Ask a Theologian IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a few questions. They could have been asked by now, but I didn't see them in the fields where I think they would be found.

1.) Do you think that if Jesus, or the true messiah from Judaism, were to come to earth, anyone would believe their word? Would they be recognized by the people of earth as who they truly are or would they be categorized as more mindfreaks?

2.)What do you think would be the likely hood of a major religious war between Christianity and other religions if Jesus were to return to earth and Christians accepted him?

3.) A previous question was asked about alien civilization. My scenario is just the reverse: what would happen if an advanced alien civilization arrived and they were Christians? How would this effect the religion of earth?
 
Thanks! Do you know any particular reason why the Syrians may have been more extreme in this area? (Did they have more desert pillars to hang out on than, say, the Egyptians?) The only thing in particular I can think of particular to the Syrian church was the significantly increased popularity of the Diatessaron there, but since as far as I can tell that didn't have many doctrinal differences from the canonical gospels, I doubt there's a link.

The Diatessaron didn't have any doctrinal differences from the canonical Gospels, since it was entirely composed of material from them. I don't know what made the Syrian church more ascetic. It just was! The pillars aren't relevant because they weren't used by hermits until the fifth century, and the practice was a peculiarly Syrian one - Egyptian hermits didn't sit on pillars. The pillar phenomenon was an expression of the typical Syrian emphasis on asceticism (rather than a cause of it) because part of the idea of the pillar was that the ascetic was displayed to the crowds in all his asceticism.

Another question, if you don't mind! What was the early Christian idea about when the soul entered the body after conception? As far as I can tell, there wasn't much of an idea of ensoulment at conception until much, much later, but there were ideas floating around of a couple of weeks (40 days?) in the middle ages. But I'm not aware of anything from the Church Fathers on this topic. Can you think of any references for me? (I realize that they found it somewhat academic, since abortion was prohibited for other reasons, anyway, even though that's mostly why it's argued about today.)

I don't know of any speculation about this subject among the church fathers. There was some disgreement over whether the soul is created directly by God or is generated from the parents' souls, just as the body is generated from their bodies. This latter idea is known as "traducianism" and is associated with Tertullian and one or two others (Jerome rather implausibly attributes it to most eastern theologians). So I suppose that a traducianist would say that the soul is present in the body from the moment of conception, since it is derived wholly from the parents. Those who disagreed with this said that the soul is added to the body by God, but as far as I can tell they didn't discuss when this happens.

It's only a case of self-deception if you oppose the belief in the existence of God on a rational basis. To take the example of the window, it is self deception to believe the window is closed if you know, reasonably, it is open. If you have a compulsion to close the window, and on that irrational basis you believe it is open, is it really self-deception to convince yourself that it is closed?

I don't see why the basis for my belief makes any difference. If I believe the window is open, then I think the window is open whether or not my belief is rational (and whether or not I think it is rational). If I believe it is open, I believe that it is false that it is closed. (If I don't believe that it's false that it's closed, then I don't really believe that it's open.) Again, that's true whether or not my belief is rational. So if I want to believe that it's closed, then I want to believe something that I think is false. Now I can understand wishing to believe something that you think is false. Someone might lose their belief in God but wish they that they still believed in him because they were happier that way, even though they now think they were mistaken. However, it's one thing to wish you believed something that you think is untrue. It's quite another to choose to believe something that you think is untrue or to take active steps - whatever they could be - to make yourself believe something that you think is untrue. It would be, quite literally, deliberate self-deception.

Similarly, I think most people, myself included, didn't reject the existence of God on the basis of reasoned opposition, but on a vague sense of him not existing. In my case, a general pessimism that we, and particularly I, would not be lucky enough to live in a universe with god.

I'm not convinced that this is the most common reason for atheism. I think that most people who think God doesn't exist do so because they don't see any reason to believe that he does, not because they consider themselves too unlucky for him to exist. I think that most people who think God doesn't exist wouldn't want him to. I don't think there are many atheists who like the idea of God or who wish that he did exist.

Largely because I always professed that the church did important work, and I wanted to take part in that.

I admit it's an unintended effect, which I suppose undermines my claim of it as an example of a choice to believe.

I'd agree! What you describe is an example of coming to believe in God as a result of immersion in a group - a well documented kind of phenomenon. But it's not an example of someone choosing to believe in God when they previously didn't.

That seems a rather poor explanation though, for a couple of reasons.

It wasn't an explanation, though. I wasn't saying that the fact that the Bible gets translated while the Koran doesn't explains Christianity's greater willingness to change to match cultural contexts. I was citing that fact as an example of that willingness (or tendency).

There is nothing distinctly “magical” about the healing in John 9. No less an ancient authority than Pliny devotes a chapter in Natural History to the medicinal benefits of human spittle (and Pliny was a self proclaimed enemy of the magical arts see, Natural History XXX.1).

That is interesting and I didn't know that. But I don't think it makes the story any less "magical". Pliny advocates a course of spitting on the eyes as part of a natural healing process. Jesus does it just once and a blind man can suddenly see. You might say it's an impossibly accelerated "normal" cure, but the impossible acceleration makes it non-natural. What makes it "magical" rather than "miraculous", at least in tone, is the fact that physical means are employed at all, rather than simply a command or invocation of God (as with most of Jesus' other miracles).

Christians avoided magic only insofar as they avoided calling what they did magic. But of course, self-identification of your practices as magic is extremely rare, it is almost always someone else who is performing magic. At a superficial level, they borrowed imagery, Igantius’ “medicine of immortality,” (though this could also come from Isis mystery religion or medical terminology) Clement of Alexandria designating God as the “holy charmer of sick souls” who places a “love-charm” within man (Paed 1.2-3).

I don't think the Ignatius quote is particularly magical, or for that matter notably Isist, but the Clement quote is good, as are the others.

John Chrysostom complains that members of his congregation in Antioch use magic, specifically golden coins as amulets (coins used as amulets was common in the ancient world, evidently the older the coin, the more power it was thought to posses). In addition, he accuses certain members of bringing in Christian women to practice magic.

Many of these “Christian” magical spells have been preserved and several Coptic ones have been collected into a book called Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power edited by Marvin Meyer and Richard Smith.

You are of course right and I have actually read that book - possibly after writing the post you quoted above. I think that Christians had an attitude to magic not unlike pagans of the time (or indeed people today): educated ones rubbished it, and uneducated ones believed in it. Hence Chrysostom's annoyance in the passage you quote. And when I say "magic" here I mean sympathetic magic, which I think is always regarded as such. You're right that even educated characters such as Origen believed in practices that we would call magical, even though they didn't call them that; but I don't think this applies to sympathetic magic.

How well-thought of is C.S Lewis in theological circles?

Not at all - he is never mentioned, and if he is, it's dismissively.

Is there a contradiction between the following two passages?

madviking translation: "You guys aren't servants since I've told you everything."

madviking translation: "Err...actually there are a few things I haven't told you guys yet cause you can't handle the truth."

I suppose that in the first passage Jesus says that he's told his disciples everything that the Father has told him, while in the second he says there are other things he hasn't told them, so these could be things he knows that he didn't receive from the Father. However, that would conflict with the idea that everything that the Son has, he received from the Father. So there does seem to be a bit of tension there!

I have a few questions. They could have been asked by now, but I didn't see them in the fields where I think they would be found.

1.) Do you think that if Jesus, or the true messiah from Judaism, were to come to earth, anyone would believe their word? Would they be recognized by the people of earth as who they truly are or would they be categorized as more mindfreaks?

This is impossible to answer because I don't know what such an event would be like. If "the true messiah from Judaism" (and I'm not sure that phrase has any meaning, because Judaism isn't really about messiahs) came to earth riding on the clouds of glory and speaking with the voice of God, presumably people would sit up and take notice. If he came as just some ordinary person, presumably people would notice him to the same extent as any other self-proclaimed messiah in history - i.e. a few nutcases would believe him and no-one else would.

2.)What do you think would be the likely hood of a major religious war between Christianity and other religions if Jesus were to return to earth and Christians accepted him?

This is like asking what the likelihood would be of a war between the countries of Earth in the event of an alien invasion. I don't know what an alien invasion would be like or how people would react, because there are all kinds of ways an alien invasion would happen and play out. Similarly, I don't know what "Jesus returning to Earth and Christians accepting him" would be like.

3.) A previous question was asked about alien civilization. My scenario is just the reverse: what would happen if an advanced alien civilization arrived and they were Christians? How would this effect the religion of earth?

Again, I don't think this is possible to answer! What does it mean to say they're Christians? Do they believe in Jesus of Nazareth? If so, how do they know about him? Or do you mean they have a religion of their own which is exactly like Christianity, with some alien equivalent of Jesus? As for how human beings would react to either of these scenarios, your guess is as good as mine.
 
I think that most people who think God doesn't exist do so because they don't see any reason to believe that he does, not because they consider themselves too unlucky for him to exist.

Which may be the case, but when asked why they are atheists, many people will give specific reasons that, in my opinion, don't actually make sense, or apply to all concepts of God.

Like, they say "I stopped believing in God when I read the Bible" - implying that it's impossible to reconcile biblical claims of a loving God with biblical descriptions of what God did, or had people do. That of course ignores the possibility that God is nothing like how He is described in the Bible. Most other arguments I have heard are the same - even if you disproved the Christian God, what about Zeus?

Much better just to point out that the burden of proof lies on the other side, and that "I don't have evidence for the existence of God" is sufficient reason not to believe.

Not at all - he is never mentioned, and if he is, it's dismissively.

Which I don't think is quite fair. Mere Christianity, for example, doesn't work at all as a formal, philosophical proof of the veracity of Christianity, but it does a good job explaining the basic tenets of Christianity in more or less layman's terms. Likewise, his whole view that materialism is inherently contradictory doesn't convince even me (although it does raise some interesting questions), but he does a good job vocalizing what a lot of people believe, and have believed, regardless of what one thinks of those views themselves.
 
Which may be the case, but when asked why they are atheists, many people will give specific reasons that, in my opinion, don't actually make sense, or apply to all concepts of God.

Like, they say "I stopped believing in God when I read the Bible" - implying that it's impossible to reconcile biblical claims of a loving God with biblical descriptions of what God did, or had people do. That of course ignores the possibility that God is nothing like how He is described in the Bible. Most other arguments I have heard are the same - even if you disproved the Christian God, what about Zeus?

As far as I can tell, the most common reason given for atheism is that there's simply no evidence for any gods, of whatever religion; and that it's irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence. The argument that the Christian God (or whatever particular god you like) is unpleasant or immoral or that his followers are unpleasant or immoral is secondary to that, I think, at least as far as rationale goes. It may be prior psychologically, of course - an atheist friend of mine said to me only yesterday that he thinks most atheists are atheists because they feel in their gut that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. But as I said back, that's not rational, and even if it's someone's psychological reason for disbelieving in God, it's no argument against God's existence.

Much better just to point out that the burden of proof lies on the other side, and that "I don't have evidence for the existence of God" is sufficient reason not to believe.

Surely it's reasonable to say that "I don't have evidence for the existence of God" is sufficient reason to withhold belief in God - what's unreasonable is to say that "I don't have evidence for the existence of God" is sufficient reason to believe that God doesn't exist. If I don't perceive any good evidence for the existence of something, I'm surely justified in not assenting to its existence, though I may not be justified in concluding that it doesn't exist.

Which I don't think is quite fair. Mere Christianity, for example, doesn't work at all as a formal, philosophical proof of the veracity of Christianity, but it does a good job explaining the basic tenets of Christianity in more or less layman's terms. Likewise, his whole view that materialism is inherently contradictory doesn't convince even me (although it does raise some interesting questions), but he does a good job vocalizing what a lot of people believe, and have believed, regardless of what one thinks of those views themselves.

Leaving aside the absolutely hopeless arguments which Lewis adduces for the views he describes - which are so bad I find it hard to believe that a person of his intelligence could really have thought them worthwhile - the problem with Mere Christianity, to my mind, is that it doesn't describe "mere Christianity" at all. It describes the version of Christianity that Lewis himself believed, but which he confuses with Christianity in general. The sections later in the book on topics such as gender relations and sexual morality illustrate this almost painfully. Lewis takes it as read that "Christianity" teaches that sex outside marriage is wrong or that women must submit to their husbands. He spends some time producing rather pitiful arguments that these views are correct (his shameful argument for the latter being that we all know there's something wrong about a man who lets his wife boss him about, but there's nothing wrong with the opposite situation) but shows no awareness whatsoever that Christians themselves disagree about them.

This is especially odd given the one thing Lewis gets quite right in that book, on the atonement - he says that Christians believe that salvation comes through Christ, but they do not have a uniform belief about how that works, and in fact there have been many "theories" to explain it - but these are not really important. Not only is this exactly right, but it flat-out contradicts one of the central claims of modern evangelical Christianity, which is why I'm often surprised that evangelicals like C.S. Lewis and claim to read Mere Christianity. Maybe they stop at the "trilemma" and don't notice the bits that contradict their own beliefs.
 
Isn't that the main theme with people with exceptionally strong beliefs? They tend to read things that agree with their opinions and ignore anything that doesn't.
 
Regardless of why atheists actually don't believe in God, in my experience if asked why they are atheists, most will give a specific reason rather than a lack thereof.

And regardless of Mere Christianity (which may have been a better overview of Christianity at the time than it is now anyways), CS Lewis had a lot of other things to say to which everything I said applies, I think.
 
Plotinus said:
It wasn't an explanation, though. I wasn't saying that the fact that the Bible gets translated while the Koran doesn't explains Christianity's greater willingness to change to match cultural contexts. I was citing that fact as an example of that willingness (or tendency).

Ah, rite. I still don't buy the original claim. And that example for the reasons listed is still weak.
 
Isn't that the main theme with people with exceptionally strong beliefs? They tend to read things that agree with their opinions and ignore anything that doesn't.

Of course. That's why it puzzles me that they should read Mere Christianity since it forcibly repudiates one of their main beliefs. Normally people with strong beliefs read works that, as a whole, they agree with, and avoid those that, as a whole, they don't - they don't read works that are a mixture of both, let alone give them pride of place on their church bookstalls.

Regardless of why atheists actually don't believe in God, in my experience if asked why they are atheists, most will give a specific reason rather than a lack thereof.

Maybe American atheists are different from European ones. My very limited experience suggests to me that the greater prominence of religion in public life in the US means that atheists there tend to be angrier about religion than European ones, or at least British ones, are. As far as I can tell, British atheists tend to view religion as a laughable joke and God as an absurdity that no sensible person could believe in, because there is no good reason to believe in him. It may be that American atheists, living in a country where politicians and journalists alike talk about God all the time (as it seems to us at least), take an understandably more oppositional stance and focus upon what they see as the negative aspects of the dominant conception of God.

But that's just speculation on my part. I could be quite wrong.

And regardless of Mere Christianity (which may have been a better overview of Christianity at the time than it is now anyways), CS Lewis had a lot of other things to say to which everything I said applies, I think.

Yes. But then I suppose that academic theologians aren't much interested in factual descriptions of what people happen to believe - they're interested in those people who have something creative and new to say. Which is why you won't find many studies of e.g. vicars' sermons in the theology library - such things may be of interest to the anthropologist or the historian, but probably not to the theologian unless she's looking for evidence of what people believed at that time or place. In the case of Britain in the 1940s, there's not much doubt, so Lewis' writings aren't important from that point of view. And they're not important from a more purely theological point of view either because he had nothing much creative or original to say. In that respect he joins a vast company of religious writers stretching back at least several centuries who were very widely read in their day but who are utterly forgotten now, because they didn't say anything of lasting interest.

Unoriginal religious writers from longer ago than that tend to be of greater interest, because of the relative paucity of sources. E.g. someone like Cyril of Jerusalem is of interest to the historian of Christianity because he was writing at a time when there weren't all that many Christians writing at all, so his work is a valuable source, especially because he gives us information about things such as the sacraments which are not much treated by other writers of the time. But if he were writing in (say) the eighteenth century he'd be of negligible interest. Lewis is like that - he may give us information about what people of Lewis' class, nationality, and religion believed - but there's not much mystery about that, so he's of little antiquarian interest. Perhaps in a couple of centuries he will be of interest to ecclesiastical historians as illustrating the popular beliefs of the time - in the same way that someone like, say, George Bull is of interest today as illustrating "orthodox Anglicanism" at the end of the seventeenth century. But just as Bull - a prominent figure in his day - is an obscure one today, because although wrote things that people of the time found valuable, none of it was of lasting originality and influence, I suspect Lewis will be largely forgotten even just a century from now. If he is remembered it will be because of the Narnia books, not his apologetics.

If Lewis is viewed unfavorably, how is Chesterton?

I don't think he really appears on the theological radar at all, either positively or negatively. Now I personally much prefer Chesterton to Lewis, as he's clearly not only much cleverer but a lot funnier, and he also has a much greater understanding of Christianity within its historical context. But (and I admit I've not really read his more strictly religious books) I can't think of any original or influential theological idea he had. So again, we're in the realm of the popular religion writer rather than that of the original theologian.
 
Do you read any interesting blogs (or other internet thingies) on the topic of theology or philosophy?

You've said numerous times that you think the Christian church has been, on balance, a force for good throughout history. Do you think that's equally true today?

How compelling do you find the theological arguments of Martin Luther and the other major figures of the reformation?
 
I have a theological question. Consider a man who believes in a single god that vaguely resembles to god of the abrahamite religions but he doesn't want to accept Jesus as his saviour for whatever reason. If he inflicts pain on his own body to cleanse his soul from his sins, would he count as saved from a christian point of view?
 
Theology = a useless hobby (not to dissimilar from "I think that cloud looks like a bunny!") enabled by a surplus economy that provides for those not able or willing to contribute to the welfare and advancement of society in more tangible ways.

Philosophy = an increasingly irrelevant branch of the humanities that insists on discussing issues better covered by the empirical sciences (psychology/neuroscience, physics, etc.); essentially little more than exercises in speculative biography/history, its non-innovative craft is epitomized in its production of PhD's who are "experts" in the thoughts of other persons (who are usually several centuries dead).

Proficiency in either or both are frequently invoked by pathological narcissists who get drunk off of their own imagined brilliance/eloquence/genius-- despite the fact that 0.0...1% of the world will ever read any of their dissertations/articles/books (which, frankly, only circulate from one office in one ivory tower to another and are of no possible consequence to anyone else).

Empirical sciences = OVER 9000!

Philosophy/Theology = 0 (despite millenia of endless speculative whining)

/thread
 
I have a theological question. Consider a man who believes in a single god that vaguely resembles to god of the abrahamite religions but he doesn't want to accept Jesus as his saviour for whatever reason. If he inflicts pain on his own body to cleanse his soul from his sins, would he count as saved from a christian point of view?

I would presume it depends on the Christian - there is no one single "Christian point of view".
 
Question:

My argument for Sola Scriptura basically goes as follows:

2 Timothy 3:16 says All Scripture is God-breathed. Logically, God-breathed = infallible [Obviously someone could say 2 Timothy 3:16 is false, but I'm more referring to arguments between Protestants (Who generally don't accept extra-biblical tradition as infallible) and other Christian groups (Such as Catholics, Orthodox, or other "Apostolic Churches"). I'm not really using this argument to hypothetically convince someone who isn't Christian at all.]. While tradition is sometimes given favorable mention, it is also sometimes mentioned unfavorably, and either way, Paul never says it is "God-breathed." Therefore, logically, Scripture has a higher value than Tradition.

Does this argument logically work? And if you think it doesn't, do ANY arguments for Sola Scriptura work/are convincing?
 
Do you read any interesting blogs (or other internet thingies) on the topic of theology or philosophy?

Not really, to be honest - which isn't to say there aren't any, because there are. I've come across various ones on occasion. But I don't actually read any.

In philosophy, the most well-known blog is the Leiter Report. I've read that on occasion. However, I read it less these days, partly because it has a strong US focus, and partly because, while I am generally in sympathy with the author's views on topics other than philosophy, I think he (a) goes on about them too much, and (b) is off-putting vehement and quite unpleasant in tone. E.g. it is true that the University of Middlesex's decision to close down its philosophy department was bad, but referring to it constantly as "the University (sic) of Middlesex" is as irritating as it is unhelpful.

You've said numerous times that you think the Christian church has been, on balance, a force for good throughout history. Do you think that's equally true today?

Probably, but it is hard to say. I think the best things that the church does are the things we don't hear very much about, such as the unsung role of the parish priest as counsellor to his or her parish. Of course, by the same token, the worst things that the church does are probably also things we don't hear much about, so it is hard to tell.

How compelling do you find the theological arguments of Martin Luther and the other major figures of the reformation?

I don't know enough about them to say much, but as a rule, I don't find them enormously compelling. In the case of Luther it seems to me, at a very general level, that he was probably right in his criticisms of his opponents, but that doesn't make him right in his own views. Just as Berkeley was very good at pointing out the problems with Locke and Malebranche, but that doesn't mean his own views weren't full of holes too.

I have a theological question. Consider a man who believes in a single god that vaguely resembles to god of the abrahamite religions but he doesn't want to accept Jesus as his saviour for whatever reason. If he inflicts pain on his own body to cleanse his soul from his sins, would he count as saved from a christian point of view?

I would presume it depends on the Christian - there is no one single "Christian point of view".

Right - there would be some Christians who would think such a man saved, and others who would not. I must say, though, that self-harm as a means of salvation would be at best a minority Christian position. Most Christians who would think such a man saved would not think him saved just because he inflicts pain on himself.

What would be your first recommendation to someone considering studying theology?

I suppose to think carefully about why you're studying it and what you want to do with it. It's not the easiest subject to justify having studied in an employment context - especially in this day and age.

Question:

My argument for Sola Scriptura basically goes as follows:

2 Timothy 3:16 says All Scripture is God-breathed. Logically, God-breathed = infallible [Obviously someone could say 2 Timothy 3:16 is false, but I'm more referring to arguments between Protestants (Who generally don't accept extra-biblical tradition as infallible) and other Christian groups (Such as Catholics, Orthodox, or other "Apostolic Churches"). I'm not really using this argument to hypothetically convince someone who isn't Christian at all.]. While tradition is sometimes given favorable mention, it is also sometimes mentioned unfavorably, and either way, Paul never says it is "God-breathed." Therefore, logically, Scripture has a higher value than Tradition.

Does this argument logically work? And if you think it doesn't, do ANY arguments for Sola Scriptura work/are convincing?

I don't think it works. I have already criticised the use of 2 Tim 3:16 to support belief in biblical infallibility here, and the points I made there apply here too. There is absolutely nothing logical about the inference from "God-breathed" to "infallible".

Even if we do think that the 2 Tim passage supports belief in biblical infallibility, it certainly doesn't follow from that that other sources are not infallible. There is nothing there to say that the church is not infallible, or the Pope, or tradition, or indeed anything you care to mention. Indeed a Catholic will obviously say that Matthew 16:19 supports the view that the church is infallible. I would say that that argument is no worse than the argument that 2 Tim 3:16 supports the view that the Bible is infallible.

I don't think that there are any good arguments for the principle of sola scriptura. That principle has the fundamental flaw that it holds that one should believe only what is in the Bible, but the Bible does not contain the principle in question. Therefore, if you believe it is true that one should believe only what is in the Bible, you are committed to the view that one should not believe that one should believe only what is in the Bible. So it is impossible to believe in this principle without contradicting yourself - it is a self-defeating principle.

Even your argument implicitly admits this. I think your argument is flawed for the reasons given, but even if it were not flawed, it would still fail by the very fact that it is an argument at all. If you feel the need to present an argument for the principle of sola scriptura then you are admitting that that principle is not actually stated in the Bible. At the very least, we must use reason to infer that principle on the basis of what is stated in the Bible. But if we do that, then we are using reason in addition to the Bible's teachings. And in that case we are not adhering to the principle of sola scriptura. It follows that even if there were a good argument for the principle of sola scriptura, that argument would be self-defeating. I therefore think that the principle is both inconsistent and unjustifiable.

(By the way, Paul almost certainly didn't write 2 Timothy.)
 
I had a handful of questions, mainly regarding Neo-Platonism, and partially it's impact on Christianity.

1. Plotinus' image of Plato seems to be largely a characterization used to help make his (Plotinus's) point, far removed from the real man. To what extent would you say the philosopy of Plotinus is Platonist in name only?
2. How would a man like Dean Inge reconcile his Neo--Platonist beliefs with modern discoveries in astronomy? Would they solely reject portions of the canon referring to celestial bodies as "gods"?
3. I know Plotinus spent some time arguing against the Gnostics, but could you perhaps elaborate a wee bit on their relationship?
4. Bertrand Russell summarized of Plotinus' teachings that "Matter is created by Soul, and has no independent reality." This seems to be kind of sort of reminiscent of some of the interpretations of the Schrodinger's Cat experiment. Regarding time, St. Augustine seems to be similarly prescient. Is there any present thought devoted to linking these men and their ideas with modern day physics? I understand this may be outsider your realm of expertise.
5. According to Catholic dogma, the Church never changes its teachings, is that correct? If so, how do they reconcile their modern rejection of some of the teachings of Origen (and by extension Jerome) as well as those of Augustine?
 
I don't think it works. I have already criticised the use of 2 Tim 3:16 to support belief in biblical infallibility here, and the points I made there apply here too. There is absolutely nothing logical about the inference from "God-breathed" to "infallible".

Well, unless you think God has error (This typed before I read your full argument, which I will do after completion of this post.)

I don't think that there are any good arguments for the principle of sola scriptura. That principle has the fundamental flaw that it holds that one should believe only what is in the Bible,

I don't think Sola Scriptura teaches that you shouldn't believe anything else. For instance, if you tell me the sky is blue, well, that's not in the Bible, but I still believe it:lol:

The point of Sola Scriptura is that nothing else, whether reason, logic, or tradition, is INFALLIBLE. There is a difference between a specific teaching being true and the teacher being infallible.


(By the way, Paul almost certainly didn't write 2 Timothy.)

How can you know that?
 
I don't think Sola Scriptura teaches that you shouldn't believe anything else. For instance, if you tell me the sky is blue, well, that's not in the Bible, but I still believe it:lol:

naturally, but Sola Scriptura posits that all that is necessary for correct spiritual and religious knowledge is the bible, and since you are talking about religious doctrines whether the sky is blue is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Point is if the bible alone is necessary for religious knowledge then as Plotinus has already said (and I have said before) it is a self defeating principle since it is nowhere mentioned in any of the books of the protestant canon and thus by its own definition you must reject the doctrine since it is extra-biblical and all religious knowledge (in sola scriptura) can be found in the bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom