Ask a Theologian IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
I had a handful of questions, mainly regarding Neo-Platonism, and partially it's impact on Christianity.

Thank you for these - these are interesting questions!

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?

It really depends on what you mean by "Platonist". Philosophy in late antiquity always worked like this: philosophers were divided into the various "schools" and spent their time studying the writings of the great founders of the past. Philosophy consisted entirely of exegesis, at least in theory. In practice, of course, they were all reading their own ideas into the texts (at least to some extent). Now if "Platonist" means "a member of Plato's school", which is what it meant in antiquity, then Plotinus was certainly a Platonist because he chose to do his philosophy on the basis of Plato's works rather than those of Zeno or Aristotle or whoever.

Of course Plotinus' philosophy was not really the same as Plato's - but equally, it was not entirely different. The question then is how similar to Plato someone has to be to count as a Platonist. If you have to believe, for example, that all universals are eternal Forms, then neither Plotinus nor any other Neoplatonist was a Platonist, since they denied that there were Forms of base, mundane, or artificial things. If, on the other hand, believing that form is logically prior to matter is enough to be a Platonist, then they were. Plotinus believed in an ideal, eternal realm that logically precedes the material, sensible realm and which explains it, and I think that that may be usually regarded as the defining characteristic of Platonism. But this is a matter of labels.

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"?

I don't know much about Inge so I can't help you with him in particular. But there is no Neoplatonic "canon" in anything analogous to a religious sense. A Neoplatonist is not obliged to believe everything that the ancient Neoplatonists believed. Neoplatonism has certain distinctive features - a belief in the ideal and eternal realm as mentioned above, together with the notion that the material realm is related to it by emanation and return, and that existence, beauty, and goodness are basically the same thing. You certainly don't have to believe in the Ptolemaic system or pagan theology to be a Neoplatonist, even though the original Neoplatonists did. Obviously there have been many Christian Neoplatonists, such as Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine of Hippo, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Eriugena, Marsilio Ficino, Pico della Mirandola, and so on and so forth. They didn't think that Neoplatonism required the pagan elements of its founders, or indeed of Plato himself, or that it could not be combined with Christianity.

3. I know Plotinus spent some time arguing against the Gnostics, but could you perhaps elaborate a wee bit on their relationship?

Enneads II.9 is a treatise against the gnostics - in fact probably against Valentinians, to be precise. Plotinus' objection to them is that they think that the physical world is evil and that it was created by an evil or at least non-benevolent creator. So in that treatise he produces a battery of arguments for the goodness of matter. These arguments are, arguably, not entirely consistent with what Plotinus says elsewhere about matter. In fact Plotinus' pronouncements about matter are the subject of considerable interpretative debate, since they are complex and frequent - perhaps a bit surprising, since at least one of Plotinus' official views on matter is that it doesn't exist. For something that doesn't exist, it interests him a lot. At any rate, Plotinus does characterise matter as shadowy, insubstantial, and decidedly not good; it is, among other things, the principle of non-being and of the lack of goodness. However, he does not have the stomach to go so far as to make it actively evil, which is why he attacks the gnostics for doing so.

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.

The Schroedinger's Cat thing isn't meant to show the unreality of the physical world - it's meant to show up the absurdity of the idea of superposition, by pointing out that if you allow superposition at the sub-atomic level then there are circumstances in which there would also be superposition at the super-atomic scale. It's all very well to say that a sub-atomic particle may exist in two contradictory states at the same time, but it's another matter entirely to say that a cat may - but if you accept the former you must accept at least the possibility of the latter. So, at least as I understand him, Schroedinger was a realist about the physical world - he didn't think that the state of a cat could seriously depend upon our perception of it, and therefore the state of a sub-atomic particle couldn't either.

Anyway, you are right that there are at least superficial similarities between the Neoplatonic belief in the relative non-reality of the physical world, and its dependence upon the mental, and some interpretations of modern quantum physics. And in fact there is great interest in some quarters in these similarities. Philosophy of physics is a burgeoning field at the moment and some philosophers of physics, and indeed physicists themselves, are interested in relating the philosophical implications of modern physics to older philosophical traditions. For example, there is a group of physicists at the University of Vienna who are interested in these issues and who have recently set up a new Vienna Centre for Quantum Science and Technology to investigate them. This and other, similar centres are mainly interested in the new philosophical implications of cutting-edge physics, rather than in antiquarian issues, but some figures involved in this work who are more from the philosophical side than the physics side are also interested in relating it to traditional philosophical ideas.

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?

From a Catholic viewpoint, Origen certainly did not speak for the church - he was simply an individual writer with ideas of his own. The same is true of Jerome and Augustine, though to a lesser extent since they are considered Doctors of the Church and therefore pretty reliable characters. Nevertheless, they are not infallible. No individual is infallible apart from the Pope on the rare occasions when he infallibly defines a dogma. Infallibility resides in the church as a whole, and is best expressed in the decrees of ecumenical councils. So from the Catholic point of view there's no problem with the idea that there are errors in the works of the authors you mention - but there would certainly be a problem if any errors were found in, say, the creeds of the ecumenical councils.

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 want to get into two different discussions about the same topic with the same person, so I'll refer you back to the discussion on this topic in your Evangelical thread, where I've addressed this argument.

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.

No, Jehoshua is right on this one - sola scriptura means that the Bible (and only the Bible) contains all the truths relevant to salvation. Thus:

The Westminster Confession VII. said:
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

It's got nothing to do with infallibility. One could, at least in theory, believe in the principle of sola scriptura and yet also believe that the Bible contains errors. (I don't know if anyone has believed this, but I see no problem with it.) And one can certainly believe that the Bible is infallible and reject the principle of sola scriptura, since that is what the Catholic Church does.

So sola scriptura does not say that there are no truths found outside the Bible - you're right about that. However, it does say that there are no truths relevant to salvation found outside the Bible. In practice that means everything to do with Christianity. So when I said that the principle says one should believe only what is in the Bible, what I meant was that it says that there is nothing outside the Bible, relevant to salvation, that one has to believe. (I didn't express it very well.) That is why it is a serious problem for this doctrine that the Bible itself does not contain it, for the reasons already given. The only plausible way around this that I can see is to say that the principle of sola scriptura is not itself relevant to salvation. How plausible that is, however, might be a matter of debate.

How can you know that?

No-one can know for sure that Paul did not write 2 Timothy, of course. But we can examine the evidence and draw conclusions about what is probable on the basis of that evidence. The evidence strongly suggests that Paul did not write 2 Timothy (or 1 Timothy and Titus, the other Pastoral Epistles).

With all such cases, there are three major reasons why scholars question the text's authenticity:

(1) Language and style. If the text uses vocabulary noticeably different from that used by the author in other writings, or if the style is noticeably different, that may suggest that it is by a different author.

(2) Ideas. If the ideas - philosophical, theological, or otherwise - in the text differ noticeably from those expressed in other writings by the author, that suggests that it is by a different author.

(3) Historical circumstances. If the text seems to imply that it was written under historical circumstances in which the supposed author did not really live, then that suggests that it is by someone else.

None of these things is "proof" individually. After all, a single author may use different vocabulary and different writing styles in different situations. An author may change his mind about important things over time, or say different things to different people. And our knowledge of historical circumstances is incomplete, so we cannot always say for certain that an individual could not have referred to things that we think he could not have. But when you get all three of these factors at the same time, and when they are all particularly striking - as is the case with the Pastoral Epistles - then the case against their authenticity becomes overwhelming. There is just no good reason to think that they really are by Paul and many good reasons to think they are not.

If you are interested in the details, this page outlines them. This is a good website for giving summaries of scholarly opinion regarding New Testament writings and related texts in general. The links given there are also worth following if you care about these matters.
 
So sola scriptura does not say that there are no truths found outside the Bible - you're right about that. However, it does say that there are no truths relevant to salvation found outside the Bible. In practice that means everything to do with Christianity. So when I said that the principle says one should believe only what is in the Bible, what I meant was that it says that there is nothing outside the Bible, relevant to salvation, that one has to believe. (I didn't express it very well.) That is why it is a serious problem for this doctrine that the Bible itself does not contain it, for the reasons already given. The only plausible way around this that I can see is to say that the principle of sola scriptura is not itself relevant to salvation. How plausible that is, however, might be a matter of debate.

Well, I have said before that in my opinion Sola Scriptura is not a necessary principle for Salvation.

No-one can know for sure that Paul did not write 2 Timothy, of course. But we can examine the evidence and draw conclusions about what is probable on the basis of that evidence. The evidence strongly suggests that Paul did not write 2 Timothy (or 1 Timothy and Titus, the other Pastoral Epistles).

With all such cases, there are three major reasons why scholars question the text's authenticity:

(1) Language and style. If the text uses vocabulary noticeably different from that used by the author in other writings, or if the style is noticeably different, that may suggest that it is by a different author.

(2) Ideas. If the ideas - philosophical, theological, or otherwise - in the text differ noticeably from those expressed in other writings by the author, that suggests that it is by a different author.

(3) Historical circumstances. If the text seems to imply that it was written under historical circumstances in which the supposed author did not really live, then that suggests that it is by someone else.

None of these things is "proof" individually. After all, a single author may use different vocabulary and different writing styles in different situations. An author may change his mind about important things over time, or say different things to different people. And our knowledge of historical circumstances is incomplete, so we cannot always say for certain that an individual could not have referred to things that we think he could not have. But when you get all three of these factors at the same time, and when they are all particularly striking - as is the case with the Pastoral Epistles - then the case against their authenticity becomes overwhelming. There is just no good reason to think that they really are by Paul and many good reasons to think they are not.

Well, there is a good reason to believe Paul wrote 2 Timothy, because the book claims to have been written by him. Basically, we have a couple of possibilities.

1. The writer was Paul (Which is what I've always been taught.)

2. The writer was a forger (Thus the book doesn't belong in the Bible, which I obviously can't accept)

Or

3. The writer used the name "Paul" as a pseudonym (In which case, why would he? This possibility does interest me.)

Also, do we really know when Paul died? I know traditions say 67 AD or so, but do we really know this?
 
Well, I have said before that in my opinion Sola Scriptura is not a necessary principle for Salvation.

Fair enough, but in that case it's hard to see what basis you would have for criticising Catholics and others for believing non-biblical doctrines - isn't it?

Well, there is a good reason to believe Paul wrote 2 Timothy, because the book claims to have been written by him.

I agree that, other things being equal, a claim to ascription deserves to be taken into account. But the fact is that pseudepigraphy - that is, writing a book under someone else's name - was absolutely rife in antiquity. It happened all the time. In the case of St Paul, there are plenty of books written in his name, which are not in the New Testament. These include the "letter to the Laodiceans" that I mentioned in one of my brief posts in your Evangelical thread and also the famous - and obviously inauthentic - "correspondence with Seneca". No-one thinks even for a moment that these books are really by Paul, because, although they claim to be, nothing about them resembles the genuinely Pauline writings. We also have many books claiming to be by pretty much every disciple you can think of, from Peter to John to Mary Magdalene to Judas Iscariot. These books also are not in the Bible and are obviously inauthentic, mostly being clearly written centuries later. No-one takes seriously their claim to apostolic authorship. Now in the case of the Pastoral Epistles, their claim to authenticity is certainly better than that of (say) the Seneca correspondence or the Gospel of Judas. However, it is still not very good. They are nothing like the letters that we know to be by Paul. The writing style is totally different, the ideas in them are totally different, the issues covered are totally different, the church organisation and situation they presuppose are totally different. (On this, it might be worth your while reading this, which is linked to from the earlychristianwritings.com page that I gave the link to earlier - it gives some of the key features of the Pastorals that are much better explained in a second-century context than in one within Paul's lifetime.)

Now given that these books were written in a culture where pseudepigraphy was endemic, why is the theory that they were really written by Paul to be preferred to the theory that they weren't? It seems to me that the only difference is that they're in the Bible and the other books aren't. If they weren't in the Bible no-one would be bothered. But that's not a genuine scholarly consideration.

Basically, we have a couple of possibilities.

1. The writer was Paul (Which is what I've always been taught.)

2. The writer was a forger (Thus the book doesn't belong in the Bible, which I obviously can't accept)

Or

3. The writer used the name "Paul" as a pseudonym (In which case, why would he? This possibility does interest me.)

People in antiquity practised pseudepigraphy for a wide range of reasons. We have already talked about some of them here. Some could legitimately be called forgery. But another reason was as an exercise in literary composition (I think the correspondence between "Paul" and "Seneca" may fall into this category). Another was the desire to present the ideas of a great author for new readers. Ephesians, which is generally considered not to be authentic, may be like this: it presents distinctively Pauline ideas in a new way, going beyond what Paul himself said, but in a way that the author may have felt was true to Paul's spirit. It was, in effect, what Paul "would have said". Ephesians, incidentally, is quite different from the Pastorals in that the author of Ephesians was evidently steeped in Paul's thought. The Pastorals are not, and the author of the Pastorals seems to have respected Paul much more than he understood him.

Another reason was simply to get your ideas read. Take the works of "Dionysius the Areopagite", a figure who is mentioned in Acts as a follower of Paul. Someone round about the year AD 500 decided to write a series of books in the name of this character. They were immediately accepted as genuine by most of the church and went on to become incredibly influential. In fact it wasn't until early modern times that they were conclusively shown to be pseudepigraphy and not by the real Dionysius the Areopagite at all. Now clearly they would not have been so influential if the author had not pretended to be a follower of Paul and therefore of sub-apostolic authority. Today we would consider this to be outright forgery and deceit. In antiquity people simply did not think like this.

That is why the oft-repeated claim that if the Pastorals and other pseudonymous writings in the New Testament are not authentic, they must be deceitful forgeries is not accurate. Pseudepigraphy was standard practice in antiquity and we can't judge them by modern standards.

Also, do we really know when Paul died? I know traditions say 67 AD or so, but do we really know this?

No, we don't know for sure. It's usually thought that he must have died in Rome, as tradition holds, and never realised his plan to travel further west. The main reason for thinking this is really that there is no evidence of his having survived. Paul was not someone to keep quiet. If he had lived beyond his journey to Rome, we would know about it - we would have more churches claiming to be founded by him, we would have letters written by him to those churches and to others, and we would have traditions describing what he did next, akin to the book of Acts. Now the fact that we have none of these does not prove that he died in Rome. But it makes it much more likely.
 
Just a comment on your debate, I never thought the real problem for sola scriptura was that the doctrine never appeared in the bible, but that the bible never appeared in the bible.
The canon of the bible was set by Apostolic authority. If one accepts Sola Scriptura, how can one define the bible?
 
Question: What have been the different theological opinions regarding an age of accountability?

Also, when was the issue of birth control first ever mentioned, and when was it first mentioned favorably (Not as a sin.)
 
I was reading about the Hussite Wars recently, and while it didn't go into much detail on the theological side of things- the main focus was on the social-political content of the Hussite movement- it did seem to suggest that the Utraquist current of the movement was a theological forerunner of Protestantism. Is that substantially the case, or was it just the author glossing over the details for simplicities sake?
 
I was thinking about this passage right after the throwing the first stone -episode:

John 8:10-11 said:
Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Could you deduct from this that God doesn't judge people for their sins? Or, of course it's possible, but has this been considered, and if so, how widely?

Do other passages of the Bible come to your mind that would lend support to the idea that God doesn't judge at all?
 
And one can certainly believe that the Bible is infallible and reject the principle of sola scriptura, since that is what the Catholic Church does.

To clarify the Catholic Church does not teach that the bible is infallible in all things. It teaches that is it contains no error in matters spiritual or in regards to morality. It is not posited in the Catholic Church IIRC that it is infallible in any other regard, say that it contains no historical error and so forth.
 
Why did St. Clement of Alexandria have such a fixation on facial hair?

On a less spammy note, I read an argument online that there's no real dichotomy between Thomism and Palamism, and that the two are actually quite complementary. What would you say to this? In general, what was the influence of Aristotleanism on Byzantine theology? Did Aquinas have any influence at all?
 
Fair enough, but in that case it's hard to see what basis you would have for criticising Catholics and others for believing non-biblical doctrines - isn't it?


I never said it was wrong to believe non-Biblical doctrines, but to take them as INFALLIBLE, especially when those doctrines disagree with the most straightforward interpretation of Scripture.
 
Not to be snarky, Domination, but I could slate Sola Scriptura using those exact words and emerge with the same meaning.
 
@Plot- I could have sworn I posted 2 more questions yesterday, were they accidentally deletd?

If they were purposely deleted for some reason, can you let me know why?

Short of that, here they are posted again:

What were the different theological opinions on the salvation or otherwise of infants? And which viewpoints seem the most plausible?

And when was birth control first given mention by theologians? And when was it first mentioned favorably? (Not as a sin.)
 
@Plot- I could have sworn I posted 2 more questions yesterday, were they accidentally deletd?

If they were purposely deleted for some reason, can you let me know why?

Short of that, here they are posted again:

What were the different theological opinions on the salvation or otherwise of infants? And which viewpoints seem the most plausible?

And when was birth control first given mention by theologians? And when was it first mentioned favorably? (Not as a sin.)

:p
 
Plot, my sincerest apologies, I looked and couldn't find them so I thought they were deleted.

I didn't notice an answer either, but if you did provide one, just let me know.

Either way, feel free to delete the post above if you want to.
 
My thoughts, as usually, are probably going to come out scatter-brained and half-thought out. I'm sorry I do this so often, but often I find talking to you is the best way to either get my theological views straight, or take them back to the drawing board.

Anyhow, I've come to the conclusion that heaven exists outside of time. This is partially because this seems to be the ideal way for paradise to work. I think given an actual infinite amount of time, the idea of heaven becomes horrifying: either people live out a literal eternity there seems it would drive anyone to ennui, people would be despondent over loved ones missing, the general ability of the human mind to make itself dissatisfied, etc. etc.
Assuming these problems are negated by the infinite joy of paradise, heaven sounds like a horrifying cyberpunk style scenario. People so mind numbingly happy that they have no sense of what is going on around them.
Instead, if heaven exists out of time (with god, as presumably god created time when he created the world).
This also seems to make the idea of hell a bit more compatible with an omnibenevolent being. Rather then being subjected to the infinite tortures imagined by Dante, a soul is lost to hell, and simply exists in that state, permanently, without change, but without an eternity of torment.
Now first, the problems I'm grappling with from a theological standpoint. First is the fact that this would mean that people exist in heaven "before" they are even born, and in fact, before anything on earth was born. This seems at first to be an absurdity, but one that seems very reasonable to me. But I have a few questions about the implications of this.
1) Do you think this qualify as a form of predetermination?
2) If so, does thinking like this show up in any theological discussions on predeterminism?
3) Is there a name for this kind of philosophy about heaven and salvation? Is it considered a heresy by the Catholic Church?
3) If not, do I get to name it?

As an afterthought, since I know you're not big on the bible per se, but this does seem to involve some philosophical and metaphysical wrangling: Do you think this would contradict the Book of Matthew which says "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth"?
 
My thoughts, as usually, are probably going to come out scatter-brained and half-thought out. I'm sorry I do this so often, but often I find talking to you is the best way to either get my theological views straight, or take them back to the drawing board.

Anyhow, I've come to the conclusion that heaven exists outside of time. This is partially because this seems to be the ideal way for paradise to work. I think given an actual infinite amount of time, the idea of heaven becomes horrifying: either people live out a literal eternity there seems it would drive anyone to ennui, people would be despondent over loved ones missing, the general ability of the human mind to make itself dissatisfied, etc. etc.
Assuming these problems are negated by the infinite joy of paradise, heaven sounds like a horrifying cyberpunk style scenario. People so mind numbingly happy that they have no sense of what is going on around them.
Instead, if heaven exists out of time (with god, as presumably god created time when he created the world).
This also seems to make the idea of hell a bit more compatible with an omnibenevolent being. Rather then being subjected to the infinite tortures imagined by Dante, a soul is lost to hell, and simply exists in that state, permanently, without change, but without an eternity of torment.
Now first, the problems I'm grappling with from a theological standpoint. First is the fact that this would mean that people exist in heaven "before" they are even born, and in fact, before anything on earth was born. This seems at first to be an absurdity, but one that seems very reasonable to me. But I have a few questions about the implications of this.
1) Do you think this qualify as a form of predetermination?
2) If so, does thinking like this show up in any theological discussions on predeterminism?
3) Is there a name for this kind of philosophy about heaven and salvation? Is it considered a heresy by the Catholic Church?
3) If not, do I get to name it?

As an afterthought, since I know you're not big on the bible per se, but this does seem to involve some philosophical and metaphysical wrangling: Do you think this would contradict the Book of Matthew which says "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth"?

What is the difference between "Outside time" and "Lasts forever"?
 
Something that lasts for ever has no beginning and no end. It exists at every point in time. It is possible, for example, that the universe is everlasting in this way. By contrast, something that is outside time also has no beginning and no end, but in a different way, because it exists at no point in time. It is simply outside the temporal series altogether. Thomas Aquinas had a nice analogy: he said that God's relation to time is like a man standing on the top of a tall tower looking down at a procession. He can see the whole procession, from start to finish, but he is not in the procession himself.

(A problematic aspect of the atemporalist view is that if God is outside time, then he did not exist yesterday, he does not exist today, and he will not exist tomorrow - even though yesterday "God exists" was true, today "God exists" is true, and tomorrow "God exists" will be true.)

You can compare the distinction between everlastingness and atemporality to the distinction between existing at every point in space and existing at no point in space. On some conceptions, God is literally everywhere. On others, he is entirely non-spatial, and is present everywhere in a non-literal sense (e.g. he perceives every place and can act in every place, but is not actually there in the way that a material object is).

I'll get to the unanswered questions as soon as I can - things are rather busy at the moment. As usual.
 
philosophers were divided into the various "schools" and spent their time studying the writings of the great founders of the past.

Who were their great founders and what texts did they leave them (and us?)?

I was thinking about this passage right after the throwing the first stone -episode:

Could you deduct from this that God doesn't judge people for their sins? Or, of course it's possible, but has this been considered, and if so, how widely?

Do other passages of the Bible come to your mind that would lend support to the idea that God doesn't judge at all?

Jesus did judge her, he told her to stop committing adultery (or whatever she did). But he didn't condemn her either after making sure the hypocrites walked away in shame. ;) The Lord's Prayer comes to mind: forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. Sounds like God will judge (and condemn) us based on how we treat others, if we dont forgive trespassers God wont (may not?) forgive ours...
 
Two questions,
1) is the image of Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus a reference to the rite of adoption found in Orthodox
2) Where can I find more about the rite of adoption in the Catholic Church

 
I had a sleepy friend read over the threads, and she asks, wrt this:
: even if it is obvious that obama exists, burden of proof still rests on people believing his existence
: they just have lots of proof.
: thoughts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom