Brandon Addison’s Complete Response to “Called to Communion” regarding “the Nonexistent Early Papacy”

Anyone who reads this site knows that Called to Communion is one the most difficult Roman apologetics sites to deal with because of the lengths they are willing to go to, in order to maintain their dogmatic sophistry.

In the following, stunningly amazing piece of work, Brandon Addison has done a tremendous service for the entire church, squarely addressing the “Called to Communion” argument in favor of an early papacy in Rome, having tracked down and assembled virtually every scholarly writing on the topic of “Bishops in the earliest church” and the “development” of the office of “bishop”, especially in the city of ancient Rome.

In the process, he thoroughly and patiently analyzes the arguments that Called to Communion makes, he finds their weaknesses, he proposes and argues counter-arguments. The result is that the Called to Communion response to his original piece is seen to be as almost totally devoid of merit.

Here is how the whole piece breaks down:

“The Paradigmatic Bishops of History”: Agreement (with BOH) and Methodology

Brandon Addison has published the second and third parts of his blog series addressing the “development” of the office of “bishop” in the city of ancient Rome:

Part 1, Prolegomena: https://hakalonhumas.wordpress.com/2016/04/02/the-pardigmatic-bishops-of-history-prolegomena/

Part 2, Agreement: https://hakalonhumas.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/the-paradigmatic-bishops-of-history-agreement/

Part 3, Methodology: https://hakalonhumas.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/the-paradigmatic-bishops-of-history-methodology/

Here is the original article: “The Quest for the Historical Church: A Protestant Assessment”

Here is Bryan Cross’s 200-page dogmatic puff piece, “Bishops of History”

“The Pardigmatic Bishops of History: Prolegomena” - Brandon Addison

Brandon Addison has completed a paper that responds to Bryan Cross’s response to his “The Quest for the Historical Church: A Protestant Assessment”.

He’s set up a blog in order to make the response manageable. His initial response article may be found here:

https://hakalonhumas.wordpress.com/2016/04/02/the-pardigmatic-bishops-of-history-prolegomena/

I’ll put up links as more portions of this as they become available.

Meanwhile, here are some of the conclusions from Brandon’s initial article:

I have undertaken the burden of proof in this article to prove that the church in Rome was led by a plurality of presbyters in the city which we have defined as “presbyterian.” In the second section I attempted to demonstrate that this view was not unique to Protestants and that the vast majority of well-respected Roman Catholic scholars who shared this view did so not because they had violated their interpretative paradigms, but because the evidence had persuaded them in that way.

In the third section we saw how every mention of church leadership in Scripture refers to a plurality of leaders. From Acts, the Pastorals, and 1 Peter we saw that the biblical witness always refers to leaders in the plural, often using “presbyters” and “bishops” as equivalent terms. This equivalence of “presbyters” and “bishops” was further articulated in the fourth section where the extant literature never speaks to a monarchical leader in Rome but instead to a plurality of leaders in the city.

In the fifth section I explored the historical context of the lists of bishops found in the writings of Hegesippus and Irenaeus. We determined that Hegesippus’s list was created as an anti-Gnostic polemic concerning the apostolic teaching and not concerned with the succession in the office himself. The list of Irenaeus borrows from Hegesippus’s utilization of succession lists (which Hegesippus borrowed from Judaism) and also uses a pre-existing source composed at the time of Eleutherus c. AD 180. We noted that Irenaeus’s list is either factually wrong about Peter and Paul founding the Roman church, or at least not supportive of the Roman Catholic idea of succession from Peter.

In the sixth section I gave a broad overview of the argument for fractionation of Roman Christianity as found in Peter Lampe. I then showed how the work of Roman Catholic scholar Allen Brent demonstrates the fractionation of Roman Christianity even further than does Lampe, as in the case of anti-pope Hippolytus.

Here is Bryan’s 200-page dogmatic puff piece essentially asserting Roman dogma contra Brandon – it’s this piece to which Brandon is replying.

Calvin: “The entire church is polluted by the papacy.”

In the comments below, explorer wrote:

When the Popes launched all the “horrific events” in the middle ages etc, was that counted as “solemn/infallible judgement” or just a “discipline” or was it “only committed by the secular state”?

In that same comment thread, Matthew Schultz asked, “How would the situation been different if Roman Catholicism had not ‘disfigured’ the Gospel? Do you think a proper Gospel would have somehow contained Islam? (Perhaps launched more effective Crusades?)”

I’m grateful for these questions. I seriously get disgusted first that Roman Catholicism attempts to sweep all of its past under the rug, and second, that its attempts are successful, insofar as people just forget about all of it. And every “papal conclave”, we see on TV the thoughtless crowds cheering on “il papa”, and the ignorant news casters suggesting that the pope is somehow the leader of all Christians.

I do stand by what I said about Rome and the papacy – it doesn't take much reading in church history to understand that the direction it took was a wrong one. If the church at Rome had been more faithful to Christ, instead of pushing its own agenda of domination, I'm sure that history would have turned out much differently.

This isn’t my own opinion. I have picked up on this theme which was earlier articulated by John Calvin.

Calvin begins Book IV of the Institutes – the section on the Church – with a comment succinctly describing the papacy’s relationship to the Gospel, to the church and the world:

In the last Book, it has been shown, that by the faith of the gospel Christ becomes ours, and we are made partakers of the salvation and eternal blessedness procured by him. But as our ignorance and sloth (I may add, the vanity of our mind) stand in need of external helps, by which faith may be begotten in us, and may increase and make progress until its consummation, God, in accommodation to our infirmity, has added such helps, and secured the effectual preaching of the gospel, by depositing this treasure with the Church.

He has appointed pastors and teachers, by whose lips he might edify his people (Eph. 4:11); he has invested them with authority, and, in short, omitted nothing that might conduce to holy consent in the faith, and to right order. In particular, he has instituted sacraments, which we feel by experience to be most useful helps in fostering and confirming our faith. For seeing we are shut up in the prison of the body, and have not yet attained to the rank of angels, God, in accommodation to our capacity, has in his admirable providence provided a method by which, though widely separated, we might still draw near to him (Institutes 4.1.1)

So, given all that God has done for man (Institutes 1-3 – through Creation, fall, and redemption), we still, through “ignorance”, “sloth”, and “the vanity of our minds”, need help in “accommodation to our infirmity”. To this end, God has given us “the Church”, within which “He has appointed pastors and teachers, by whose lips he might edify his people (Eph. 4:11)”.

Note how Calvin now describes the relationship of “the papacy” to “the Church”:

Wherefore, due order requires that we first treat of the Church, of its Government, Orders, and Power; next, of the Sacraments; and, lastly, of Civil Government;—at the same time guarding pious readers against the corruptions of the Papacy, by which Satan has adulterated all that God had appointed for our salvation (Institutes 4.1.1).

That was from the online Beveridge translation. The Battles translation refers to:

those corruptions by which Satan, in the Papacy, has polluted everything God has appointed for salvation (Vol 2, pg 1012).

The entire church is polluted by the papacy. This is not in any way a stretch or an exaggeration.

All the good things that God has given to us in the church, visible and invisible, is polluted by the papacy. Pastors, teachers, Scriptures, interpretations, sacraments/ordinances. Everything. That is why I work so hard to bring this to light. If we can remove, or at least understand this curse, God’s blessings to us in the church will be so much more available to the world.

In the spirit of Luke 9:46 (and similar verses), “An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest”, the papacy – the “successor to Peter” – the “Petrine ministry” – whatever they are calling it these days, has consistently brought bitterness and strife into the church.

I’ve written extensively on the topic of “The Nonexistent Early Papacy”, and I’ve encouraged the work of others on this topic (most notably Brandon Addison, a WSCal grad who has gone farther and deeper, in a more pastoral and scholarly way than I ever could have done).

The whole church, virtually all through history, has the stench of pollution in it because of the papacy. Because of the impulse of early bishops of Rome to say “I’m the greatest. I’m the ontologically and epistemologically necessary component of ‘the Church’. I’m the connection between heaven and earth.”

Calvin, however, said it best: “Christ’s headship is not transferable” (Institutes 4.6.9).

Brandon Addison’s “Called to Communion” article available in .PDF

Brandon Addison’s “Called to Communion” article, “The Quest for the Historical Church: A Protestant Assessment”, is now available in .PDF format:

http://reformation500.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/brandon-addison-ctc-article-20140501.pdf

Reformation Protestantism: faithfulness in little things; and a patient and humble reading of the text

I made some miscellaneous comments to several different Roman Catholics in the thread following Brandon Addison’s article, “The Quest for the Historical Church: A Protestant Assessment”.

Brandon’s comments throughout are exceptional, and he’s even pushed some CTC writers into adopting the positions of writers like Raymond Brown and Francis Sullivan, whom they have decried in the past as liberals and CINOs. (John Thayer Jenson, below, says “the idea of some development in Church polity does not mean that Jesus didn’t foresee and intend the development. In particular, as you comment here, it does seem perfectly possible that the monarchical bishopric may have made little sense when the Apostles were alive – but that the Spirit-guided Church may have reacted to it by setting one presbyter/episkopos over the others in a city.” As it turns out, that is precisely what Brown and Sullivan say. I address this and other issues below.)

“Evangelical biblical scholarship” is thriving

I’ve been responding to some of the comments in the Called to Communion thread following up on Brandon Addison’s excellent article there describing the ancient church at Rome:

Ray Stamper, I’m continuing to address your comments in #28:

You seem to be entirely evading his point and mine. A point often voiced on this site, particularly when technical debate concerning pre-Irenaean documentary texts has ensued here. Dr. Owen is manifestly correct. It is a fact that the very same methodological assumptions which lead academic biblical scholars to view Cirlot and Dix as “dated”, such that the new guard has “moved passed” them

I think “dated” is a mischaracterization. And “moved past” is also a mischaracterization.

In the light of my previous comment, outlining Lampe’s methodology, it seems fair to say that the understanding is rather that “they are lacking in some information”. Now, to be sure, that doesn’t invalidate everything they say. And nor does it entail harsh skepticism. But it does involve re-reading what they say and understanding that in some areas, their analyses may simply be lacking.

are the same methodological assumptions which would, without doubt, lead these same scholars to throw “the vast bulk of evangelical biblical scholarship” into the trash can.

This comment betrays a lack of knowledge as to what “evangelical biblical scholarship” is all about, over the last 50 years or so.

The role of “critical scholarship” when looking at ancient works

I’ve been responding to some of the comments in the Called to Communion thread following up on Brandon Addison’s excellent article there describing the ancient church at Rome:

Ray Stamper #28, you said:

as a man formed within and by the intellectual presuppositions dominating academic historical-critical scholarship, the methodological assumptions behind Lampe’s approach to the documentary monuments of the earliest Christian centuries are precisely the same methodological assumptions which determine his approach to the sacred canon.

How do you know this? Do you know the man? Or are you just speculating?

Further down you say:

Far from irrelevant, Lampe’s methodological assumptions most certainly threaten the confessional standards of Reformed churches – and that is the point at hand.

In fact, Lampe’s work on Chapter 16 of Romans (arguing that it was a part of the original document and not something added-on later) is state-of-the-art conservative scholarship, cited by Schreiner and Moo (themselves conservative exegetes who honor the text), for example, in their commentaries on Romans. Both of those men are knowledgeable, confessional Protestants, fully versed in “Lampe’s methodological assumptions”, and not, in any way, as you say, “threatened”.

So if this is your “point at hand”, then it seems as if you need to re-think it.

History vs. Roman Catholicism

Brandon Addison

Brandon Addison has published a 25,000 word guest article at the Called to Communion site, entitled (by the CTC folks) “The Quest for the Historical Church: A Protestant Assessment”.

Brandon is a 2012 MDiv graduate of WSCal. He’s seen friends of his, including Joshua Lim, be sucked in by the seemingly slick presentation of Roman Catholicism proffered by Called to Communion.

In the article, Brandon addresses head-on the Called to Communion claim that the Roman Catholic Church is “The Church that Christ Founded”, from a historical perspective, largely by analyzing head-on the notion of “apostolic succession” – showing that it was a later development that was not part of the thinking of the first-century church.

He begins by pointing out that what he has to say is not idiosyncratic, but rather is commonly held, even among Roman Catholics, that “the general consensus among Roman Catholic scholars is that the notion of an episcopate originating with Peter is virtually non-existent in the academic world”.

Thinking about becoming Roman Catholic?

WSCal Grad Brandon Addison

Brandon Addison, a WSCal grad who has spent a lot of time at the Called to Communion site has posted this comment over at Reformation500.com in response to a reader, which I think is a great piece of advice to anyone who is looking at Roman Catholicism as an option:

If you are considering Rome, I think you are asking the most important questions [asking for works about the early papacy]. Speaking biographically, I was initially intrigued by the notion that Jesus founded the RCC. I was reading some of the theological/philosophical problems posed at various conservative Catholic blogs where they pressed that Sola Scriptura only allowed us to have an opinion with no principled means to distinguish my opinion from someone else’s. The principle means proposed was to follow the Church that Jesus founded--and he founded a visible church after all. As a disciple of Christ it made perfect sense to join the institution that Jesus founded, and it would make it much easier to know that the Church could not err (emphasis added).

But then I started digging into the major premise of these claims.