IX. Concluding Thoughts
I originally wrote a review of Peter Lampe’s book measuring roughly 20 pages. I then wrote 40 more pages. BOH is the length of a book at 180+ pages in a PDF reader. I’ve added nearly 80 more pages to the conversation. That’s over 300 pages exchanged in the period of less than 24 months. It’s so much data that it can be difficult to make heads or tails out of it. As a matter of fact, it can cause people that want answers to throw their hands up in despair. BOH seems to acknowledge this in addressing its first objection. The objection is stated that given the length of the argument, it would seem that both options are plausible (BOH’s position and mine) so we ultimately need to use our private judgment. Consequently, the Catholic is in the same epistemic position as the Protestant.
By way of response BOH reasserts the Tu Quoque argument is not appropriate because the Catholic places their faith in an infallible Magisterium while the Protestant only finds his own opinion. This leaves the Protestant with uncertainty regarding his interpretation of Divine revelation, but places the Catholic in a position of certainty regarding the content of Divine revelation. BOH then claims,
Nevertheless, if true, any tu quoque objection simply proves that we Christians are the most miserable of men. For we claim to have a sure faith in what God has revealed, and yet we have no means by which we can distinguish our own opinions about faith from what faith itself holds with definitive and irrevocable strength. Such a despairing situation does not fit with what we know concerning God’s existence and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore, a despairing situation should seem absurd to us, and the insouciance of the tu quoque objection toward discovering a divinely-established and divinely-protected teaching office should also strike us as absurd.
This statement is loaded with highly contestable assumptions. For BOH, if God has not provided us with an infallible Magisterium this would make us “the most miserable of men” because we would not be able to know doctrine without “definitive and irrevocable strength.” This assumes Scripture cannot provide us with definitive doctrinal statements—or at least that those doctrinal statements are insufficient. Yet, it assumes the very point in question—did Jesus establish such a Church? Given OT structures and the role of the Torah in the life of Israel, the position that encounters more prima facie problems is the one advocated by BOH. God can and does work through written texts to communicate who he is and how we are to live—even though BOH’s appropriation of OT structures would render the OT saints as “the most miserable of men.”[1]
This tact, of allowing assumptions to bear the burden of an argument, is evident throughout BOH. In fact, BOH makes a curious methodological assumption in its concluding remarks,
Earlier ambiguous or underdetermined data does not undermine these witnesses, given the historiographical principle that all other things being equal, one should interpret earlier data in continuity with later testimony. Therefore, the ILD principle does not make the Catholic view only equally plausible in comparison with a “presbyterial” view. In fact, following a sound historical method and a complete data set makes it clear that the Catholic position is morally certain.
The principle offered is itself far from a historiographical principle, but even conceding it, BOH simply assumes that the interpretation of the data is equivalent when interpreted in continuity or in discontinuity. If that is not the case then everything that follows is uncertain—far from being morally certain. Assertions take the place of arguments.
At multiple points BOH says that the data is “inscrutable,” meaning that the data I’ve selected is no better than the Catholic alternative. This accusation is leveled at *every* section of my article. Sometimes this is combined with other arguments regarding the proper conditions for silence to carry evidential weight, but the claim of BOH is that in every single piece of evidence I have violated the ILD principle. In other words, at every single point episcopal argument is *at least* equal with the presbyterian thesis. At *no point* does the presbyterian thesis have *any* evidence in its favor. At its best, the evidence is equal to the Catholic paradigm.
For example, Bryan states,
And in our article we showed both that your argument is unsound, and that none of the data to which you appealed is evidence for the truth of your thesis. [Source]
The prima facie problem with this is the existence of different interpretations. Why do people believe that the evidence points in another direction? They could be committing a logical fallacy or deriving false conclusions—at least one group in this conversation is deriving false conclusions—but how do we know the ILD principle is being violated? What standards are there? The truth of the matter is, that it is a subjective assessment of the evidence. When BOH argues that I’ve violated the ILD principle, they are arguing that based on their subjective evaluation of the evidence the ILD principle has been violated. Yet, the very thing under dispute is the meaning of the evidence and here we clearly disagree.
Since Bryan does not believe that BOH has presented *any* evidence, it is unremarkable that he accuses my article of violating the ILD. Such an accusation, however, demonstrates remarkable hubris wherein the majority opinion of academia is held where “none of the data is evidence.” Even though most agree OJ committed the crime, the reason Johnny Cochran could argue, “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit” is because the fact that the glove did not fit was a favorable piece of evidence for the defense. It doesn’t mean that the defense was ultimately right or that it explained every piece of evidence, but it *was* a piece of evidence. Likewise, one may disagree with my conclusions, but denying that anything presented was evidence is to deny the obvious.
This is why good historical scholarship allows the totality of evidence to shape and form conclusions about the evidence. Thus, Peter Lampe’s study commences with the following approach to evidence,
We face a tour through a variety of material: literary materials, above all, but also epigraphical and archaeological ones are at hand, which often only become illuminating in combination
Historical scholarship is predicated upon this type of practice: examining evidence, reaching conclusions, moving along to more evidence, allowing that evidence to chasten previous conclusions and inform additional research. A myopic approach (“This violates ILD. This violates ILD. This violates ILD.”) isolates evidence, insulating interpretations from legitimate challenges and missing the larger picture. As the methodology section highlights, constructing a narrative requires an attention to detail as well as the broader story being told in the organization of that data. BOH’s approach stalls this sharpening discussion by asserting superiority in every single section without providing substantive engagement.
In conclusion, I do thank CtC for providing an outlet for my initial article and for taking the time to write such a lengthy response. I must admit that at times frustration has crept in and I have been truly dismayed about what I perceive to be very mischaracterization of my position. At times, that frustration may have clouded my judgment or prevented me from responding with the charity that God requires of me. I pray that the Spirit of God continues to teach me humility as I mature and grow in the Lord and I appreciate the grace of those whom I may have dealt with in anything short of a spirit of love.
I do believe that much of my article has been left unexplored, however. My hope for the contributors to BOH is that they revise and strengthen their arguments and my hope for readers and followers would be that they carefully examine what each side has actually presented. I have taken great care to read BOH thoroughly and respond to the arguments accordingly. If there is anything I have misrepresented, however, I sincerely hope that someone will point that out to me. Thus brings the conclusion for my interaction on this topic with CtC. May God open our hearts to see clearly and love him and one another.
[1] Another prima facie problem with this argument is that billions of people do not see the tension that BOH claims is necessarily true. Muslims, Jews, Hindu’s, Buddhists, etc., all have sacred texts that govern their communities, not a sole infallible “successor.”
Ha Kalon Humas 
Brandon, I am trying to work my way through all this, but it seems there is a danger with the ‘not enough evidence’ approach that defaults to ‘agnosticism’. This same ‘not enough evidence’ demand can be placed on almost any Christian doctrine, and thus we can see how it becomes a slippery slope (e.g. the Puritans suddenly became Unitarians). If you set the bar this high, I think most teachings of the Westminster Confession have to be rejected, since the biblical proof-texts are often quite meager, as well as doctrines like “Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness”. If you spent as many hours/pages delving into what “presbyter” means, just imagine what would happen when you spent some time looking into how “Logizomai” is used (only to see it means the opposite of Imputation in the 40 times it is used in the NT).
Thanks, Nick.
I don’t think it is accurate to describe my position as “not enough evidence” for the monarchical episcopate. Instead, my position is that the evidence indicates a “presbyterial” governance where leadership was not exercised by any one individual. This makes the best sense of Roman history, patrology, and Scripture. The CtC narrative possesses less explanatory power of this data and should be viewed skeptically as a result of the analysis, not as a result of skeptical methodology.
WRT to the meaning of “logizomai,” lexical the range extends from 1) determining by a logical/mathematical process 2) to give careful consideration 3) to hold a view/opinion. In Romans 4, the first meaning if clearly applicable, but then one needs to explain precisely what Paul means by his pairing of logizomai, dikasoune, and pisteuo. If you’re not persuaded that “imputation” is the best way to interpret the passage, that’s fair. I would simply add that additional passages such as in Philippians 3, also substantiate the notion of imputation, without the lexical form of logizomai, though.
For my purposes, the question of imputation is an important and interesting theological discussion, but it does not address the center-piece of the conservative Catholic apologetic. Consider this from Cross and Judisch,
Later, Cross and Judisch note,
Thus, I am really dealing with the heart and soul of Catholicism as it is portrayed in conservative Catholic apologetics. I’m attempting to deal with real foundational issue of disagreement, not merely the differences of opinion on imputation, the priesthood, mariology, etc. That is one of the things that I believe CtC did well, move beyond the mere surface-level disagreements and began talking about the real foundational issues that divide Protestants and Catholics. Whether you find the CtC narrative, mine, or some other compelling,I do believe we are at least discussing *the* question that divides us.
Hello Brandon,
I agree that there is a foundational philosophical issue that cannot be avoided, but I also *strongly* believe that the Bible cannot genuinely fit just any given paradigm. Obviously, everyone can appeal to their “favorite texts,” but I think the further away from orthodoxy a view is, the more blatant violence it will do to the text as a whole. And the more blatantly a paradigm causes the “plain teaching” of the Bible to be twisted, the more obviously false that paradigm is. I believe that *truly* going back to the Bible is the more practical approach, the problem is such hasn’t really been done by either the Protestant nor Catholic side.
As I understand the description “Presbyterian & Reformed,” the distinction is that “Reformed” doesn’t actually hold to any one Polity, as if to say the Bible is insufficient on whether Polity is Congregational (e.g. Savoy), Presby, etc. As for the NT, I do not see any clear examples of “no one individual leading,” and in fact I see the opposite. It seems obvious to me that Paul was above Timothy, and Timothy was above those he ordained (1 Tim 5:19). Even in places like Revelation 1:20 where it speaks of “the seven angels of the seven churches,” here it is saying one bishop (angel) per city congregation.
I think Logizomai is one of those issues that trumps the Prebuterous debate and is far more decisive (which is why nobody wants to truly discuss it). I think it is no accident that of the numerous books, articles, lectures, etc, done by Protestant scholars on Justification that the term Logizomai is glossed over, ignored, and misrepresented. Of the “lexical range” you gave, that is one of the more fair/genuine one’s I’ve seen, but even then how do you go from your 3 possible meanings to the “Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness”? It seems that the lexical rage you gave precludes such a doctrine.
Shifting the focus away from Romans 4 and onto Philippians 3 seems to fail for at least two reasons: (1) the very context of Philippians 3 (especially 3:9-11) is routinely ignored and does not suggest imputation at all; and (2) the fact is Romans 4:3-5 is the locus classicus for Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness.
One thing I really wish CtC would do is to do a post on Romans 4, since they often don’t go beyond philosophical discussions and into exegetical ones. And thus Romans 4 is the central example for me of why neither the Protestant nor the Catholic side ever went back to the sources. Both sides more or less ignored the chapter. If I could do the equivalent of what you did on CtC with your long Presbuterous post, I would post on Romans 4, with a special focus on 4:18-22, Logizomai, Psalms 106:31, and Gal 3:5-9.
Nick,
Absolutely. I believe some paradigms are so outside the realm of possibility to render them meaningless. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood him, but Bryan does not seem to agree with this (See Sola Scripture fails, in which Bryan claims that someone in good faith could interpret Scripture to say that “swinging” was an expression of Biblical sexual ethics without the Magisterium). I’m glad we can agree on principle on this, even where we may disagree on its application.
WRT to church leadership, I encourage you to read the material I’ve put out. I’d simply note we agree that apostolic office is unique, so of course Paul possesses authority over various churches. The question centers around the development of that Apostolic office. Were there individuals who receive a unique apostolic charism to charge other churches as the Apostles did? My argument is, no. If I am correct, then the conservative Catholic apologetic is in irreparable shambles even if the notion of imputation is problematic/wrong (and there are numerous Protestants who wrestle with the importance and scope of imputation in the NT). Can you agree with me that if Rome is right on imputation but wrong on Apostolic Succession the whole ecclesial edifice collapses?
WRT to the lexical range of Logizomai, I’m not quite sure what you see as the inconsistency between the lexical definition of the word in Koine Greek and the theological import provided by Protestants. I’d love to hear you explain it, though!
To give a brief explanation of my understanding, Romans 4 notes that one’s works are not the ground of how one is “reckoned” right with God. God considers us “righteous” not by our works but by our faith [implicitly here, by faith in his promises]. Thus, Paul goes on to explain that when Genesis 15 describes Abraham’s faith being “credited” to him as righteousness, it is a typological foreshadowing,
The whole idea here is that by faith in God’s work on our behalf we are made righteous, not by our own work. Paul then grounds this explicitly in the work of Jesus. Thus, Christ suffers for our sin and is raised to life for our righteousness. That sounds at least something like what the Protestant tradition is getting at with imputation to me.
Philippians 3 is a similar passage. Paul does not appeal to his clean record of works righteousness according to the law, but the righteousness he wants his not his own, it’s the righteousness from Jesus that comes through faith,
not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.
He goes on to explain that he is still driving to take hold of Christ as he has not yet achieved the resurrection of the body–but this is what we would expect. Faith is always connected to an object, and in Scripture, the object of faith is God in Christ. The benefits of faith are passively received as a gift from God, but the life of faith is actively striving and battling to hold on to the object of our faith.
As I see it, the best way to make sense of these passages is through the theological construct of imputation. I’m certainly open to hearing your criticisms, though.
Hello Brandon,
I did a word search and did not see where you addressed 1 Tim 5:19 (Timothy ranks above other clergy in that he judges whether other elders have misbehaved) or Revelation 1:20 (angels=bishops).
If Rome is wrong on Apostolic Succession, in so far as ordination bestows both priesthood and governing authority in some sense, then there is no Catholicism. It would be a mock institution, akin to Mormonism. But this doesn’t mean that a monepiscopate and/or three-fold ministry developing within a generation or so of the Apostolic era is necessarily a perversion of Apostolic Succession. That’s a much higher bar to set, and a standard which I don’t think many Christian doctrines could or need to meet. After all, even within Sola Scriptura the Confessions allow for ‘implicit’ Biblical evidence (“good and necessary consequence”), and we know that things like Infant Baptism don’t have the strongest explicit Biblical testimony. And from what I’ve read, I don’t think your exegesis gives sufficient flexibility to how the Hebrew mindset worked, e.g., firstborn, seniority, patriarch, kingdom, etc.
You said:
The problem with this statement is that it is general enough that both Catholics and Protestants affirm it. It is not specific enough to prove Sola Fide as classically/Confessionally defined. Classical Reformed theology teaches that the main reason for breaking away from Rome is that Rome rejected the Biblical teaching on Justification, specifically in regards to Jesus living a life of perfect obedience in our place, and Imputing this perfect obedience (Active Obedience of Christ) to us, so that we appear before God as if we had lived that life of perfect obedience. In the classical Reformed view, it is works alone, specifically a lifetime of perfect obedience, by which God declares a person Righteous (i.e. Justifies them). Since we are sinners, Protestantism asserts that we need Jesus to do all these good works in our place so we can be declared as perfect law-keepers.
But this view of Justification requires plain Biblical proof, otherwise it can hardly be a reason for starting a Reformation, by which the visible church was torn apart and Christians became bitterly divided. The problem is, there are no clear texts that speak of Imputation of Christ’s Righteouness (especially Active Obedience). Historically, Protestants have used Romans 4:3 as their *chief proof text*, such that Abraham’s faith being Logizomai as righteousness, which Protestant scholars allege *by lexical definition* means Abraham had nothing righteous about himself, and rather that some alien righteousness was given or legally regarded to be his own. The problem is, that is lexically *impossible* given the meaning/usage of Logizomai numerous times in Scripture.
So we end up with this grand irony of Protestants accusing Catholicism of violating the plain teaching of Scripture, while Protestants themselves go around teaching key doctrines that have little/no basis in Scripture. I like to ask people to give me their top three proof texts which they believe most clearly teach Imputation of Christs Righteousness, and if they don’t know to ask their pastor/professor. They are shocked to find there wasn’t the ‘perspicuous’ Biblical evidence they were made to believe all this time.
Here is a post that goes into more details:
https://heroicvirtuecreations.com/2012/06/12/a-study-on-imputation-of-righteousness
Thanks, Nick.
I did not take up the issue of Timothy’s role/office, but there is a serious question about exactly Timothy’s office. Is he an episkopos as opposed to a presbuteros? Does he charge the other presbuteroi? A reasonable assumption may be that he does, but there are other canonical indications that this is not normative or the way other churches operate. I do discuss the use of presbuteros and episkopos in the epistles so you can read that for more information. Also, J.P. Meir talks about the use of language in the Pastorals thusly,
I don’t see any way that Revelation 1 can refer to monarchical bishops. If you have something specific I would reconsider, but I don’t take this to be a meaningful example.
With your comments on Imputation, I’ll create a new post with my response to you and lay out, as much as I have time, an explanation of Imputation.
Oops, this should be included above!
You then said,
Of course not. But the problem is, if there is no historical mechanism for the Petrine office to be passed on (and it has traditionally been identified as the singular Rome bishop) then the principle means being touted to differentiate opinion from revelation disappears.
In my writing, I’m attempting to highlight the severe historical problems Catholics have with validating this narrative. The supporting evidence is incredibly flimsy, which is why so many Catholic Patristics scholars (with bishop’s imprimatur’s) propose a historical development of a Petrine charism that comes from the Spirit and not the historical Jesus. That’s a potential path to take, but I think there are problems with it that CtC recognizes–which is why Bryan implicitly accused these scholars of material heresy (but tried to deny he had done so when I pressed him on it).
Your comments here seem to badly misunderstand my own arguments, so if you’re interested, you should read my post on my own narrative of the development of the episcopate.
Hi Brandon,
Revelation 1:20 says: “As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.”
In Revelation 2-3, Jesus tells John what he is to tell these “angels”, with each “angel” ruling over a major city church (including Ephesus), in which Jesus gives warnings or blessings to these “angles” leading the churches. While at first it might look like these “angels” are the spirit creatures we are all used to thinking of, the fact is the Greek/Hebrew word for “angel” is a more general term for “messenger” (usually appointed by God). In fact, the term “angel” is another way of referring to God’s priests (e.g. “For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger [Hebrew: angel] of the Lord of hosts” Mal 2:7). Moreover, in Revelation, Jesus is referred to a Angel-Messenger, and in the Old Testament, the consensus among the Church Fathers is that the pre-incarnate Son is who is meant by the “Angel of the Lord” appearing to various OT figures.
Moreover, it makes little sense for Jesus to be issuing warnings to Spirit-Angels, given that the Spirit-Angels have already been tested before the time of Adam, and they are all either fallen or glorified. It makes more sense if these “angels” are Bishops have the power to correct the abuses going on in their congregations.
Nearly every Biblical Commentary acknowledges that in Revelation 1:20 can be speaking of Bishop, even monarchial Bishop. Those who ‘object’ due so mostly on the grounds that it is unlikely that the monepiscopate existed that early, but this is kind of begging the question. Anyway, here are some of what I’ve found:
–Ellicot’s Commentary on Rev 1:20,
“The more generally adopted view is that the angel is the chief pastor or bishop of the Church. The description of them as stars favours this view.”
–Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:
“if a human angel be meant (as the Old Testament analogy favors, Hag 1:13, “the Lord’s Messenger in the Lord’s message”; Mal 2:7; 3:1), the bishop, or superintendent pastor, must be the angel.”
–Matthew Poole’s Commentary:
“To interpret the term of angels by nature, seems not agreeable to what we shall hereafter meet with said to some of them; Christ would never have ordered John to have charged them with a loss of their first love, or to admonish them to be faithful unto death, or to repent. Whether the term angel denoteth any particular superior minister or bishop in those churches, or is to be taken collectively for all the ministers in those churches, I shall not dispute.”
–Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:
“the seven stars which John saw in Christ’s right hand, represent the angels, or pastors of the seven churches of Asia”
–Geneva Study Bible:
“By angels he means the ministers of the Church.”
–Pulpit Commentary:
“The meaning of these “angels” has been very much disputed. The common explanation that they are the bishops of the Churches is attractive on account of its simplicity. But it has very grave difficulties, especially for those who assign the Apocalypse to the earlier date of A.D. It is highly improbable that at that very early time the seven Churches were already so fully organized as each to possess its own bishop.”
–Vincents Word Studies:
“Under this interpretation two views are possible. (a) The angels are Bishops; the word ἄγγελος sometimes occurring in that sense (as in Jerome and Socrates). This raises the question of the existence of episcopacy towards the close of the first century. … Dr. Schaff says: This phraseology of the Apocalypse already looks towards the idea of episcopacy in its primitive form, that is, to a monarchical concentration of governmental form in one person, bearing a patriarchal relation to the congregation…”
–John Wesely’s Explanatory Notes:
“The seven stars are angels of the seven churches — Mentioned in the eleventh verse. Revelation 1:11 In each church there was one pastor or ruling minister, to whom all the rest were subordinate. This pastor, bishop, or overseer, had the peculiar care over that flock: on him the prosperity of that congregation in a great measure depended, and he was to answer for all those souls at the judgment seat of Christ.”
SO IN CONCLUSION, it is not some fringe view to read Revelation 1:20 as speaking of a Monarchial Bishop ruling over a given city. The above are not even Catholic friendly commentaries (as far as I’m aware). In fact, it is a perfectly honest and natural reading. Furthermore, the ‘alternative’ view which sees them as spirit-creatures doesn’t make much sense given that a human (John) is giving them a message from Jesus (which seems backwards), and that they are being told to behave (which good angels don’t need to hear). At the very least, the plausibility of this Bishop interpretation means you cannot be so rigid as to preclude it as evidence for the Catholic side, just because you’re predisposed to reject the monepiscopate thesis.
I look forward to your post on Logizomai, please let me know when you’re done.
Hello Nick, I’ve posted a reply, of sorts. Feel free to take a look at it and provide your thoughts. I cannot commit to any sustained discussion, but I will respond as time is available.