# The Angels and Us (Mortimer Adler)



## RamistThomist (May 11, 2022)

Adler, Mortimer J. _The Angels and Us_. New York: MacMillan, 1982.

This is not a theological-exegetical treatment of angels. That is neither a criticism or a compliment. Adler’s purpose is to give a philosophical explanation, not a theological proof for angels. One might ask, “Why can’t we just go by what the Bible says on angels and leave it at that?” There are several problems with that idea. I learned the hard way that people really do not want to deal with what the ancient Near East, including the Bible, says about malakim and dark spirits. Moreover, logical deductions from sound premises are just as binding. Philosophy is inescapable.

Mortimer Adler limits his analysis to that which philosophy allows one to say about angels. This means at best he can give only an explanation of x, not a proof. This is frustrating at times, but I understand why he does it. The philosophical benefit to such an approach is that it allows him to focus on the mind-body problem, since an angel is a mind without a body. One more preparatory note: I am not necessarily convinced of the Chain of Being model. I grant Adler’s rebuttal to Lovejoy, but I am not so sure he adequately dealt with Samuel Johnson’s criticisms.

Ptolemaic societies had an easier time with philosophical approaches to “planetary intelligences.” For Aristotle, these moved bodies which in turn move others seem a lot like what we would call angels. Quite obviously, “an incorporeal agent could be nothing other than a mind or intelligence.”[1] Even though angels are minds without bodies, they can assume corporeality in their missions to earth.[2] The biblical text itself is quite clear, as Abraham’s visitors ate with him and later _grabbed _Lot and his family. (We will leave aside, of course, Genesis 6:1-4.)

Not surprisingly, Adler’s main guide is Thomas Aquinas, and his main guide to Thomas is Etienne Gilson. This is as it should be. Beginning with Pseudo-Dionysius, Christian reflection saw the angels as a hierarchy. I do not think Pseudo-Dionysius is correct in his taxonomy, but the underlying principle bears reflection. Adler notes: “The descending order of hierarchies…consists in grades of creaturely perfect…The perfection referred to is not moral, but metaphysical—a perfection in the mode of being.”[3] This is the Great Chain of Being, or one series of links in it, anyway.

This chain marks a intellectual mode of perfection. The fewer the ideas, the higher up. This is simplicity in its classical sense. A Seraph, for example, has fewer ideas than a malak, but he comprehends more in those fewer ideas. Is this Chain of Being really necessary? Aquinas thinks so. There would be a gap in reality without them. But can the Great Chain of Being survive modernity’s attacks on it, particularly in the fine book by Arthur Lovejoy?[4] Lovejoy’s actual, if not intended, target is Leibniz, not Aquinas.

When the Great Tradition speaks of a chain of being, it does not have something like arithmetical sequences in mind. Each links differs in kind, not in degree.[5] Moreover, each angel differs with the next by species, assuming, of course, that one accepts Thomas’s account of the angels.

_Hell’s Angels_

This is where Scripture is largely silent. We know Satan fell. We just do not know when. We know it was before man’s fall but after the “Everything is good” pronouncement. Angels, like Adam, were created mutable. If angels were created perfect, then some could not have fallen for obvious reasons. As best as we can tell, the angels that fell, in choosing evil instead of good, did so in the second moment of their existence. Their wills were then locked in place. The angels who obeyed were confirmed in grace.

_The Substance of Angels_

If a substance is a conjunction of form and matter, and angels are immaterial, then either all their forms are the same, and hence all angels are the same angel, or they must differ in some other way. They do so by species. Each angel is its own species.[6] Each angelic species is a conjunction of form and its individual act of existence.

That angels interact with physical matter is clear. How they do so is not as clear. Since they are not physical, they cannot do so physically (except when they assume bodies). It does so by means of spiritual power. An angel “occupies its place intensively by surrounding it with its power.”[7] This might make more sense if we contrast it with humans. When a man fills a place, he does so extensively, by physically occupying that place. Not so with angels.

An angelic mind is purely intellectual. It does not know discursively. When a man knows something, he does so by forming concepts and judgments. Angels know with one act of intuition, but not all angels have the same knowledge. They know by virtue of infused knowledge.

_Conclusion_

Theologians and biblical scholars will wince at some of Adler’s conclusions. His philosophical reticence to affirm theological truths is annoying at times. On the other hand, his analysis is on point and he avoids getting off topic. For those who read the Great Books, this is required reading.


[1] Mortimer Adler, _The Angels and Us_, (New York: MacMillan, 1982), 6.
[2] Adler, _Ibid_, 12.
[3] Ibid, 45.
[4] Arthur Lovejoy, _The Great Chain of Being_, (Cambridge: Harvard, 1971).
[5] Adler, _The Angels_, 62. This also eliminates any fear of pantheism between God and man.
[6] Ibid, 126.
[7] Ibid, 130.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 11, 2022)

Philosophy, "the great tradition", and Aquinas yet again it seems. Honest question, do you put as much time and effort into studying the Bible as you do with the previous three mentioned subjects? This is not just a challenge to you either. I ask myself the same question each day and replace philosophy, GT, and Aquinas with the things that occupy too much of my time.

I believe there is validity in saying “Why can’t we just go by what the Bible says on angels and leave it at that?”. Perhaps God didn't want us to know more about this subject. As far as I can tell it causes many to go off into unknown territory. Also, how does a book like this bring one closer to God? Bring one closer in relationship with our savior Jesus? I believe the warnings in scripture about vain philosophy and always asking question and never arriving at an answer can be applied to much of what we as modern man think is important these days. I try to live by the saying that where scripture speaks. let us speak and where it is silent. let us be silent (I believe John Calvin said this).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 11, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Philosophy, "the great tradition", and Aquinas yet again it seems. Honest question, do you put as much time and effort into studying the Bible as you do with the previous three mentioned subjects? This is not just a challenge to you either. I ask myself the same question each day and replace philosophy, GT, and Aquinas with the things that occupy too much of my time.



Yes. I try to read and analyze my Greek and Hebrew every day. I taught myself Aramaic. I do memory work on the psalms.

I teach English literature and much of my reading is actually part of that, so that's more of a calling issue.

I haven't sat down and "read philosophy" in quite a long time. It might seem like I talk about philosophy a lot, but I just know that philosophical implications are inevitable and I point them out. Not doing that is dangerous. There is a certain Calvinistic Baptist seminary that mocks philosophy and Aquinas. They are functional Socinians. Some are borderline Arians. All are biblicists. That's what happens when one ignores philosophy.

Aquinas is a different issue. Aside from SCG that I finished the other day, I haven't read much of him recently.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 11, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> “Why can’t we just go by what the Bible says on angels and leave it at that?”. Perhaps God didn't want us to know more about this subject.



The problem is, at least as regards to angels, is that people who say that are more influenced by Cartesian philosophy than they care to admit. Read my review on Heiser's _Demons_ where I go in detail on the Hebrew. It's not simply "leaving it at the Bible." 


retroGRAD3 said:


> Also, how does a book like this bring one closer to God?



Literally points me towards the transcendent God. 



retroGRAD3 said:


> Bring one closer in relationship with our savior Jesus?



See previous answer.



retroGRAD3 said:


> I believe the warnings in scripture about vain philosophy and always asking question and never arriving at an answer can be applied to much of what we as modern man think is important these days.



Who said anything about never arriving at an answer? I arrived at quite a few.


retroGRAD3 said:


> I try to live by the saying that where scripture speaks. let us speak and where it is silent. let us be silent (I believe John Calvin said this).



That's nice but the saying falls apart when we deal with things like the Trinity. And we aren't Manicheans. Human reason is a part of us. Logical deductions from good premises are binding, vain philosophy or not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 11, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Yes. I try to read and analyze my Greek and Hebrew every day. I taught myself Aramaic. I do memory work on the psalms.
> 
> I teach English literature and much of my reading is actually part of that, so that's more of a calling issue.
> 
> ...


And on the flip side you have other baptist seminaries that are suggesting Papist materials and encouraging more use of "the great tradition". I don't grant your labels of Dr. White and his crew. I believe the points he has been bringing up lately are valid and important to point out. I know we disagree on this.

I hold to Sola Scriptura. I suppose I am a biblicist too then. However, I believe the following is true:

2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

If believing the above makes me a "biblicist", then so be it.

I also do not agree on the importance of philosophy as a main subject in Christianity. I can see where it has it's uses, but it must always be under scripture.



RamistThomist said:


> That's nice but the saying falls apart when we deal with things like the Trinity. And we aren't Manicheans. Human reason is a part of us. Logical deductions from good premises are binding, vain philosophy or not.



I don't agree with this either. I think you can arrive at the trinity without the use of other materials. The Bible clearly lays out the trinity without using the specific word. And, I believe it is enough. Logical deductions are good, but we are fallen, so outside of the guidance of scripture and the Holy Spirit it is not going to work on it's own.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (May 11, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> And on the flip side you have other baptist seminaries that are suggesting Papist materials and encouraging more use of "the great tradition".



Like what Samuel Rutherford did? In the last book I read by Samuel Rutherford I kept a tally of which authors he used favorably. He often used Catholics more than Calvin. 


retroGRAD3 said:


> I don't grant your labels of Dr. White and his crew. I believe the points he has been bringing up lately are valid and important to point out. I know we disagree on this.



All he has to do is affirm what the Reformed churches have historically taught on divine simplicity. He refuses correction.


retroGRAD3 said:


> 2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
> 
> If believing the above makes me a "biblicist", then so be it.



That's not what sola scriptura means. It means Scripture is the norm that norms lesser norms.


retroGRAD3 said:


> I can see where it has it's uses, but it must always be under scripture.



No one here disagrees with that. I am simply saying it is inevitable.


retroGRAD3 said:


> Logical deductions are good, but we are fallen, so outside of the guidance of scripture and the Holy Spirit it is not going to work on it's own.



What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It's not clear why our fallen reason won't mess up our interpretation of Scripture. Here is where philosophy is inevitable in Scriptural arguments (I did leave my BDAG at home, so I will double check later). We'll take phrases like, "Doth not even nature itself teach you" and then ask, "Where does Scripture gloss what nature means in the original Greek?" Of course, it doesn't do that. If we try to find out what nature means by consulting Greek sources, then we are going to philosophical texts.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 11, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It's not clear why our fallen reason won't mess up our interpretation of Scripture. Here is where philosophy is inevitable in Scriptural arguments (I did leave my BDAG at home, so I will double check later). We'll take phrases like, "Doth not even nature itself teach you" and then ask, "Where does Scripture gloss what nature means in the original Greek?" Of course, it doesn't do that. If we try to find out what nature means by consulting Greek sources, then we are going to philosophical texts.


So, Greek philosophy then is required to properly interpret scripture? I don't know what a BDAG is either. Also, when it comes to interpretation of scripture for a true believer, do you have any concept of the Holy Spirit helping?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 11, 2022)

I guess one other question would be then, how is this any different than Rome saying you need the magisterium and the Pope to properly interpret scripture?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 11, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> So, Greek philosophy then is required to properly interpret scripture? I don't know what a BDAG is either. Also, when it comes to interpretation of scripture for a true believer, do you have any concept of the Holy Spirit helping?



No, but an understanding of ancient cultures is often necessary. BDAG = the standard Lexicon of New Testament Greek.

The Holy Spirit also gave teachers do the church.



retroGRAD3 said:


> I guess one other question would be then, how is this any different than Rome saying you need the magisterium and the Pope to properly interpret scripture?



Rome claims infallibility. I do not. Rome claims magisterial authority. We, the Reformed, claim ministerial authority.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 11, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> No, but an understanding of ancient cultures is often necessary. BDAG = the standard Lexicon of New Testament Greek.


How many Christians throughout time do you think had a good understand of ancient cultures? How many of the peasants in the medieval church, how many in the pews today? 

Is an understanding of ancient cultures necessary? If that is the case, would that not make it above scripture? I don't disagree it can be useful, very useful in some cases, but to say it is necessary seems dangerous to me. 

Perhaps this is where you would say, this is why God gave us teachers.

Again, with 2 Tim 3:16-17, I believe everything we need for salvation and holiness is contained within the pages of scripture. Can we go out and see what others have thought throughout church history, sure, but when it comes to how a man is saved, I believe the Bible is sufficient.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 11, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> How many Christians throughout time do you think had a good understand of ancient cultures? How many of the peasants in the medieval church, how many in the pews today?
> 
> Is an understanding of ancient cultures necessary? If that is the case, would that not make it above scripture? I don't disagree it can be useful, very useful in some cases, but to say it is necessary seems dangerous to me.
> 
> ...



All I said was a summary of every Reformed and evangelical textbook on hermeneutics. If we take your position consistently, then there isn't a point to learn Greek and Hebrew, since the Holy Spirit and a good translation are sufficient.

Scripture is plain enough to save people but not all things in Scripture are equally clear.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 11, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> All I said was a summary of every Reformed and evangelical textbook on hermeneutics. If we take your position consistently, then there isn't a point to learn Greek and Hebrew, since the Holy Spirit and a good translation are sufficient.


Do you not believe the HS and a good translation are sufficient? Could you go much deeper with other supporting texts and learning Greek and Hebrew, yes absolutely, but are they necessary? It looks like your next quote answers the question.


RamistThomist said:


> Scripture is plain enough to save people but not all things in Scripture are equally clear.


I don't disagree with this either. Going back to the beginning though, if God did not feel it necessary to reveal more things about angels and demons in his word, shouldn't that be somewhat instructive on how much time we devote to the study of such things?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 11, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Do you not believe the HS and a good translation are sufficient? Could you go much deeper with other supporting texts and learning Greek and Hebrew, yes absolutely, but are they necessary? It looks like your next quote answers the question.
> 
> I don't disagree with this either. Going back to the beginning though, if God did not feel it necessary to reveal more things about angels and demons in his word, shouldn't that be somewhat instructive on how much time we devote to the study of such things?



Which one of my propositions about angels is false?

I don't see how this is spending too much time on angels. The book wasn't even 200 pages and most of it dealt with the mind-body problem than the speculations of angels. In fact, if you would have interacted with the actual review you would have seen that.

Moreover, by "Great Tradition" I meant the Great Books Series. This is part of a conversation which educated free men have been having for over 2,000 years.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 11, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Which one of my propositions about angels is false?
> 
> I don't see how this is spending too much time on angels. The book wasn't even 200 pages and most of it dealt with the mind-body problem than the speculations of angels. In fact, if you would have interacted with the actual review you would have seen that.
> 
> Moreover, by "Great Tradition" I meant the Great Books Series. This is part of a conversation which educated free men have been having for over 2,000 years.


Fair enough I suppose.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 11, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> BDAG = the standard Lexicon of New Testament Greek.


Side question: Is this the book you are referencing: https://www.heritagebooks.org/produ...eek-theological-terms-2nd-edition-muller.html


----------



## Taylor (May 11, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Side question: Is this the book you are referencing: https://www.heritagebooks.org/produ...eek-theological-terms-2nd-edition-muller.html


No, Muller's is a theological dictionary. Jacob is referencing a lexicon of the New Testament and contemporary literature. You can find it here.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (May 11, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Side question: Is this the book you are referencing: https://www.heritagebooks.org/produ...eek-theological-terms-2nd-edition-muller.html



No. That is an excellent book and probably the most important reference tool in my library.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 11, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> No. That is an excellent book and probably the most important reference tool in my library.


I can see that from your blog. I will pick that one up. 

The other is quite expensive. Also, at my level, I am not sure how much good I would get out of it.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 11, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I can see that from your blog. I will pick that one up.
> 
> The other is quite expensive. Also, at my level, I am not sure how much good I would get out of it.



That's true. I found mine for .50 at a book sale. For 99% of things, the standard Barclay Newman Greek Lexicon (for around $10) will do whatever you need to do. Even better if one has a Greek package from Logos.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 11, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I can see that from your blog. I will pick that one up.



When I stopped flirting with Eastern Orthodoxy and thought about going Lutheran, this is the book that made me Reformed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 13, 2022)

“A man may be theologically knowing and spiritually ignorant.” –Stephen Charnock

I have known men wise in philosophy, in the Scriptures, in doctrine and theology, in various academic and literary disciplines, yet for all their learning and wisdom – true intellectual prowess – are devoid of spiritual understanding and sight, which is not of man but God.

The simple washerwoman with her Bible, in the Lord’s presence, knows more than they. I am reminded of the William Cowper poem:
_________

[Voltaire and the Lace-worker]

*Yon Cottager*

Yon cottager, who weaves at her own door,
Pillow and bobbins all her little store;
Content though mean, and cheerful if not gay,
Shuffling her threads about the live-long day,
Just earns a scanty pittance, and at night
Lies down secure, her heart and pocket light;
She, for her humble sphere by nature fit,
Has little understanding, and no wit;
Receives no praise; but though her lot be such
(Toilsome and indigent), she renders much;
Just knows, and knows no more, her Bible true –
A truth the brilliant Frenchman never knew;
And in that charter reads, with sparkling eyes,
Her title to a treasure in the skies.
O happy peasant! O unhappy bard!
His the mere tinsel, hers the rich reward ;
He praised, perhaps, for ages yet to come,
She never heard of half a mile from home;
He lost in errors his vain heart prefers,
She safe in the simplicity of hers.​

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (May 13, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> “A man may be theologically knowing and spiritually ignorant.” –Stephen Charnock
> 
> I have known men wise in philosophy, in the Scriptures, in doctrine and theology, in various academic and literary disciplines, yet for all their learning and wisdom – true intellectual prowess – are devoid of spiritual understanding and sight, which is not of man but God.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure what this has to do with me or with the premise of the book. We all know someone can be theologically ignorant and spiritually learned, yet no one (outside of Anabaptists) are saying we should get rid of seminaries. Same with reading theology books. We might "Amen" the passage from Charnock, but no one is going to throw his library away tomorrow.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 13, 2022)

And more to the "Great Tradition" and "Great Books" and really anything by Adler. I know many here are into various educational models, most of which include some interaction with the Great Books. Adler is the guy that got that started. That's why I reviewed this book. It's joining a larger conversation that started 3,000 years ago. Some of that conversation is here.








great books series – American Tory


Posts about great books series written by J. B. Aitken




tentsofshem.wordpress.com


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 16, 2022)

Jacob,

I have benefited from your learning, and your reviews and various articles. Just a caution, though: a godly man or woman may indeed ignore philosophy as such without intellectual harm, if their hearts and minds have the word of Christ dwelling richly in them, and they dwell in Him. They are sealed, treasured, and protected. I think you know this.

One may read various writers to learn their philosophies, but this is different than the study of philosophy per se. It simply is not everyone’s cup of tea. Yes, philosophers are indeed among those who powerfully influenced the zeitgeist we live in, as Carl Trueman opens up in his, _Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution_ – a simplified version of his larger, _The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self_. The former, which I am reading on Kindle (a necessity in a country where getting books is costly and difficult), is a gem, and enables understanding of our time. As does the reading of other philosophical writers the past couple of centuries; I’m not talking of philosophers per se, but men like Dostoevsky, Hesse, Camus, Freud, Wilhelm Reich, sci fi writers, etc.

You have a gift, but please do not look down on those whose constitutions differ. I am not saying you do, but please be careful. Those in the Faith with gifts should use them to edify and illumine – build up – those without such gifts.

I am learning – and being humbled in the process – preaching to and teaching men and women who, while having fairly good English skills, are novices in theological thought, language, and concepts (I am referring to my Nigerian brothers, who comprise much of my congregation) and so the KJV language is difficult for them (though it is in fact the Bible some of them use), and I must use easier versions at times so they may understand. Romans, which I am going through expositorily, is dense and syntactically complex in parts, so I have to avail myself of versions that simplify. I have come to appreciate the simplicity and clarity of the ESV, NIV ‘84, and NKJV, though I correct substantial deviations from the base original languages underlying the AV.

So for me it is a balancing act between real edification and Scriptural integrity. I figure you might appreciate the nuances I am talking of! I wonder if you struggle with this in your own sphere of spiritual teaching?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 16, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Carl Trueman opens up in his, _Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution_ – a simplified version of his larger, _The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self_. The former, which I am reading on Kindle (a necessity in a country where getting books is costly and difficult), is a gem, and enables understanding of our time.


 Indeed. I would point out that Trueman would have been completely incapable of writing that book if he didn't have a strong background in philosophy.


Jerusalem Blade said:


> You have a gift, but please do not look down on those whose constitutions differ. I am not saying you do, but please be careful. Those in the Faith with gifts should use them to edify and illumine – build up – those without such gifts.



Thank you, but with all due respect I didn't bring this up. I never said in my original review that one had to have philosophy to do x. I was told I was going beyond what the Bible said on angels (although I simply gave a one page summary of what the church has historically taught on angels). I then asked which of my premises were wrong. I got no answer. 


Jerusalem Blade said:


> I figure you might appreciate the nuances I am talking of! I wonder if you struggle with this in your own sphere of spiritual teaching?



My editor keeps me very, very humble on a weekly basis. Trust me, I am quite painfully aware of my limitations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 16, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Thank you, but with all due respect I didn't bring this up. I never said in my original review that one had to have philosophy to do x. I was told I was going beyond what the Bible said on angels (although I simply gave a one page summary of what the church has historically taught on angels). I then asked which of my premises were wrong. I got no answer.


I believe I gave an answer, we just didn't disagree. To be clear, I took a holistic approach. I didn't understand how reading a book by a papist (seemingly a liberal one based on his Episcopalian background before becoming a papist) philosopher on Angels and Demons that goes beyond scripture is useful for our walk with God. I maintain that it isn't useful because it is teaching on subjects that God himself has deemed not to reveal more to us. The book is just speculation. I am not sure we should be forming our theology based on speculations. Also, I believe philosophy can be useful, but it can never be in a place over or even beside scripture. All philosophy must be filtered through scripture. Otherwise, how is this any different that what Rome says that Bible and "Tradition" are equal?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 16, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I believe I gave an answer, we just didn't disagree. To be clear, I took a holistic approach. I didn't understand how reading a book by a papist (seemingly a liberal one based on his Episcopalian background before becoming a papist) philosopher on Angels and Demons that goes beyond scripture is useful for our walk with God



And if the criteria for a good book is how does it develop my walk with Christ, then you would have a point. I maintain, however, that the nature of a good book is a bit more broad than this.

You haven't said how it goes beyond Scripture. As to speculation, Adler simply summarized the historic Christian teaching on angels. Not only did he not go beyond Scripture, he barely scratched the surface.


retroGRAD3 said:


> Also, I believe philosophy can be useful, but it can never be in a place over or even beside scripture.



No one on this thread ever advocated that.



retroGRAD3 said:


> All philosophy must be filtered through scripture.



I agree, but that statement doesn't tell me much. In order to filter the philosophical meaning of the word "nature" through Scripture, I would have to know what _phusis _means in Greek. Yet, when I consult the lexicons, I find them reverting back to earlier philosophical sources. Now we have a problem. Luther did the same thing when he went back to the Greek to tell Rome that justification doesn't mean _justificare_, to make righteous.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 16, 2022)

And people really don't want to have a conversation on what the Bible actually teaches. This is going to the original languages and thought patterns.





Demons (Michael Heiser)


Heiser, Michael. Demons. Lexham Press. I’ve been preparing this review for about 4 years. True, Heiser’s book has only been out around a year or so, but I knew he would write this book and I wanted to be ready. He does not disappoint. It is the only book of its kind. There are evangelical...




puritanboard.com









The Bible Unfiltered (Michael Heiser)


Heiser, Michael. The Bible Unfiltered: Approaching Scripture on its own terms. Lexham Press, 2017. Kindle. Michael Heiser takes several of his core ideas and distills them into a short, readable book. Each chapter is only several pages long. If you are familiar with his work, then most of...




puritanboard.com









On Demon Possession & Exorcism Today


This is a personal topic for myself, Travis Fentiman, MDiv., LPN. Until I became a nurse, I never had any first-hand experience with demonic possession. But since then, after talking to and observing many persons who hear ‘voices’ in their head, I have become persuaded that most...




puritanboard.com


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 16, 2022)

I have no doubt you can continue to talk circles around me. I put my thoughts out there, we disagree. 

As another side note, I don't think Heiser is a very stable theologian. He appears to be very hostile to many of the things that "historic Christian teaching" would teach, specifically God's sovereignty in election.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 16, 2022)

To recap, all Adler really advanced concerning angels is the following:

1) They are minds without bodies. In other words, they are immaterial. I can't imagine how that is speculation.
2) Satan, better known as Hallel Ben Shachar, and some other spirits fell. We don't know when. Again, it's hard to see how this is speculation.
3) Descending hierarchies. This could be speculation, but all hinges upon whether we hold to a chain of being ontology. If chain of being is true, then (3) necessarily follows. However, I am not persuaded it is true. While this is speculation, this is identical to what every single Christian believed until modern times.
4) If angels are real, then materialism is false. We are bound upon pain of heresy to affirm this truth.

So there it is. I fail to see how this is speculation. It's been asserted that it is, but no proof has been given. (3) might be speculation. I grant that.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 16, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I have no doubt you can continue to talk circles around me. I put my thoughts out there, we disagree.
> 
> As another side note, I don't think Heiser is a very stable theologian. He appears to be very hostile to many of the things that "historic Christian teaching" would teach, specifically God's sovereignty in election.



You asserted that this was speculation. I wanted to know which proposition was speculative. True, Heiser has problems. But if his Hebrew and Greek is wrong, I would like to know where. And for what it's worth, I would probably agree with Bonaventure, Augustine, and Aquinas over Heiser.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 16, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> To recap, all Adler really advanced concerning angels is the following:
> 
> 1) They are minds without bodies. In other words, they are immaterial. I can't imagine how that is speculation.
> 2) Satan, better known as Hallel Ben Shachar, and some other spirits fell. We don't know when. Again, it's hard to see how this is speculation.
> ...


I understand what you are saying and I can see how several of these could be considered not speculative. However, does Adler use chapter and verse for any of them in his book? Or, is it all just relying on tradition? If I am going to be convinced of something, it ultimately must come from scripture.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 16, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I understand what you are saying and I can see how several of these could be considered not speculative. However, does Adler use chapter and verse for any of them in his book? Or, is it all just relying on tradition? If I am going to be convinced of something, it ultimately must come from scripture.



Yes, he uses chapter and verse. Again, though, proof-texting isn't always the most reliable guide. But for what it's worth, he uses it.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 16, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Yes, he uses chapter and verse. Again, though, proof-texting isn't always the most reliable guide. But for what it's worth, he uses it.


Agree on the proof-texting comment. And, it is good to hear there is some bible involved. It is worth a lot to me.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 16, 2022)

As to chapter and verse, do we really need one to say that an angel is immaterial? People used to think I believed angels were material (I didn't), so I never expected to defend their immateriality. Yes, there is the verse in Hebrews where it says "his ministers are spirits, angels flames of fire."


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 16, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> As to chapter and verse, do we really need one to say that an angel is immaterial? People used to think I believed angels were material (I didn't), so I never expected to defend their immateriality. Yes, there is the verse in Hebrews where it says "his ministers are spirits, angels flames of fire."


Yes, I think it's necessary. You are very well read, but MOST are not. That is why we have so many cults. Best to teach from the Bible than to assume everyone has this common body of knowledge. I feel like all traditions must be challenged as well, we are commanded to be like Bereans. If a traditional teaching it good, it will pass the test of scripture. If not, it should be tossed out no matter how much history it has (this is not to be done lightly though).


----------



## RamistThomist (May 16, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Best to teach from the Bible than to assume everyone has this common body of knowledge.



I agree, but the Church of Christ minister down the road also "teaches from the Bible," yet he and I come to radically different conclusions, so eventually these foundational issues are going to come up.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 16, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I agree, but the Church of Christ minister down the road also "teaches from the Bible," yet he and I come to radically different conclusions, so eventually these foundational issues are going to come up.


Right, then go to battle with the Bible using proper exegesis and hermeneutics. Bringing in tradition will only make things worse in my mind, because everyone has their father's and teaching that has been "passed down". Is this going to work perfectly, no. Is there still going to be cults, yes. But I still feel starting at the foundation for battle is ultimately where the fight should be fought.

For example, if someone new to Christianity wants to know what they should believe on Angels and Demons, where do you start? Would it be Adler? Or, would it be the chapters and verses in scripture that speak on them?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 16, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> For example, if someone new to Christianity wants to know what they should believe on Angels and Demons, where do you start? Would it be Adler? Or, would it be the chapters and verses in scripture that speak on them?



I don't mind going to the chapters and verses on angels and demons. A lot of Reformed people got upset when I did so in the past.

But even then we don't get around the foundational issues. When Hebrews said his angels are "spirits," is it using pneuma in the Philonic sense of immateriality or is he using it in the more Hebraic sense of _ruach_, breath or force?


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 16, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I don't mind going to the chapters and verses on angels and demons. A lot of Reformed people got upset when I did so in the past.
> 
> But even then we don't get around the foundational issues. When Hebrews said his angels are "spirits," is it using pneuma in the Philonic sense of immateriality or is he using it in the more Hebraic sense of _ruach_, breath or force?


I see your point. However, the other question would be, is an extensive knowledge of angels and demons necessary for the Christian? Does what we believe change core doctrines, similar to something like our eschatological view? I can think of arguments on both sides, so I would leave that to Christian liberty.

On a side note, I was not one of the people that got upset when you brought up chapters and verses in the past on this subject (I believe you could see me lurking on those forums). It actually challenged me quite a bit. It got me into the text and it got me reading a lot of commentaries.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 16, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> is an extensive knowledge of angels and demons necessary for the Christian?



Depends on what one means by "extensive?" I would say "No" but I don't know what extensive would be.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 16, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Depends on what one means by "extensive?" I would say "No" but I don't know what extensive would be.


covering a large area; having a great range:









extensive


1. covering a large area; having a great range: 2. covering a large area…




dictionary.cambridge.org





This one would work for what I had in mind


----------



## RamistThomist (May 16, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> covering a large area; having a great range:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In that case, no. My whole point, though, was that I never went beyond Scripture (except on possibly whether chain of being entails).


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 16, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> In that case, no. My whole point, though, was that I never went beyond Scripture (except on possibly whether chain of being entails).


Understood. I agree after discussing, not much goes beyond scripture (maybe none). My point was, I just want to see the scripture or at least know that scripture was being used.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 16, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Understood. I agree after discussing, not much goes beyond scripture (maybe none). My point was, I just want to see the scripture or at least know that scripture was being used.



I can probably take screenshots of the Scripture references when I get home. I suppose I was taken aback at first because his initial premises were on the most basic level, such that angels don't have bodies, to which the universal church, including Protestantism, agrees. I didn't think we needed Scriptural passages for that, though they do exist.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 16, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I can probably take screenshots of the Scripture references when I get home. I suppose I was taken aback at first because his initial premises were on the most basic level, such that angels don't have bodies, to which the universal church, including Protestantism, agrees. I didn't think we needed Scriptural passages for that, though they do exist.


I think we assume a lot when it comes to what people may or may not know already, especially on this topic. Even when it comes to angels and bodies. In the scriptures, people saw angels, so they had some sort of manifestation in the physical realm. If you tried to touch them, would your hand simply pass through? I think scripture is always welcome when we try to answer these questions. But again, are answering these types of questions even necessary?

I was more pushing back against what I perceived as philosophy being primary and scripture being put in the backseat (papists do this often with the Bible). It sounds like after discussing, this is not the case. I have no reason not to trust you. Remember, some of my initial comments were also rooted in some of the events going on around the topic (philosophy and Christianity).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (May 16, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> his analysis is on point


The question I have after reading through the review and comments is, What is Adler's analysis-- what is he trying to ultimately state about angels?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 16, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> The question I have after reading through the review and comments is, What is Adler's analysis-- what is he trying to ultimately state about angels?



They are minds without bodies and the same arguments for and against angels are often the same arguments for and against dualism (belief in body and soul). It is also a reflection on Thomistic metaphysics (which was by and large the same view the Reformers held).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 16, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> But again, are answering these types of questions even necessary?



Necessary for what? Salvation, no. Answers to such questions, though, often reveal what we think about the material and immaterial worlds. Answers to these questions can reveal what we believe about substances and the like. 

If we say, "Is x really even necessary?" then why stop the chain at angels? Most of the loci in Christian theology probably isn't necessary if all is needed is to be saved.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 16, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Necessary for what? Salvation, no. Answers to such questions, though, often reveal what we think about the material and immaterial worlds. Answers to these questions can reveal what we believe about substances and the like.
> 
> If we say, "Is x really even necessary?" then why stop the chain at angels? Most of the loci in Christian theology probably isn't necessary if all is needed is to be saved.


Necessary for salvation would be the primary "necessary" I had in mind. Beyond that, it sounds like we just have different interests when it comes to other various topics in theology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

