next »

[danny_boy]

Probably, dannyboy, that's why I haven't given you much of my own answers for the questions that you ask...

They're probably pretty dopey questions.  But then in some ways I really would like to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (and are they doing a line dance or more modern interpretive stuff).

I guess my interests at this point in the discussion is something along the lines of the "physics of metaphysics."  How's it all supposed to work from the insider's perspective.  How do angels travel?  How (and when) were angels created?  What passage of the Bible refer to their manner of creation?

As far as societal understandings of faith and sprituality, I'm not sure I have much to say -- or even to ask.

[husqvarna]

They're not dopey questions at all, I just sometimes don't know how to answer them... probably most people can relate to this... when you're thinking within your own discipline (I'm speaking now as a theologian and not just a believer), you're in somewhat of a groove about what questions are being asked these days, where the fault lines are among schools of thought, what are the more old-fashioned ways of thinking about a problem and what are the brilliant new insights that are just settling into common parlance.  And not just this, but you have your own place within that mix of how you tend to talk about the issues, what you are interested in engaging with, and what counter-arguments you anticipate from your peers.

It can be difficult to shift gears from this when talking with someone about very basic, but very important questions.  In the same way, I can't converse with a scientist on any of their work, but my level of interaction with their work gives me plenty of questions and platforms to throw out at them w.r.t. philosophy of science... how they understand their method and the epistemological limits of what they do.  But often, scientists are thrown off by how I may ask the questions, or feel that I'm not asking things correctly... and that makes total sense- they, as practitioners of their discipline, need to have these things settled, largely in the background, and certainly structured in relation to what is current in scientific conversation, what is considered a live question, what is generally understood by their peers and on which issues they differ with their peers.

It's not that these or any others aren't good questions... it's more that every structure of inquiry, belief, social life, etc. is difficult both to participate in and step back to explain/examine/reconsider at the same time.  So I'm constantly trying to consider how to say what I want to say in a way that makes it both intelligible and accurate for the context in which I'm speaking.  This is part of why I like the Chronicle boards... it forces me to do that in a way that I wouldn't amongst my colleagues.  And so many different views on the matter!  There always seems to be a new conversation that is worth jumping into.

[zharkov]

Probably, dannyboy, that's why I haven't given you much of my own answers for the questions that you ask...

They're probably pretty dopey questions.  But then in some ways I really would like to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (and are they doing a line dance or more modern interpretive stuff).

I guess my interests at this point in the discussion is something along the lines of the "physics of metaphysics."  How's it all supposed to work from the insider's perspective.  How do angels travel?  How (and when) were angels created?  What passage of the Bible refer to their manner of creation?

As far as societal understandings of faith and sprituality, I'm not sure I have much to say -- or even to ask.

While certainly not Scripture, I think most mainstream Christians would be more or less comfortable with Milton's account wrt angels and such. Even though Milton was a Puritan (Roundhead, Calvinist), Catholics seem to have an implied acceptance of that backstory, or one very much like it.  (HV, feel free to correct me.)

While I don't think the scholastics (eg. Aquinas) literally debated angels dancing on a pin, it is used as the ridiculous extension of the intricate reasoning they used to attempt to answers details of the Christian belief system. (If angels are spiritual beings, do they take up space?  Do they travel instantaneously?  Stuff like that.)  I think most modern Christians have concluded that speculation or knowledge of such minutiae is more of a distraction than a way to faith.

About creation, some Christians point to God creating the Heavens, which they infer includes the inhabitants of Heaven, the angels. But in any case, they show up fairly soon, guarding the gate of paradise, and are also mentioned quite a few times in the OT and NT.
 
BTW, I don't think any mainstream Christian group supports the idea of humans becoming angels after death, like Clarence in Wonderful Life.


 

[husqvarna]

The "angels dancing on the head of a pin" question has an interesting story... As I heard it, this was apparently part of a debate in an early medieval city... theologians were busy arguing the matter while the city was being attacked and under siege.  This adds the double jab, of course, that it is not only a pointless question in itself, but that people are wasting their time with it when there are much better things to be worried about.

I found this, and it seems to have a more fleshed out history than just my story.  Anyway, a fun phrase to use.  I recommend it heartily- it keeps us theologians in line, if irritated!

[husqvarna]

Speaking of which... this might be worth looking into for my desk.  Kind of a fun twist on it, no?

[aandsdean]

Zhark,

Milton wasn't really a Calvinist--didn't believe in predestination.  He was actually more (gasp!) Lutheran in his view of the function of the will in obtaining salvation.

Carry on.

[t_folk]

Martin Luther was a plagiarist.

[kaysixteen]

I am not sure where you get the notion that Milton was not a 'Calvinist'.  He was clearly within the Amyrauldian stream of Calvinism.  I am not exactly sure what you think the difference, further, between Lutheran and Calvinist views of salvation are...?

[aandsdean]

I am not sure where you get the notion that Milton was not a 'Calvinist'.  He was clearly within the Amyrauldian stream of Calvinism.  I am not exactly sure what you think the difference, further, between Lutheran and Calvinist views of salvation are...?

Predestination, K.  Read Bk III of PL.  Milton was not an orthodox Calvinist.

[husqvarna]

I am woefully ignorant of Milton, so I can't offer much to this discussion.  I would direct attention to De Doctrina Christiana 1.3, although am I correct in understanding that this text has been the subject of recent criticism as to its authorship?  Don't we have a Milton scholar in the forumite community?  Maybe that was you, aandsdean?  I've forgotten... it's been a while since Milton has come up.

K16 has a point... we can't think of "true" Calvinists as just rigidly 5-pointers, case closed.  I suppose if you describe it as "orthodox Calvinism" then that may qualify it enough- associating the Calvinism you're speaking of more specifically with a particular stream of Protestant scholasticism.  But yes, it's true enough that Milton isn't going to be in line with Calvin on double predestination.  But again with K16, I don't see how you can call him a "Lutheran" because of this... it's rather difficult to read Luther as any less severe regarding predestination than Calvin.

[hollow_man]

Martin Luther was a plagiarist.

Too true. A lot of his theology is copied straight from the apostle Paul.

[husqvarna]

Martin Luther was a plagiarist.

Too true. A lot of his theology is copied straight from the apostle Paul.

I get such a kick out of mid-20th century Lutherans who will be in the middle of some doctrinal discussion and say something like, "and this theological truth, articulated by Paul and carried on through Luther..." - and that's it!  No one in between.  Paul said it, Luther stuck to it.  'Nuff said.  Gotta admire that sort of loyalty and single-mindedness!

[hollow_man]

Martin Luther was a plagiarist.

Too true. A lot of his theology is copied straight from the apostle Paul.

I get such a kick out of mid-20th century Lutherans who will be in the middle of some doctrinal discussion and say something like, "and this theological truth, articulated by Paul and carried on through Luther..." - and that's it!  No one in between.  Paul said it, Luther stuck to it.  'Nuff said.  Gotta admire that sort of loyalty and single-mindedness!

Well, you have to admit, they're only reflecting Luther's own view about that...

[zharkov]

Martin Luther was a plagiarist.

Too true. A lot of his theology is copied straight from the apostle Paul.

I get such a kick out of mid-20th century Lutherans who will be in the middle of some doctrinal discussion and say something like, "and this theological truth, articulated by Paul and carried on through Luther..." - and that's it!  No one in between.  Paul said it, Luther stuck to it.  'Nuff said.  Gotta admire that sort of loyalty and single-mindedness!

I'd go even further...

I think there is a tendency among some members of the Protestant tradition (including UUs) to skip over about 1500 years of Christianity, as though it never existed.

[conjugate]

But remember:  "Malt does more than Milton can//To justify God's ways to Man...."