Well, that settles it. I’m a heretic and anathema.

[chevyontheriver]

Sure, as Christians, we all believe that in one way or another, the Bible is authoritative. The problem with that affirmation, though, is that the Bible doesn't really give any of us a comprehensive method by which to apply what we could posit as a sanctified and inspired method of interpretation.

So, because the biblical writers didn't give us a comprehensive, step-by-step method for how to interpret their writings, each individual person (or council, even) brings his own interpretive abilities and theoretical preferences to the table when placing a historical item (like the figure of Mary) into the theological test tube for examination. Some individuals (or councils, even) through the centuries have had different interpretive methods, to say the least, and this is the case, again, where a figure like Mary is concerned. Appealing to the Bible alone isn't going to resolve or explain for correction these interpretive differences (or comparative traditions). No, we'll need philosophy for that if there's a hope of resolving our interpretive battles. We'll also need a bit of interpersonal charity ...............

Philosophy, yes. Interpersonal charity, absolutely. And hopefully the philosophy gets to the methods of interpretation. For me, I see Scripture as authoritative, but that Scripture cannot be Nuda Scriptura, Scripture outside of the context of the Church that it was written for and that indeed wrote it. The text and the community are inter-related. Which brings in the witness of the Fathers as helpers understanding how the Church got here.

 

[chevyontheriver]

And I didn’t get where I am by being close-minded.

And yet you quote Dr. Greg Bahnsen to the opposite effect right at the bottom of your post. So I wonder.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

My brother, even though quantum physics is real, transubstantiation is also real. Check up on Eucharistic miracles.

I don't doubt that. Just the metaphysical explanation, the stagnant categories.

We are more aware now of the dynamic and process nature of what we once thought was stable.

Haven't we come to realize that "substance" is more a mental concept than a "thing" in itself?

But I am just an amateur philosopher/theologian. I read things over my head and often misunderstand.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The idea that it refers to, that being the Real Presence of the Eucharist, is integral to the ancient faith of the Lutherans, high church Anglicans, Orthodox and other traditional Christians in addition to Roman Catholics.

I do not deny "Real presence"

I am trying to get at an understanding of "real presence" that is more relational and less static, more dynamic and less idealistic, more Heraclites and less Plato/Aristotle.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I’m a Calvinist. I disagree with Arminianism. But I can make their argument from scripture, even though I disagree. I cannot even fathom the argument from scripture that Dr. Marshall might use because I don’t think there is one.

But that's just the thing: not everything in the Christian faith resides purely and only on an "argument from Scripture alone."

 

[AlexB23]

I don't doubt that. Just the metaphysical explanation, the stagnant categories.

We are more aware now of the dynamic and process nature of what we once thought was stable.

Haven't we come to realize that "substance" is more a mental concept than a "thing" in itself?

But I am just an amateur philosopher/theologian. I read things over my head and often misunderstand.

Substance is a real thing, as different things are made of different atoms of molecules and atoms. In the spiritual realm, the bread turns into real blood and flesh. In the physical realm, it looks the same as bread. Sometimes, the spiritual realm overlaps with the physical, allowing for the bread to turn into real flesh.

I am not a philosopher at all, or theologian. So, you are at a better level on this stuff compared to me.

 

[Servus]

But that's just the thing: not everything in the Christian faith resides purely and only on an "argument from Scripture alone."

In regard to doctrine it should be in accordance with scripture and preferably have substantial scriptural backing. (Especially when words like "anathema" and "heretic" are used to describe those who don't believe in that doctrine or parts of it). A lot of Marian doctrine doesn't particularly offer that. Which is why appealing to scripture regarding it is discouraged.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I don't doubt that. Just the metaphysical explanation, the stagnant categories.

We are more aware now of the dynamic and process nature of what we once thought was stable.

Haven't we come to realize that "substance" is more a mental concept than a "thing" in itself?

But I am just an amateur philosopher/theologian. I read things over my head and often misunderstand.

I recently ran into the idea of Quantum Thomism. I haven't evaluated it but I offer two links for you so you can also take a look.

ROB KOONS

Rob Koons is a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. With degrees from Michigan State, Oxford, and UCLA, he specializes in metaphysics and philosophical logic, with...

robkoons.net

The Quantum Thomist

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Philosophy, yes. Interpersonal charity, absolutely. And hopefully the philosophy gets to the methods of interpretation.

When done from an academic, scholarly level, the fuller consideration and evaluation of methods of interpretation resides within what I'm citing as the fields (plural) of Philosophy.

For me, I see Scripture as authoritative, but that Scripture cannot be Nuda Scriptura, Scripture outside of the context of the Church that it was written for and that indeed wrote it. The text and the community are inter-related. Which brings in the witness of the Fathers as helpers understanding how the Church got here.

I don't assume a position of Nuda Scriptura either. But, on the other hand, I only place just so much weight on the point that the text and the community are inter-related, since in my historically sensitive view, there are a good many other contextually relevant factors involved in our individual and corporate evaluations of various theological issues within the Christian faith (like that of Mary's status for veneration). In my view, the factors involved go way beyond merely the witness of the Fathers.

Without getting into the issue of Mary's status, I'll just state that I take a more moderate view of her. One that is less than what my Roman Catholic brethren would apportion to her, but one that is a step more than what my typical evangelical, Protestant brethren would apportion.

At the same time, I'd simply voice my concern that I will only accept a little disparagement from fellow Christians for my own Christian views, whether those other Christians are Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. If I receive a stepping upon my toes that someone like Dr. Marshall apparently thinks he can and will dish out, I won't respond in kind. No, I'll at first be patient and charitable before I become inclined to philosophically yank the rug out from under someone like him.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In regard to doctrine it should be in accordance with scripture and preferably have substantial scriptural backing. (Especially when words like "anathema" and "heretic" are used to describe those who don't believe in that doctrine or parts of it). A lot of Marian doctrine doesn't particularly offer that. Which is why appealing to scripture regarding it is discouraged.

On a certain level, I technically agree. However, thinking a doctrine is in "accordance with Scripture" doesn't solve every conceptual problem we may face since some concepts have natural inferences. One interpretive problem, where boundless contexts inhere, is to discern which concepts have natural and justifiable inferences from those that have little or none. A second interpretive problem is identifying and justifying which epistemological choices are going to be applied in one's own evaluations of a specific theological concept.

Where Mary is concerned, it could be that some Protestants believe too little about her; and Catholics might believe a tad bit too much.

 

[Servus]

On a certain level, I technically agree. However, thinking a doctrine is in "accordance with Scripture" doesn't solve every conceptual problem we may face since some concepts have natural inferences. One interpretive problem, where boundless contexts inhere, is to discern which concepts have natural and justifiable inferences from those that have little or none. A second interpretive problem is identifying and justifying which epistemological choices are going to be applied in one's own evaluations of a specific theological concept.

Where Mary is concerned, it could be that some Protestants believe too little about her; and Catholics might believe a tad bit too much.

That's very philosophical to the point of being indeterminate. But doctrine and dogma should be more dogmatic than that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's very philosophical to the point of being indeterminate. But doctrine and dogma should be more dogmatic than that.

Where historiography and historical evidence and hermeneutics collide, congeal or confound one another in the ongoing saga of nearly 2,000 years of doctrinal deliberation, I'm very indeterminate. Or rather, historically speaking, underdetermined.

And where I assess aspects of the Christian faith philosophically, I eschew pure dogmatism.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Substance is a real thing, as different things are made of different atoms of molecules and atoms. In the spiritual realm, the bread turns into real blood and flesh

If the molecules and atoms do not change what is that enduring "substance" that has changed? Some invisible, immaterial "spiritual" reality? But that is where I think we are really talking more about concepts, like in conceptual nominalism.

In the Eucharist the Paschal mystery is re-presented and brought into the present moment. The reality of Christ's presence is affirmed in a unique interpersonal way that can have a most powerful influence on those who make themselves most available. The "real Presence' is not a thing. It is a person with all the relational and temporal qualities that a "person" has.

I think there has been a great deal of reflation on the Eucharist exploring the fullness of its reality. It just seems to me that using medieval scholastic terminology, that honestly, few people today understand, can use some development, especially in the light of Process thought.

But I am eager to read more of the Quantum Thomist.

 

[chevyontheriver]

When done from an academic, scholarly level, the fuller consideration and evaluation of methods of interpretation resides within what I'm citing as the fields (plural) of Philosophy.

Agreed.

I don't assume a position of Nuda Scriptura either. But, on the other hand, I only place just so much weight on the point that the text and the community are inter-related, since in my historically sensitive view, there are a good many other contextually relevant factors involved in our individual and corporate evaluations of various theological issues within the Christian faith (like that of Mary's status for veneration). In my view, the factors involved go way beyond merely the witness of the Fathers.

And I'm more Patristic.

Without getting into the issue of Mary's status, I'll just state that I take a more moderate view of her. One that is less than my Roman Catholic brethren would apportion to her, but one that is a step more than what my typical evangelical, Protestant brethren would apportion.

I get it. You aren't ossified though.

At the same time, I'd simply voice my concern that I will only accept a little disparagement from fellow Christians for my own Christian views, whether those other Christians are Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. If I receive a stepping upon my toes that someone like Dr. Marshall apparently thinks he can and will dish out, I won't respond in kind. No, I'll at first be patient and charitable before I become inclined to philosophically yank the rug out from under someone like him.

It's my bishop's job to pronounce anathemas and declare a person to be a heretic. Not my job. I would be wrong to do it. Taylor Marshall is not a bishop.

It's one thing to show that a particular position is heretical, with proper historical and definitional nuance, and another to say that such and such person like the Hammster, is a heretic and is anathema. There is not a tight relationship between the two. Not all who holda heretical opinion are raving heretics. In some cases yes, but mostly no. If he, Hammster, wants to wear the label I guess I can't stop him, but I cannot assign him that label. I doubt my bishop, if I asked, would rush to assign him that label either. So it seems mostly like the Hammster may be owning it all on his own whether or not I would assign it to him. I guess since Taylor Marshall has spoken it's good enough to wear the label.

 

[AlexB23]

If the molecules and atoms do not change what is that enduring "substance" that has changed? Some invisible, immaterial "spiritual" reality? But that is where I think we are really talking more about concepts, like in conceptual nominalism.

In the Eucharist the Paschal mystery is re-presented and brought into the present moment. The reality of Christ's presence is affirmed in a unique interpersonal way that can have a most powerful influence on those who make themselves most available. The "real Presence' is not a thing. It is a person with all the relational and temporal qualities that a "person" has.

I think there has been a great deal of reflation on the Eucharist exploring the fullness of its reality. It just seems to me that using medieval scholastic terminology, that honestly, few people today understand, can use some development, especially in the light of Process thought.

But I am eager to read more of the Quantum Thomist.

Sorry, not a philosopher here.

 

[Hammster]

And yet you quote Dr. Greg Bahnsen to the opposite effect right at the bottom of your post. So I wonder.

In context it’s correct.

 

[Hammster]

But that's just the thing: not everything in the Christian faith resides purely and only on an "argument from Scripture alone."

That’s their problem, not mine.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That’s their problem, not mine.

I'm not understanding your response here, Hammster. What are you trying to say?

 

[Servus]

Where historiography and historical evidence and hermeneutics collide, congeal or confound one another in the ongoing saga of nearly 2,000 years of doctrinal deliberation, I'm very indeterminate. Or rather, historically speaking, underdetermined.

And where I assess aspects of the Christian faith philosophically, I eschew pure dogmatism.

Since the word dogmatism comes from the word dogma, you can't really have one without the other. And being very indeterminate regarding belief and faith sounds like shaky ground. The parable of the man who built his house upon sand rather than a rock comes to mind.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Since the word dogmatism comes from the word dogma, you can't really have one without the other. And being very indeterminate regarding belief and faith sounds like shaky ground. The parable of the man who built his house upon sand rather than a rock comes to mind.

For my own part, I would never conflate the concept of mere dogma with dogmatism or with dogmatic theology. Of course, I eschew all three, and I heartily await the person who is going to "show me" just where the rubber meets the sand ....