The Angels and Us (Mortimer Adler)

[RamistThomist]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[retroGRAD3]

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]

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]

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).

 

[Jeri Tanner]

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]

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).

 

[RamistThomist]

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]

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.