The Nature of Fallen Man

[CONSPICILLUM]

The church fathers, like all who follow, are no more righteous nor wise than we are today.  They were neither inspired nor infallible.  The councils themselves were neither.

I was not intimating anything to the contrary. There is no Magisterium, but there is a Ministerium of core doctrines and their overall framework and categories that were well addressed by the Ante-Nicene Fathers in particular. Though in general the Believers of the early church were no more righteous or wise than we are today, I certainly haven’t met any Polycarp or Basil equivalents in modernity. Polycarp was taken for martyrdom and wouldn’t burn, and the blood from his spear-pierced side put out the fire. I don’t see any of those types running around.

My point was that they dealt with negative theology well. So when I see some rogue trying to innovate and insist the Son and Holy Spirit are expressions of God in creation (strong implications of createdness, whether celestial or terrestrial, i.e. Arianism or Unitarianism) or forms of God (strong implications of modality, therefore Sabellianism), and that it’s their own intellectuality that needs to be satisfied by used of terms, then I’m going to reference the vocabulary of the Patristics (specifically the Cappadocian and Chalcedonian terminology against such heresies).

I wasn’t speaking of inerrancy or infallibility and canonical inspiraton of any humans or of any council. But I’m also not going to endorse the mini-popery of individual false concepts any more than the Papacy. It’s not a free-for-all to avoid lexicography and rehash that which has already been eliminated and/or established as core doctrine.

While we do indeed stand in their historic shadows, ancient existence and group consensus are nit the end of inquiry.

Aristotelian Teleology shouldn’t be employed, either. The newer something is doesn’t mean it’s better or more correct. I’ll take the consensus of Patristics over some random guy on a forum using aberrant language when he doesn’t even adhere to anything like Original Sin or authentic Trinity doctrine terminology while aligning himself with heresy and heretics.

I think he may mean well in his own way, but have you read his posts? You seem to be a theologically sound kind of guy. You even posted the Lutheran Satire video about Modalism, so it isn’t just me, right?

Otherwise the entire Protestant reformation is in error.

Are you contending the Protestant reformation is not in error? Thel landscape of doctrinal diversity would disagree. There isn’t homogenous consensus anywhere between the many groups. (And I’m not speaking in terms of the tired trope of there being 40k denominations, because there aren’t. But there are a number of distinct “trees” of theology that aren’t in agreement.)

Yes, the Reformation needed to happen because of the corruption of the Roman Church, but that doesn’t automatically throw Ante-Nicene doctrinal formulation under the bus. I’d give anything to be as astute as the Cappadocians or Chrysostom or Athanasius. If you know any modern counterparts, I’d like to meet them and read their writings.

[CONSPICILLUM]

Careful.

You are reading way too much in

Nit all of the ECF and the councils were bad

All I was saying is that none of them were infallible

There is tremendous truth to be learned from our forefathers in the faith

This is what I was saying. Why rehash terminology that has already been addressed ad infinitum for centuries before Rome was in schism?

[RandyPNW]

The church fathers, like all who follow, are no more righteous nor wise than we are today.  They were neither inspired nor infallible.  The councils themselves were neither.

I was not intimating anything to the contrary. There is no Magisterium, but there is a Ministerium of core doctrines and their overall framework and categories that were well addressed by the Ante-Nicene Fathers in particular. Though in general the Believers of the early church were no more righteous or wise than we are today, I certainly haven’t met any Polycarp or Basil equivalents in modernity. Polycarp was taken for martyrdom and wouldn’t burn, and the blood from his spear-pierced side put out the fire. I don’t see any of those types running around.

My point was that they dealt with negative theology well. So when I see some rogue trying to innovate and insist the Son and Holy Spirit are expressions of God in creation (strong implications of createdness, whether celestial or terrestrial, i.e. Arianism or Unitarianism) or forms of God (strong implications of modality, therefore Sabellianism), and that it’s their own intellectuality that needs to be satisfied by used of terms, then I’m going to reference the vocabulary of the Patristics (specifically the Cappadocian and Chalcedonian terminology against such heresies).

I wasn’t speaking of inerrancy or infallibility and canonical inspiraton of any humans or of any council. But I’m also not going to endorse the mini-popery of individual false concepts any more than the Papacy. It’s not a free-for-all to avoid lexicography and rehash that which has already been eliminated and/or established as core doctrine.

While we do indeed stand in their historic shadows, ancient existence and group consensus are nit the end of inquiry.

Aristotelian Teleology shouldn’t be employed, either. The newer something is doesn’t mean it’s better or more correct. I’ll take the consensus of Patristics over some random guy on a forum using aberrant language when he doesn’t even adhere to anything like Original Sin or authentic Trinity doctrine terminology while aligning himself with heresy and heretics.

I think he may mean well in his own way, but have you read his posts? You seem to be a theologically sound kind of guy. You even posted the Lutheran Satire video about Modalism, so it isn’t just me, right?

Otherwise the entire Protestant reformation is in error.

Are you contending the Protestant reformation is not in error? Thel landscape of doctrinal diversity would disagree. There isn’t homogenous consensus anywhere between the many groups. (And I’m not speaking in terms of the tired trope of there being 40k denominations, because there aren’t. But there are a number of distinct “trees” of theology that aren’t in agreement.)

Yes, the Reformation needed to happen because of the corruption of the Roman Church, but that doesn’t automatically throw Ante-Nicene doctrinal formulation under the bus. I’d give anything to be as astute as the Cappadocians or Chrysostom or Athanasius. If you know any modern counterparts, I’d like to meet them and read their writings.

Brother, you don't seem to understand what I've said about the Trinity or Original Sin. None of it is heterodox, though I use my own language of infinite/finite realities. The idea of 3 Persons and 1 Substance is at the heart of everything I've said to *explain* how I distinguish between the 3 Persons of the Trinity--so I'm not modalistic.

This isn't just an effort at trying to be original. I was in a modalistic cult for a short time, and found myself forced into trying to understand the problem of modalism vs. the Trinity. I tried to discuss this with Christian Research Institute in S. CA a long time ago.

My view of Original Sin is not "weird" because I believe sin is a contagion. Most of what you say is simply throwing your lot in with the Cappadocians. Fine, I like them too! But you've not pointed out one single thing that is heterodox about my beliefs.

[RandyPNW]

I was not intimating anything to the contrary. There is no Magisterium, but there is a Ministerium of core doctrines and their overall framework and categories that were well addressed by the Ante-Nicene Fathers in particular. Though in general the Believers of the early church were no more righteous or wise than we are today, I certainly haven’t met any Polycarp or Basil equivalents in modernity. Polycarp was taken for martyrdom and wouldn’t burn, and the blood from his spear-pierced side put out the fire. I don’t see any of those types running around.

Leaving legends aside, together with "hero-worship," I do feel gratitude for the Church Fathers who had to express apostolic doctrine in the context of the Roman world. I understand there were differences between Latin expressions and Greek expressions, which caused differences of perspective.

I understand a school in Alexandria may prefer to emphasize one thing, whereas a school in Syria may prefer to emphasize another thing. But just to translate biblical language into the language of their own vicinity was noble and important for the future of the Church. I don't have a great "bird's eye" view of it all, as you seem to have. But this is what I've read over the years.

My point was that they dealt with negative theology well. So when I see some rogue trying to innovate and insist the Son and Holy Spirit are expressions of God in creation (strong implications of createdness, whether celestial or terrestrial, i.e. Arianism or Unitarianism) or forms of God (strong implications of modality, therefore Sabellianism), and that it’s their own intellectuality that needs to be satisfied by used of terms, then I’m going to reference the vocabulary of the Patristics (specifically the Cappadocian and Chalcedonian terminology against such heresies).

The Church Fathers had to deal with "negative issues" because there were always those who wished to eliminate the part of the Gospel in which a spiritual change is required. And so, there was the effort to turn the doctrine of internal faith into a doctrine of ritual and ceremony. Works displaced Faith.

Translating this into Christology a true believer would have to insist that Christ was real human flesh, as opposed to Docetism. Just as Christ was real God and real Man, we must be truly transformed, spiritually.

I certainly don't subscribe to Modalism or to Arianism. Christ has to be full God and full Man, indicating that God can actually transform us as men for real. If we know Jesus was divine we can believe we can also be spiritually transformed to be like he is--participants in the divine nature. We do not share in his Deity, but we participate in his divine virtues.

So yes, the Trinitarians were dealing with the problems of removing the reality of Christ's human nature as it expressed real divine virtue. This in turn called upon followers to express the same virtue in their own lives, and not just engage in Christian observances.

This is just the way I look at the Doctrine of the Trinity and other doctrines, as a way of perceiving our own need to be spiritually transformed. I've discovered that many of the heresies in Christian history were an attempt to go back to a pagan view of knowledge that denies supernatural revelation. And this is what is needed to be spiritually transformed.

I think he may mean well in his own way, but have you read his posts? You seem to be a theologically sound kind of guy. You even posted the Lutheran Satire video about Modalism, so it isn’t just me, right?

Are you speaking of my posts? I loved the Lutheran Satire video about Modalism. But that doesn't say a thing that I don't agree with.

Are you contending the Protestant reformation is not in error? Thel landscape of doctrinal diversity would disagree. There isn’t homogenous consensus anywhere between the many groups. (And I’m not speaking in terms of the tired trope of there being 40k denominations, because there aren’t. But there are a number of distinct “trees” of theology that aren’t in agreement.)

Your love for the Church Fathers should recommend that there is, in fact, a near-universal unifying doctrine that all genuine church denominations adhere to. It's called the Creeds, even with the few differences involved.

It is, by the way, a misconception to think that different denominations must mean doctrinal differences or rigid divisions. Quite often denominations evolved due to the political order that existed in the area where a church family grew.

Differences between denominations were like differences between siblings. However, denominational differences sometimes became carnal and in fact evil, just like any other institution can become corrupt at times.

I agree that the Reformation was needed to correct Catholic errors just like any church denomination needs, after some time, reform. Over time institutions age and take on errors that need to be corrected. Otherwise, they will become monsters or just die on the vine.

[Athanasius]

Brother, you don't seem to understand what I've said about the Trinity or Original Sin. None of it is heterodox, though I use my own language of infinite/finite realities. The idea of 3 Persons and 1 Substance is at the heart of everything I've said to *explain* how I distinguish between the 3 Persons of the Trinity--so I'm not modalistic.

Weren't we just discussing, in another thread, your view that (1) theophanies are potential instances of God inhabiting the world in such a way that 'Trinity' is the best language of the councils, but those men were human, fallible, and so there's more to God than just '1 + 1 +1 = 1' (the bad maths you presented)? Isn't it also the case that (2) you believe original sin entails a spiritual contagion that condemns the babies God didn't plan for to hell, as those children are children of Satan?

While you affirm orthodoxy you express heterodoxy in these things.

[RabbiKnife]

 Though in general the Believers of the early church were no more righteous or wise than we are today, I certainly haven’t met any Polycarp or Basil equivalents in modernity. Polycarp was taken for martyrdom and wouldn’t burn, and the blood from his spear-pierced side put out the fire. I don’t see any of those types running around.

Here we will differ.  First, I don't believe that Polycarp was inflammable any more than I believe he was infallible or that I believe in Our Lady of Fatima or Lourdes or Jesus in an IHOP Pancake.  Thousands, hundreds of thousands of Polycarps and Basils and Joes and Suzies and Freds have walked the earth since Polycarp, and walk the earth today, being just as faithful, just as fruitful, just as faithful stewards of the particular individual stewardship that God has entrusted to them as Polycarp was to the stewardship entrusted to him. Same, same, absolutely no qualitative difference.  Polycarp probably didn't wear britches, but if he would have, he would have put them on one leg at a time just like everyone else.  Same goes for Peter, Paul, John, and the other "Big A" apostles.   They themselves were absolutely no different than you or I, but their writings encapsulated in the NT canon are inspired, while at the same time every thing they wrote was not.  Every single believer from the first to the last is a priest before God, with the same Spirit, the same calling, the same task.  Overemphasis of the ECF, as honorable as they were, serves no purpose.

Are you contending the Protestant reformation is not in error? The landscape of doctrinal diversity would disagree. There isn’t homogenous consensus anywhere between the many groups. (And I’m not speaking in terms of the tired trope of there being 40k denominations, because there aren’t. But there are a number of distinct “trees” of theology that aren’t in agreement.)

Yes, the Reformation needed to happen because of the corruption of the Roman Church, but that doesn’t automatically throw Ante-Nicene doctrinal formulation under the bus. I’d give anything to be as astute as the Cappadocians or Chrysostom or Athanasius. If you know any modern counterparts, I’d like to meet them and read their writings.

The existence of Doctrinal Diversity does not necessitate a conclusion that the Reformation was in error.  Unfortunately, many -- including myself, at times -- take the tradition of faithful men [even when they may be wrong in some parts] and turn the tradition -- the living faith of dead men, into traditionalism, the dead faith of living men.   History has concreted error with the passage of time. 

"Not in error?"  That begs the question.  EVERY human endeavor to examine and explain the mystery of God and the Church is, at least in part, in error.  For pity sake, even Peter struggled to understand Paul.  It is not a matter of whether a movement "is in error," but, to the contrary, it is a question of whether a particular movement or event or human or council was endeavoring toward faithful stewardship to the light given to them.  So, yes, I contend that the Protestant reformation was not in error, or said a better way, a proper spiritual and intellectual struggle, for it was both a protest against the evils of the RCC and an attempt to reform/correct/abolish the most egregious of the offenses of the RCC. 

It was a returning to the practice of the Berean church, nothing more, nothing less.  It was no more in error than any other time any Berean believer today hears a preacher say "GOD says..." and then slaughter the Scripture through eisegesis and says, "NO, preacher, you are wrong... the Emperor has no clothes."  Along the way, some pretty good doctrine was examined and clarified; however, like all human endeavors, the reformers (like those of us who follow now and like the ECF who went on before) are all human and we all err to some degree or the other.  The best we can do, individually or corporately, is to explain the mystery of God prefaced with "at my present level of understanding." 

If you reject "modern" conservative theologians and apologists simply because they are modern, then a bias toward the ECF will keep you from appreciating their contributions.   We all see through a glass darkly, for the present.  We are all the Five Blind Men of Hindustan examining the elephant. 

No one historical group, nor any single man or woman, living or dead, has a corner on the truth market, or on the ways in which God can communicate His truth an any particular individual. 

I'm a language guy.  Language is about communication, and demanding that we use certain words because someone else used certain words is just trying to smash a square peg into a round hole.  While I appreciate historic specificity in language (lexicography, if you will), I also appreciate the fact that the examination of that lexicography in today's world is necessary.  The ECF did not use Latin exclusively; they also wrote in Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, and Coptic.  So even within the ECF is a historical use of language that did not survive the ECF, thus "de-enriching" the language.  Demanding a lexicography that is limited to a particular strain prevents us from the texture, flavor, and complexity of the entire topic. ( For example, I have a friend that had to learn Coptic in order to help evaluate one of the earliest known texts of Mark, a copy in Coptic.  Talk about dead languages...  He was also able to debunk the most recent "Gospel of Thomas" in Coptic, as in, in less than 3 minutes, the Coptic was so bad.) The point is that while we can and do gain great insight from the ECF and their lexicography, seeking to understand and explain that lexicography outside of a restricted vocabulary is both acceptable and often required, as let's face it, even "our lexicon" of the ECF is a translated text of a language that no one has spoken in commerce in a millenia or more.

And no, it's not "just you."  Randy PNW and I differ on a great many issues, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as he struggles with his faith, even as I struggle with mine.  And yes, his language is less than precise at times, which can be said of all of us.

I don't have any problem "calling him out," if necessary, but I'm also not Holy Spirit, Jr.

[Athanasius]

I'm reminded of that poor student who referred to 'Polycrap' throughout an entire paper.

The question of a modern "counterpart" to Gregory, Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, etc., is interesting. Pastorally, I'm sure there are plenty of counterparts, and academically too. We have our Kierkegaards and Kreefts and our Wrights and our Platingas, our Barths and Metzgers, etc. I very much doubt anyone at the time the ECFs, Cappadocians, etc., were alive, knew those individuals were going to be well known 2,000 years hence. The trick for us, then, is trying to determine the same for people who don't have the luxury of having been dead for millennia or two.

In other words, I'm not sure that it's a fair question.

As for martyrdom and miracles, I've heard my fair share from missionaries. I know of one family whose home was invaded by gunmen, and while they were waiting to die, the gunmen left having apparently not noticed them. It wasn't because they hid well. It's a lot harder to stand out in a world of 8+ billion people.

[CONSPICILLUM]

 Though in general the Believers of the early church were no more righteous or wise than we are today, I certainly haven’t met any Polycarp or Basil equivalents in modernity. Polycarp was taken for martyrdom and wouldn’t burn, and the blood from his spear-pierced side put out the fire. I don’t see any of those types running around.

Here we will differ.  First, I don't believe that Polycarp was inflammable any more than I believe he was infallible or that I believe in Our Lady of Fatima or Lourdes or Jesus in an IHOP Pancake.  Thousands, hundreds of thousands of Polycarps and Basils and Joes and Suzies and Freds have walked the earth since Polycarp, and walk the earth today, being just as faithful, just as fruitful, just as faithful stewards of the particular individual stewardship that God has entrusted to them as Polycarp was to the stewardship entrusted to him. Same, same, absolutely no qualitative difference.  Polycarp probably didn't wear britches, but if he would have, he would have put them on one leg at a time just like everyone else.  Same goes for Peter, Paul, John, and the other "Big A" apostles.   They themselves were absolutely no different than you or I, but their writings encapsulated in the NT canon are inspired, while at the same time every thing they wrote was not.  Every single believer from the first to the last is a priest before God, with the same Spirit, the same calling, the same task.  Overemphasis of the ECF, as honorable as they were, serves no purpose.

We definitely differ, especially if you’re saying the ancient historical accounts of miracles and martyrdom are somehow fictional or embellished. I don’t see the modern western landscape of Christianity as anything compared to the more ancient world and the ECFs. I’m not saying we aren’t positionally the same before God; but I’ve never seen or read anything from anyone in modernity that would compare to the Cappadocians.

This isn’t to deny that we’re all priests with the same Spirit and calling, but to compare the distractions and inidivdualism of today with those who studied at the feet of the Apostles and those who came afterward. The paragons of today are no comparison, in my experience. I barely see authentically pious men in pulpits, much less in pews. Sports fans and workaholics, yes. Faithful Believers? Not so much. This assessment starts with myself, BTW. And it’s not about what’s available, it’s about what is actually realized.

Are you contending the Protestant reformation is not in error? The landscape of doctrinal diversity would disagree. There isn’t homogenous consensus anywhere between the many groups. (And I’m not speaking in terms of the tired trope of there being 40k denominations, because there aren’t. But there are a number of distinct “trees” of theology that aren’t in agreement.)

Yes, the Reformation needed to happen because of the corruption of the Roman Church, but that doesn’t automatically throw Ante-Nicene doctrinal formulation under the bus. I’d give anything to be as astute as the Cappadocians or Chrysostom or Athanasius. If you know any modern counterparts, I’d like to meet them and read their writings.

The existence of Doctrinal Diversity does not necessitate a conclusion that the Reformation was in error.  Unfortunately, many -- including myself, at times -- take the tradition of faithful men [even when they may be wrong in some parts] and turn the tradition -- the living faith of dead men, into traditionalism, the dead faith of living men.   History has concreted error with the passage of time. 

"Not in error?"  That begs the question.  EVERY human endeavor to examine and explain the mystery of God and the Church is, at least in part, in error.  For pity sake, even Peter struggled to understand Paul.  It is not a matter of whether a movement "is in error," but, to the contrary, it is a question of whether a particular movement or event or human or council was endeavoring toward faithful stewardship to the light given to them.  So, yes, I contend that the Protestant reformation was not in error, or said a better way, a proper spiritual and intellectual struggle, for it was both a protest against the evils of the RCC and an attempt to reform/correct/abolish the most egregious of the offenses of the RCC. 

It was a returning to the practice of the Berean church, nothing more, nothing less.  It was no more in error than any other time any Berean believer today hears a preacher say "GOD says..." and then slaughter the Scripture through eisegesis and says, "NO, preacher, you are wrong... the Emperor has no clothes."  Along the way, some pretty good doctrine was examined and clarified; however, like all human endeavors, the reformers (like those of us who follow now and like the ECF who went on before) are all human and we all err to some degree or the other.  The best we can do, individually or corporately, is to explain the mystery of God prefaced with "at my present level of understanding." 

If you reject "modern" conservative theologians and apologists simply because they are modern, then a bias toward the ECF will keep you from appreciating their contributions.   We all see through a glass darkly, for the present.  We are all the Five Blind Men of Hindustan examining the elephant. 

No one historical group, nor any single man or woman, living or dead, has a corner on the truth market, or on the ways in which God can communicate His truth an any particular individual. 

I'm a language guy.  Language is about communication, and demanding that we use certain words because someone else used certain words is just trying to smash a square peg into a round hole.  While I appreciate historic specificity in language (lexicography, if you will), I also appreciate the fact that the examination of that lexicography in today's world is necessary.  The ECF did not use Latin exclusively; they also wrote in Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, and Coptic.  So even within the ECF is a historical use of language that did not survive the ECF, thus "de-enriching" the language.  Demanding a lexicography that is limited to a particular strain prevents us from the texture, flavor, and complexity of the entire topic. ( For example, I have a friend that had to learn Coptic in order to help evaluate one of the earliest known texts of Mark, a copy in Coptic.  Talk about dead languages...  He was also able to debunk the most recent "Gospel of Thomas" in Coptic, as in, in less than 3 minutes, the Coptic was so bad.) The point is that while we can and do gain great insight from the ECF and their lexicography, seeking to understand and explain that lexicography outside of a restricted vocabulary is both acceptable and often required, as let's face it, even "our lexicon" of the ECF is a translated text of a language that no one has spoken in commerce in a millenia or more.

And no, it's not "just you."  Randy PNW and I differ on a great many issues, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as he struggles with his faith, even as I struggle with mine.  And yes, his language is less than precise at times, which can be said of all of us.

I don't have any problem "calling him out," if necessary, but I'm also not Holy Spirit, Jr.

Well… When someone says things like “the Son and Holy Spirit are expressions of God in creation” or “the Son and Holy Spirit are forms of God”, I’m likely going to dismiss them as at least neophytes, at best. The point is that there’s too much historical negative theology to omit heresy for anyone to engage in usage of such terminology. Christology is not to be taken lightly. But in the Modernist and Post-Modernist world of Perspectivism and dozens of other -isms, vanity is usually the driving force and not sincerity. Not always, but most often.

I think I’ll stick with more orthodox terminology and valid lexicography. It has been vital to me maturing beyond my own temptation to make theology all about me and my subjective opinions or preferences. I’d rather yield to the text for all it means than create a new vocabulary to force doctrine to mean what I think it should mean.

We’re probably not all that far removed from agreement in reality. I just prefer well-established and attested terminology and despise modernity, particularly in myself. So I sure don’t trust other Modernists bent on their individualism to be the litmus test for scriptural truth.

[CONSPICILLUM]

I'm reminded of that poor student who referred to 'Polycrap' throughout an entire paper.

The question of a modern "counterpart" to Gregory, Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, etc., is interesting. Pastorally, I'm sure there are plenty of counterparts, and academically too. We have our Kierkegaards and Kreefts and our Wrights and our Platingas, our Barths and Metzgers, etc. I very much doubt anyone at the time the ECFs, Cappadocians, etc., were alive, knew those individuals were going to be well known 2,000 years hence. The trick for us, then, is trying to determine the same for people who don't have the luxury of having been dead for millennia or two.

In other words, I'm not sure that it's a fair question.

Have you read things like Gregory of Nyssa’s works on terms like noema, etc.? I see nothing and no one in the last half millennia that compares to such writings. Higher context languages result in thought that is much more expressive. As a linguist, I’ve found English to be one of the most restrictive points in understanding things beyond a baseline. But maybe my criteria is somewhat specialized because I rigorously pursue a more Philological foundation for thought and speech than others. I don’t personally think that’s a failing in this world of vaguery and dilution from Materialism, etc.

As for martyrdom and miracles, I've heard my fair share from missionaries. I know of one family whose home was invaded by gunmen, and while they were waiting to die, the gunmen left having apparently not noticed them. It wasn't because they hid well. It's a lot harder to stand out in a world of 8+ billion people.

Absolutely there has been thaumaturgy and thaumaturgists throughout the history of the Church. God has done many miraculous things by, in, and through His people.

[Athanasius]

Have you read things like Gregory of Nyssa’s works on terms like noema, etc.? I see nothing and no one in the last half millennia that compares to such writings. Higher context languages result in thought that is much more expressive. As a linguist, I’ve found English to be one of the most restrictive points in understanding things beyond a baseline. But maybe my criteria is somewhat specialized because I rigorously pursue a more Philological foundation for thought and speech than others. I don’t personally think that’s a failing in this world of vaguery and dilution from Materialism, etc.

Maybe? I'm more familiar with the term through Husserl. Which of the Nyssen's work did you have in mind?

Absolutely there has been thaumaturgy and thaumaturgists throughout the history of the Church. God has done many miraculous things by, in, and through His people.

I'm not claiming that the family performed a miracle, but that God is as capable of hiding a family in plain view as He is of ensuring that flames bring no harm where they otherwise would. To what you were saying:

...Polycarp was taken for martyrdom and wouldn’t burn, and the blood from his spear-pierced side put out the fire. I don’t see any of those types running around.

I don't think the details of Polycarp's martyrdom somehow elevate him, any more than the family I know ought to be elevated. It's not the person, but the God who works through them. I would suspect that if one hasn't heard of miracles like the ones that happened during Polycarp's execution, then that's not because God has stopped acting in the world in those ways.

[RabbiKnife]

Absolutely there has been thaumaturgy and thaumaturgists throughout the history of the Church.

And sometimes miracles happen, too.

[IMINXTC]

Absolutely there has been thaumaturgy and thaumaturgists throughout the history of the Church.

And sometimes miracles happen, too.

"Hoc est enim corpus meum."

[RabbiKnife]

Gadzunheit.

[CONSPICILLUM]

Absolutely there has been thaumaturgy and thaumaturgists throughout the history of the Church.

And sometimes miracles happen, too.

"Hoc est enim corpus meum."

Your haruspicy is duly noted, Captain Divination.

[CONSPICILLUM]

Absolutely there has been thaumaturgy and thaumaturgists throughout the history of the Church.

And sometimes miracles happen, too.

As a language guy, I thought you’d appreciate the vocab rather than have disdain for it.