Hi, Susan,
At 11:41 PM 5/9/2005, you wrote:
No, he didn't believe in substances period. That's an Aristotelian
metaphysical conception he would have rejected. But he did believe in the
Real Presence without denying it was still bread and wine.
Here is a good summary:
Dear Mark ,
Part of the confusion over what Luther believed about the eucharist is that
many, if not most of his followers did not share his epistemology. Philp
Melancton, for instance, the chief author of the Augsburg Confession, was a
humanist and humanists tended towards platonism, not
On 5/10/05, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
I guess I just don't see what you are talking about. I think all
Muslims would look back to the community in Medina as a model, and the
Quran and sunnah. And on the Christian side, even many of the
reformers had a goal of
Susan,
At 06:57 AM 5/10/2005, you wrote:
Part of the confusion over what Luther believed about the eucharist is that
many, if not most of his followers did not share his epistemology.
Calvin, to some extent, based his ideas on Luther's (and, indirectly, Biel's).
However, Calvin, especially in
Calvin, to some extent, based his ideas on Luther's (and, indirectly,
Biel's). However, Calvin, especially in his view of double election, strikes
me as even more nominalist than Luther and his soteriology. In other words,
if God wills some to go to heaven and others to hell, it is not for humans
Susan,
With respect to Calvin, here are examples on the web of what I am talking about:
From an early age Calvin was groomed for an ecclesiastical career. His father,
who handled the civil legal affairs of the Cathedral Chapter of Noyon, obtained
the revenues of two benefices for his gifted
While there he received his theological education and formation in the
nominalist school of via moderna, first in the Collége de la Marcheand later
at the Collége Montaigu.
Dear Mark,
I suspect there may be some confusion here. The term Via Moderna sometimes
applied to the Scotists and not just
On 5/9/05, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Islam doesn't need a Reformation. It's already had one. The
Wahabi/Salafi movement. What it needs is a counter-reformation.
Dear Gilberto,
That's an interesting perspective. But I think the Wahabi movement comes
more under the category
What is the distinction you are trying to draw? What
distinguishes a reform from a revival??
Dear Gilberto,
A reform movement tries to bring about substantive change where as revival
movements are more interested in going back to some idealistic past, in this
case the days of the Muslim
On 5/9/05, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the distinction you are trying to draw? What
distinguishes a reform from a revival??
Dear Gilberto,
A reform movement tries to bring about substantive change where as revival
movements are more interested in going back to some
I guess I just don't see what you are talking about. I think all
Muslims would look back to the community in Medina as a model, and the
Quran and sunnah. And on the Christian side, even many of the
reformers had a goal of trying to go back to the primitive church.
But then so did the
Hi, Gilberto,
At 09:35 PM 5/7/2005, you wrote:
1. It was my impression (at least this is what I've read, and I've never read
anything different) that the historical Mutazilite school basically survived
within 12-er Shiism. So I'm not sure what it would mean to revive it.
I believe that there
On 5/8/05, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
2. The Mutazites weren't necessarily more liberal or open-minded in the
ways which come to mind when we think of the term rationalism. For
example, the most frequently mentioned Inquisition-like period in Islam is
when the
I believe that there are vestiges of it in the isna ashariyyah movement, but
I am sure that others would be more qualified to comment.
Dear Mark and Gilberto,
Twelver theology is bascially Mutazalite, though they don't usually call it
that. Imam Jafar as-Sadiq is recognized even among Sunnis
On 5/8/05, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto wrote:
2. The Mutazites weren't necessarily more liberal or open-minded in the
ways which come to mind when we think of the term rationalism. For
example, the most frequently mentioned Inquisition-like period in Islam is
when the
Here is an interesting site which attempts to revive the nominalist Mu'tazili
school, which may have served as part of the historical context for
Baha'u'llah's views:
http://www.moatazilla.org/
Via moderna, Mark A. Foster Portal: http://markfoster.net
... since [a] word is said to be common
Thanks. That was interesting. And at the same time really weird.
A couple of things though:
1. It was my impression (at least this is what I've read, and I've
never read anything different) that the historical Mutazilite school
basically survived within 12-er Shiism. So I'm not sure what it
17 matches
Mail list logo
