Lutheran official apologetic method related to Real Presence

[Jacque_Pierre22]

Which is the official position : Classical, evidential, presuppositional, or other ? From what I've seen it seems to be evidential, but I don't see why it can't be others also. I think this falls under epistemology and prolegomena. I could be wrong but from what I can understand as a layman, Al-Ghazali was viewed as a fideist for not believing in reason enough over faith; whereas it's kind of odd that an evidentialist method would be Lutheran since it requires reason and argumentation for your position, in other words, reason leading to faith which sounds Roman Catholic. So the Reformed tend to be fideist like Ghazali (I'm sure they aren't fideist but that's how evidentialists would portray them), while the evidentialist types tend to be more like Ibn Sina or Al Razi. I tend to think Lev Shestov was right ( Лев Шестов) . Then the other question is the EO position, seems to be more Reformed/fideist, because of Gregory Palamas, God is knowable through his energies, independent of reason (theognosia)

Fideism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Lev Shestov - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Unmediated Grace - Glory to God For All Things " True knowledge is participation, a communion. It is in this sense that Christ says, “This is eternal life; that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent” (John 17:3)." According to a book on Hermann Sasse I have, I think he would agree with Palamas here that we have knowledge via participation. I think the author of the article on his epistemology missed a hint when Sasse mentions that the God of Aquinas would cease to be God if he heard a prayer and at the same time, Sasse considered the liturgy to be prayer (in essay on Sasse on worship) (Sasse a man of our Times); therefore, it's basically Palamas position; (Barlaam his opponent was also a Aquinas acolyte) that we participate/commune with God through the real presence which is the heart of the liturgy basically through God's energies, and therefore the "dim spark" of the knowledge of God we have gets more tinder the closer we are to the real presence.

 

[JM]

I'm guessing classical.

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

yea either Classical or evidential; I've never seen anyone espouse presuppositional apologetics. This is one area where EO and the Reformed have more in common. But it's one of those topics no one talks about. Presuppositional makes the most sense to me as the EO have a lot of good articles on how the church fathers used that method.

 

[JM]

yea either Classical or evidential; I've never seen anyone espouse presuppositional apologetics. This is one area where EO and the Reformed have more in common. But it's one of those topics no one talks about. Presuppositional makes the most sense to me as the EO have a lot of good articles on how the church fathers used that method.

Well, I'd push back on the idea that EO used presuppositionalism or epistemology. Besides Jay Dyer I've never seen an Orthodox Christian use these methods and VanTil (Clark with Scripturalism and Dabney to some extent) is considered the creators of the method.

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

Well, I'd push back on the idea that EO used presuppositionalism or epistemology. Besides Jay Dyer I've never seen an Orthodox Christian use these methods and VanTil (Clark with Scripturalism and Dabney to some extent) is considered the creators of the method.

true but Dyer has a few associates with phDs like " Fr Deacon Dr. Ananias" who seem to know a lot more than me. I mean I don't have a theology background lol although I've happened to be around some Lutheran big wigs

 

[JM]

true but Dyer has a few associates with phDs like " Fr Deacon Dr. Ananias" who seem to know a lot more than me. I mean I don't have a theology background lol although I've happened to be around some Lutheran big wigs

Dyer was trained by Greg Bahnsen, he was key in making VanTillian presuppositionalism popular after VanTil passed away.

I've seen on book on apologetics by a Lutheran but the blurb on the back mentioned nothing about what form their arguments took. Dyer uses Bahnsen's arguments very well.

Dyer and the Dyerites or OrthoBros are a real problem by the way and Bishops have been speaking up about it.

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

yea I know there's some kind of secret schism in Orthodoxy between the hyper conservatives and liberals. I don't know enough about the hierarchy and such; all I know is they don't follow Constantinople (which name changed from Byzantium to Istanbul in the 1920s). I do know that Seraphim Rose was very conservative so to demonize Jay Dyer is like demonizing Johann Gerhard in my opinion for following the stream of tradition. Innovators are usually demonized though, like Hermann Sasse who was accused of not believing in Sola Scriptura for his views on Genesis 1. Maybe they will branch off into their own denomination. Seraphim Rose in a passing comment affirmed the literal six day 24 hour creation days though funnily enough but it was never made into a rule in Orthodoxy; but at the same time they co-mingle in the same organizations so it's not like they are excommunicated (the associates of Dyer). Bahnsen had a different take on apologetics than RC Sproul and there was a debate on it , I think Sproul was for the classical method, so just because someone is Presbyterian doesn't mean they need to follow Bahnsen. They have more latitude than in Lutheranism and Orthodoxy, before someone is banished or villified.

 

[JM]

Yeah, Ukraine, Greece, Bulgaria, Russia, etc all have Jurisdictional issues which complicates the OCA.

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

Yeah, Ukraine, Greece, Bulgaria, Russia, etc all have Jurisdictional issues which complicates the OCA.

yea