Formal Response around the corner

Wanted to update any interested that a response to CtC’s “The Bishops of History” is forthcoming.

Various responsibilities have prohibited a more timely response, but the response, nearly finished, is at 60 pages right now. I hope to release an “executive summary,” summarizing the substance of the argument that is closer to 5 pages for those following. In a sentence, “The Bishops of History” fails to engage my argument and merely asserts that evidence violates certain principles–principles which have been poorly defined and explained.

I’m not exactly sure where the response will be posted first, but I will make sure that I link to it here!

My work schedule and course work may delay the response for a few more months, but it is sizable and it is coming in the not too distant future!


5 thoughts on “Formal Response around the corner

  1. I wasn’t sure where to ask this question, so I’ll do so here. In your original article, you mention that the work of Felix Cirlot has been discredited by modern scholarship. Could you please cite some modern scholar who have examined and addressed Cirlot’s work? I have Cirlot’s works on apostolic succession and would be very interested in hearing some direct counterarguments to it. Thanks!

    1. Hi Midas!

      I do apologize for the time lag for my response–other concerns continue to be far more pressing, but I appreciate your question here.

      As to the specific arguments that Cirlot puts forward most of my arguments address his assessment of the data to some degree. As I noted in my original article, Cirlot (and Dix) didn’t really have the proximity to developments in the socio-historical assessment of Roman Christianity to be of much value in that particular discussion. Regarding their exegetical conclusions from the Fathers, most of my sections in canonical and extra-canonical sections provide my own opinions, often mediated through other experts.

      Is there a section in particular that are interested in hearing an alternative perspective on? I may not be able to attend to it immediately, but I’m willing to venture a response or refer you to articles or books that address your specific question!

  2. Nik A Morris says

    Quote –
    “If you think some evidence or argumentation provided by some expert falsifies something we said, feel free to provide it. Nothing prevents you from presenting the evidence you think we have not “heard.”

    In the peace of Christ,– Bryan”

    It seems then,that there is no further evidence available to be presented by you, but perhaps what you say above is a better approach – “The Bishops of History” fails to engage my argument and merely asserts that evidence violates certain principles–principles which have been poorly defined and explained”.

    The CtC’s response was an evaluation of your evidence, disciplined by “principles which have been poorly defined”. While “poorly defined” seems admirably charitable, but the truth requires that these principles be made more “universally true” so that the merits of your evidence may be assessed more adequately.

    Is it possible for you to “refine these poorly defined principles” so that your evidence can be presented in proper perspective?

    And then can an “appropriate authority” be found to adjudicate? Sincerely.

    1. Hi Nik!

      There is certainly a lot more evidence to could be discussed and adduced. Some of that is in the 60+ pages that I’ve currently written 🙂 Additionally, one of the problems with Bryan’s statements is that Bryan has not actually fairly engaged the work of many people, particularly Peter Lampe. One only need to look at Bryan’s “summary” of Peter Lampe’s book to realize that he has not taken the care to accurately represent Lampe. Such carelessness has, in my estimation, characterized much of Bryan’s interaction on this level.

      In terms of further defining principles, that is included in my rejoinder. I hope to have that edited and up and January, but my current work and course load prevents me from diverting my attention from my responsibilities.

      As to your final question, I’m not sure what you’re referencing. Adjudicate who has the more plausible historical reconstruction? Adjudicate who is most closely following Scripture? The answer to the question would be different depending on which question you are asking. Yet, I also believe that lurking behind this question is an assumption that in order to find truth that we must rely upon an adjudicatory authority. I think that assumption itself requires rigorous substantiation. I have not found any such arguments compelling.

  3. Dear Brandon,

    Much appreciation for the courtesy of your prompt response.

    January is good timing!

    Your valiant efforts remind me of the “gallant Sir Galahad in the poetry of Lord Tennyson”!

    No doubt the gauntlet will be tossed about, to-and fro and people like me will be running hither and thither until we are truly ragged.

    And in the end if I am unlucky enough not to have been “gored” to death, I will still need to make a lonely decision, “what/where is the truth of it all”?

    See, we have the Scriptures! And while the “Church is the pillar and foundation of truth” but look where we do not agree, such that we are still as split as split-peas.

    At least in those far off days of Sir Galahad, the duel had an adjudicator – “death”!

    Truly then, after your 60+ pages are presented in January we will probably need to continue until the cows come home, unless an “authority – youself, Lampe and those you have referenced can refine “C-t-C’s principles to be universally acceptable”.

    Sincerely, Nik.

    PS I asked my wife of 56 years to “adjudicate” the above to free them of the dreaded ad hominems and she tells me to say sorry to you because I am just wasting your time. Cheers!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s