the chain of command. Orthodox Judaism (essentially the Pharisees + 2000 years) being a great example. They do in fact have a system of scripture, tradition and authority that merge effectively without creating the epistemological problems. It works, though mainly because they also like the Conservative Protestants have small sects and pull in and out from a broader community you could call “mainline Judaism”.
So it can work. I suspect the reason it doesn’t work is that the real hierarchy cares much more about being small-c catholic than the issues of concern to Bryan.
LikeLike
Hey CD,
Sorry, I haven’t been able to check back since my last post. I intend on responding, but the next week or so are going to be busy, so when time presents I will respond. Thanks for the interaction and patience.
LikeLike
@ CD-H: Text has an objective meaning = Random knowledgeable readers converge towards agreement.
Ah, there’s the rub. He (and I) would say that objective meaning is the intent of the author.
I can see why you would define your term that way, but that wasn’t the way we were using it when hashing the issue out.
LikeLike
I’m not sure that matters.
Then you are not competent to the question.
Dr. Pangloss posits/mongers the paradigm that the Roman church is the infallible interpreter of the Word.
Bare minimum implicit faith not with standing, there is a presumption that one, we can understand Dr. Pangloss’s gloss as well as two, the magisterium’s original over and above the original party and defendant in the lawsuit, Scripture itself.
Fair enough.
But what then of the testimony of that defendant?
Why, it is to be categorically ruled out of the question and the defendant is not allowed to testify in its own behalf, let alone marshal a case.
Because essentially, as the narrative goes, it is a deaf, blind, mute and comatose dead letter
Ever heard of Machen?
How about kangaroo or railroad?
To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him. Acts 25:16
How come Paul had the liberty to answer for his own defense in a pagan Roman court, which Scripture hasn’t had since Trent, in the Roman church?
To ask is to answer. Rome is not the best true, infallible and reasonable church possible in the real world and Dr. Pangloss is laughed out of court/disbarred from further paradigm mongering.
LikeLike
@Brandon —
This fell off the main page so if you decide to respond ping me back on my blog or catch me here and pull me over. I’m willing to wait but there is no way to watch.
___
@Jeff —
Are you sure that he means “author intent”? Time and time again his argument that Sola scriptura is false is that it doesn’t yield a unified opinion on the meaning of scripture not that it doesn’t yield some author’s intent. As far as myself I’m not even sure what author’s intent would mean for a supernatural being if you assume cessationism (like you do), but that’s getting into my epistemology not Bryan’s since unlike some of the other CtCers he is not a cessationist.
LikeLike
CD-H: Are you sure that he means “author intent”? Time and time again his argument that Sola scriptura is false is that it doesn’t yield a unified opinion on the meaning of scripture not that it doesn’t yield some author’s intent.
This is where it all started with Bryan and me, and he seems to clearly disavow the idea that the interpreter creates meaning. Do you agree?
LikeLike
(But I agree with you that he uses “lack of unified opinion” as the metric that argues for the falsity of sola scriptura. I think his argument runs
* If sola scriptura were a valid method, it should lead to truth, not falsehood.
* truth is one, not manifold
* Sola scriptura yields manifold interpretations, most or all of which are false.
* Therefore sola scriptura leads to falsehoods
* And is therefore not a valid method.)
LikeLike
@Jeff
First off I’m not sure his views have evolved since 2007. Like all of us he tries his arguments out and sees what works. I think a later version of his views are in places like: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/11/we-dont-need-no-magisterium-a-reply-to-christianity-todays-mark-galli
But even here you see some tell tale signs. For example he uses the term “authoritative” so often IMHO rather than say “correct”. You’ll notice both with you and especially with Galli he specifically says that consensus is merely a product of selection i.e. there is only a subjective meaning using my terminology. This is because the Holy Spirit’s current will (which I assume he ties to author intent, though it isn’t clear because he also believe in typology) is materially indistinguishable. There is no way you can ever correctly pick an interpretation. So I’m going to argue that he’s arguing for a fully post modernist view that the meaning of the bible is reader dependent i.e. subjective.
But even if I were wrong your argument would have a problem for him:
There are N methods for each method Mi (i=1 to N) you generate Ki interpretations. If we let M1 denote the tradition, scripture, magisterium 3 legged stool we know K1 > 1 since liberal Catholicism exist as well as conservative Catholicism. Not to mention the 3 legged stool is originally an Anglican hermeneutic so if we really could include several more Anglican theories in K1. Thus if we need K1 = 1, this would be self defeating.
So just having a method yield multiple interpretations can’t disqualify it since his method yields multiple interpretations. To use my favorite example. When the magisterium appears to conflict with unambiguous tradition in the case of traducianism (i.e. the sex act creates a human soul) do you go with the magisterium or tradition? He says the current bishops have it right and I guess Aquinas was wrong. Pelosi goes the other way and sides with Summa.
LikeLike
Interesting. I’ve been pushing on the other end of the stick: To assume that he wants to believe in meaning-as-authorial-intent, and to show that his critique entails meaning-as-created-by-magisterium.
He tends to push back against me pretty hard.
Your point is that he actually means meaning-as-created-by-magisterium.
I think the real truth is that this is a problem for his view.
LikeLike
Read the Galli piece.
I don’t think he’s actually got a well-worked out notion of what “objective” means (oddly enough), or at least, not one that he’s willing to share with us. For on the one hand, his argument in Galli strongly leans in the direction you suggest: That the true interpretation is *created* by the magisterium.
However, he must also argue that ‘true’ has a meaning other than that “the meaning that is declared by the Church”, in which latter case the Church would simply be one voice among many.
LikeLike
@Jeff
That’s sorta what I what I was saying in my comment about postmodernism. On the one hand he is an academic in a 21st century western culture. He’s going to be absorbing postmodernist concepts daily, they are going to seep in. On the other hand he’s very culturally conservative aiming (and often being quite successful) consciously to reject his culture and instead stay consistent with Scholastic thinking. I can see very easily that he might be missing the conflict in his own thinking and switching between the two. Scholasticism makes far too many assumptions that his hearers would reject and thus causes additional difficulties apologetically.
But when I read his work he certainly consciously believes in concepts like development. Thus it is possible for the church to correctly interpret the bible and then at a later date interpret it better. Which would be impossible if it were merely author’s intent. CtC’s latest article (Bryan didn’t author but I suspect he agrees with) is BTW really a quite good on this topic.
Not necessarily. Look at Galli again. In his framework there are a bunch of interpretations:
a) Some are created by Satan via. pride
b) Some are just wrong
c) Some are created by the Holy Spirit leading the church.
The question for the Christian is distinguishing (a) from (b) from (c). Because the Holy Spirit has the authority to interpret scripture the historical question of what the author originally intended is irrelevant. So for him authorial intent is not the criteria, the criteria is which get endorsed by the Holy Spirit. And that’s what distinguishes the magisterium’s interpretation from arbitrary other interpretations. God’s endorsement not the author’s endorsement is what makes an interpretation correct. The idea is not to accurately reflect the opinions of a historic individual but to lead one into truth. Distinguishing sharply between the two is a product of modernism.
As an aside, the idea that interpretations are valid if they are from the Spirit is biblical endorsed over and over and over again. He’s going to be on strong footing there even from a sola scriptura perspective. Whee he is going to have a problem is that Spirit led completely conflicts with the idea that a particular institution is solely empowered to create such interpretations, and moreover many of the very passages which endorse Spirit led specifically attack the idea of a permanent institutional authority.
LikeLike
Brandon and Jeff —
No email on oldlife and I’m going to stop checking. So if you do respond ping me here or on my blog to let me know.
LikeLike
So we finally looked at Galli’s article and Dr. Pangloss’s rebuttal over at Called to (Candide) Confusion.
And concluded that once again, CD can’t see the forest for the trees.
IOW the status questionis is what’s to say that Bry’s in it’s entirety is not just one big exercise in expounding his very own “subjective bosom burning” about a figment of his imagination that he cares to call the “magisterium”?
Ans.: Nothing at all.
Which means the one way sckepticism schtick is getting old, very old.
Two, the perennial problem of the one and the many also rears its head.
There is no question that authority, it’s infallibility, sufficiency and clarity is a legitimate concern, but the answer for B is to tout the one/popery, Galli the many/democracy. The P&R both/and. On the local level the presbytery/consistory and in the broader higher church courts.
Regardless, when one’s criticisms may be turned on oneself, that means the CtC endeavor is one big effort in futility, however learned, verbose and academic.
B&C worship at the foot of a paradigm that rules all other paradigms, with the only problem being God is sovereign, not their vain papal imaginations and he has spoken clearly and authoritatively in his Word, which you may search in vain for their magisterium, all the while the same Word claims for itself what they claim for their magical deus ex machina.
LikeLike
And you don’t see the problem here? BTW your own group doesn’t think he spoke all that clearly since truth from error is not merely a matter of objective exegesis but rather enlightenment by the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
CD, Bryan is not Scripture (or the pope, though you could have fooled a lot of us.) Scripture is Scripture.
Yeah, ultimately it’s spiritually discerned, but that said if everything/the truth is subjective, we couldn’t be having this conversation.
Even B acknowledges in his better moments that you judge a paradigm on its self consistency and against other paradigms/reality.
IOW it’s not that difficult to look at protestantism and romanism in the light of Scripture, reason and history and take a WAG. By their fruits you shall know them and even if the papacy was biblical, idolatry, mariolaty, prayers to and from the dead etc.
Of course you and TVD are the token resident disciples of Veron, if not Sextus Empiricus so we know there’s gonna be some squawking.
But what else would we expect from those who are fools claiming to be wise?
LikeLike
Here is what the magisterium learned:
LikeLike
CD,
Sorry it’s taken me a little while to get back with you. Just completed my last final last night though, so please know that I didn’t forget you!
In terms of how I see Christianity (your options A-E from November 9), by 100 CE it’s certainly distinct from the synagogue in regions like Rome. I don’t know enough about other geographical areas to speak with any level of certainty, but I believe this is generally true of Christianity generally speaking.
Regarding whether or not Christianity was a “sect” I’m going to ask for you to define that word for me because I want to make sure we’re on the same page. In one sense I think Christianity can be described as a “sect” of Judaism. I believe that the earliest Christians saw themselves as part of the true Israel and inheritors of the OT. This argument, largely from the text of the NT and Fathers , begins to provide the contours of the boundaries of the new Christian movement which mark it off from some of the Gnostic groups. Moreover, the worship of Jesus as God (even his preexistence!) is notable, given how early those claims are to the alleged time of Christ’s existence (I believe you question Christ’s historicity, correct?) and in the theological soil of Judaism. In the city of Rome, Lampe even extrapolates from the fractionation of Roman Jewry to the fractionation of Roman Christianity because Roman Christianity began in the synagogues, and it appears that disagreements caused an intense dispute between Jews and Christians prompting the Romans to get involved.
As Allen Brent and Chrys Caragounis note, there is a sense of “catholicity” very early and this is how letters can be written to individuals at particular locales. Moreover, even Raymond Brown argues that Matthew 16 is evidence that Jesus intended his followers to possess a corporate identity. There were varying opinions on what should and should not qualify as legitimate teaching of the Jesus movement, but I believe that the disputes in the church were attempts to accurately reflect the teaching of Jesus in the most logically consistent way. The structures of the church were more loose (something even CtC is willing to admit) before the second century. That’s why I generally agree with Lampe’s approach to the issue on the disbursement of Christianity in Rome.
But Lampe is also very quick to note that sociological factors are not the only thing that factor into the prevalence of “proto-orthodoxy.” Lampe is only examining the social conditions for the theology and ecclesial developments of later orthodoxy, but other factors certainly play a role in determining the dominance of orthodoxy.
Finally, you said,
I think that Bryan is willing to concede that the organizational structure of Catholicism developed, even rather substantially. Whether or not Bryan is consistent in this regard is another question, but I think that Bryan is willing to acknowledge that there was early widespread diversity that was codified in later centuries.
You and I point out that this diversity speaks against this sort of organizational hierarchy that Bryan is talking about. Bryan and I, however, agree that there were authority structures put in place and that some of those entities departed from apostolic teaching, resulting in their eventual expulsion or withdrawal from the community. Peter Lampe, Bernard Green, and Allen Brent note that there does appear to be a notion of catholic unity among the churches, as even Paul notes the meeting of Christian churches in different locales in Romans. This catholicity seems to be maintained through what these men characterize as “presbyterial ” governance. It’s unclear how often they met, but it does appear that these structures stretch back into the NT.
My position, which I believe is consistent with everything Lampe articulates, is agnostic regarding things we don’t know. That’s why to you it may sound unclear, but that’s because the evidence itself is not completely clear. It seems to me that you are pressing the evidence too far in one direction while Bryan presses it too far in the other. I’m not nearly as suspicious about the Fathers as you are but I’m aware that there are errors and mischaracterizations in their writings, which Bryan seems at least hesitant to acknowledge.
I hope to have more on Part 2 shortly. That section is more technical, however, and I would simply note that I’m mediating Lampe and extending his argument from other scholars on Hegesippus and Irenaeus. I don’t expect you to give me a pass on that, I just wanted to let you know and I think it could be worthwhile to follow up the little literature there is out there on Hegesippus.
LikeLike
@Brandon —
In case you are checking. Response here: https://oldlife.org/2014/12/if-it-could-happen-to-jerusalem/comment-page-1/#comment-231253
LikeLike