I was passing this on to a couple of friends and thought it might be worth posting….
As you contemplate a possible new church….this might be a good series to listen to:
(I’m working through these myself), I personally don’t recommend the RCC nor the Pope nor any of the New Apostolic Reformation options.
Or this new one…to read:
I continue to be amazed by these lost readings about The Unseen Realm.
At dinner my friends Grandson, made a comment about it being very improbable that aliens from other parts of the galaxy or universe have visited us. But the Bible does speak about this other Realm. We rarely hear about or look into this Realm in today’s Churches. It’s certainly, Biblical but probably best not to dwell in this Realm too long, at least this side of it.
Unfortunately modern time have made a mockery of much of Reformed Thinking. And the world has mysteriously been heading back towards Roman Catholicism and the Pope. Which is quite popular among many of today’s leaders and influencers. I think of conversions of people like J. D. Vance and Candice Owens. I had an interesting ChatGPT on that aspect this morning. You might enjoy.
BTW you can read about this translation project at:
It was originally written just be for our Declaration of Independence….to put it in historical context.
As for DeMoor, I like the way he phrased it:
Curious and inane are the conjectures,
The saying you’re thinking of is:
“How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”
It is often quoted today as if medieval theologians wasted their time debating absurd, irrelevant questions. In popular usage, it refers to arguing over trivial or unanswerable points while ignoring more important issues.
However, the historical story is more complicated.
The exact phrase does not appear in medieval theological writings. It seems to have emerged much later, probably in the 17th or 18th century, as a caricature of Scholastic theology.
What medieval theologians actually discussed was a more serious metaphysical question:
- Can angels occupy space?
- Can more than one angel be in the same place at the same time?
- How does a purely spiritual being relate to physical location?
These questions arose from trying to understand the biblical teaching that angels are real but immaterial beings. Thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas argued that an angel is not extended in space like a body. An angel is said to be “in a place” by exercising its power there, not by physically taking up volume. Thus, the question wasn’t really about pinheads—it was about the nature of spiritual beings.
In modern English, the proverb has come to mean:
- Needless hairsplitting.
- Debating insignificant details.
- Focusing on speculative questions instead of practical concerns.
Interestingly, from a Reformed perspective, many theologians would agree that Scripture tells us enough to know angels exist and minister according to God’s will, but it does not encourage speculation beyond what God has revealed (cf. Deuteronomy 29:29; Colossians 2:18). So while careful theological distinctions are valuable, idle speculation about unrevealed matters is generally discouraged.
So the familiar proverb is:
“How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”
even though it is almost certainly not a genuine medieval quotation but a later satirical expression.
I don’t think that particular proverb or the stereotype it represents is a major reason people like J. D. Vance or Candace Owens have been drawn to Roman Catholicism.Their journeys appear to have been motivated by broader theological, philosophical, and cultural considerations, though the two cases are somewhat different.For J. D. Vance, who was received into the Catholic Church as an adult, he has spoken and written about being drawn to:The intellectual depth and philosophical tradition of Catholicism, especially the influence of thinkers like Augustine of Hippo and René Girard.A sense of historical continuity with the early Church.The Church’s moral and social teaching, including its emphasis on family, community, and the common good.The sacramental life and liturgy.Candace Owens has likewise spoken positively about Catholicism’s historicity, moral clarity, and liturgical tradition. Her public comments have often emphasized the Church’s continuity through history and its firm ethical teachings. As with many public figures, it’s difficult to know all the personal and spiritual reasons behind such decisions.From a Protestant—especially a Reformed—perspective, many converts to Rome are attracted by features such as:A visible, worldwide institutional unity.The claim of apostolic succession.The authority of the magisterium to settle doctrinal disputes.The richness of the liturgy and sacramental life.A strong sense of historical continuity.At the same time, many Protestants remain convinced that the Reformers were correct on central doctrines such as sola Scriptura, justification by faith alone, and the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work. They would argue that institutional continuity, while valuable, is not sufficient if certain doctrinal developments departed from apostolic teaching.The “angels on the head of a pin” stereotype is more of a criticism of speculative theology than a reason people convert. In fact, many converts to Catholicism are drawn precisely because they perceive its theology to be intellectually rigorous rather than superficial.One interesting observation is that the attraction to Catholicism among some contemporary Protestant converts is often less about rejecting Protestant biblical doctrine outright and more about seeking:historical rootedness,doctrinal certainty,liturgical beauty, andan authoritative teaching office.Those are substantial issues that have been debated since the Reformation, and they are quite different from caricatures about medieval scholasticism.Given your previous questions about the Canons of Dort, the Reformers, and Reformed theology, I think you might find it interesting to compare why prominent Protestant intellectuals have become Catholic with why equally prominent Catholic scholars have become Reformed or evangelical. Looking at both directions often clarifies which arguments are actually persuasive on each side.
De Moor IX:29: The Number of Evil Angels
While we give thanks to God for the progress and provision made, we have stalled out at about 30% of the way to our fundraising goal. We could use your help. If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way. Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]
The Number of these Evil Angels is exceedingly Large, which is evident, 1. from the mention of the Kingdom of Satan, to which many subjects pertain, Matthew 12:26. 2. From the Diffusion of Evil Angels throughout the whole world and atmosphere, and all men in widely scattered places, Ephesians 6:12; 2:2; 2 Corinthians 4:4; etc. But, since a finite spirit is not able to be present everywhere at the same time, the Devil is obliged to accomplish these operations through a multitude of Evil Angels subject to him and conspiring with him. 3. Also from the Presence of many in One Place, so that the name of Legion suits them, Matthew 12:45; Luke 8:30. Hence falls the assertion concerning only One Devil, and likewise concerning the opinion of the Jews and Christians, which establishes many Evil Angels, drawn from Gentilism, which DAILLON, formerly Minister of the Church of Château d’Erald in the Saintonge province[1] of the Gauls, and then an exile in London because of religion, passed on in his tractatu de Dæmonibus, inserted in Apologiæ pro Religione Reformata. That he very much approves this opinion, BEKKER signifies, de Orbe fascinato, book II, chapter XII, § 5, 6. BIDDLE[2] contends for the same in his little book contra Divinitatem Spiritus Sancti. Upon which matter they abuse, among other things, Passages in which there is mention of the Prince of evil Angels, as if these would exclude many other Angels of the same nature with the Prince. Thus CLOPPENBURG, opera, tome 2, pages 495, 496, I, § 8-10, responds to Biddle: We know that sometimes that one is distinctly named Satan or the Devil, who is reckoned the head and prince of the rest, Matthew 25:41. But we absolutely deny that this is either everlasting, or that it occurs many times in Scripture. Instead, we assert that the name of the Devil or Satan is generally used indefinitely, so that Scripture might signify some one of the Evil Angels prowling about, whether alone, or with associates, whether in one place, or in many places. We prove our assertion from passages of Scripture altogether express, Matthew 12:26…. Indeed, he understands nothing, who does not see that one and another Satan is to be understood, so that this might be a true paraphrase of the words of Christ, if one Satan casts out another Satan, the cesspool of Devils is divided against itself. Similarly, in Mark 5:2, 8, the whole Legion of unclean spirits is indefinitely called in the singular, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἀκάθαρτον, the unclean spirit: but in verse 13 it is expressed in the plural, for they are called unclean spirits. Thus, 2. CLOPPENBURG says that altogether vain is the argument for the omnipresence of that one unclean spirit, sought from 1 Kings 22:23, in which that lying spirit is said to have been the mouth of four hundred false Prophets. But, says Biddle, the rationale of the four hundred is the same as of forty thousand. But CLOPPENBURG responds, in the place cited, § 12, 13: By no instruments of torture has any Pneumatomachus ever extracted this from the passage cited, that in that vivid description is portrayed definitely one lying spirit, who, μεμονωμένος, left alone, without a companion undertakes this, that he might speak a lie at one and the same time through the mouth of four hundred Prophets? What then? He was able, if asked, as the unclean spirit in Mark 5:9 was, What is thy name? to respond truly, My name is Legion, for we are many. And to the one going forth this was able to be accommodated out of Matthew 12:45, then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven (why not seventy times seven, as the case may require?) other spirits more wicked than himself. Nor, 3. is another response necessary, as CLOPPENBURG observes, in the place cited, § 14, 15, for the remaining collection of Passages that he advances, 2 Timothy 2:26; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Revelation 2:13; John 8:38; Revelation 20:2, 3; Mark 4:15, etc. For those, says CLOPPENBURG, to wish to attribute to one Devil μεμονωμένῳ/alone, would rightly be esteemed madness. Briefly, not one is understood, who at one and the same time would bring the power of error and seduction on all the impenitent and unbelieving impious men in the whole world, and thus in ten thousand places would snatch away the word sown in their hearts. But under one leader, after the likeness of one emperor, are understood thousands and tens of thousands of Evil Angels…rushing upon Christ’s harvest, and assigned to their hosts after the likeness of infernal locusts, in order to devour the field of the Lord: that is, they do this both individually and by troops, that the whole world might be deceived, and, having been ensnared, be dragged to eternal destruction: compare LEYDEKKER’S Dissertationem historico-theologicam contra Bekkerum, section XII, § 22, pages 195-210.
Curious and inane are the conjectures, 1. both concerning the Equal Number of Fallen Angels and Elect Men, as if the adoption of the latter made an exact recompense for the loss of the Fallen Angels, and to this the Lord had regard, for example, in Matthew 18:12, 13. 2. And concerning Evil Angels constituting exactly a third Part of all Angels, as if to this the passage in Revelation 12:4 should be referred. Against which exegesis, our AUTHOR in his Commentario observes, α. that from the context it is here treated, not of a matter conducted in the beginning, but of that which was conducted about the time of the birth of Christ, even with a verb of the present tense employed, σύρει, he draws.[3] β. That hence the Stars of Heaven do not denote Angels, but most likely Teachers in the Church, with the use and interpretation of this appellation in Revelation 1:20; 8:10, 11; 9:1 compared. γ. In particular, on account of the Church represented to us in this Vision, not which sort was after the coming of Christ, but which sort was before His coming and in it, he advises that it is here to be considered by us, concerning the seduction of the Doctors of the Church before Christ with the hidden contagion of depraved opinions and manners, which great numbers in a general way are signified by the Third Part, leading them away from their duty to edify the Church, and from all deserved praise of true wisdom and holiness. Which sort of state of a great many in the Jewish Church, even indeed its Overseers, in the time of Christ, is abundantly gathered from the doctrines and manners of the Pharisees and Sadducees, if either JOSEPHUS be consulted, or the rebukes of Christ be read, Matthew 5; 6; 15; 23: compare LOMBARD’S Sentences, book II, distinction IX, pages 197, 198; VOETIUS’ Disputationum theologicarum, part I, pages 917, 918; SALDENUS’ Otia Theologica, book III, Exercitation VIII, § 10, page 550; ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section VI, chapter II, pages 701-703.
[1] A province in western France.
[2] John Biddle (1615–1662) was an English theologian and schoolmaster, and an early and prominent Unitarian.
[3] Revelation 12:4: “And his tail draws (σύρει) the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast (ἔβαλεν, in the aorist tense) them to the earth: and the dragon stood (ἕστηκεν, in the perfect tense) before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.”
Sent from my iPad
Rainbow Trout 