Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:17 pm
I am sure that all sorts of things could be said about Constantine, what happened, how the religion merged with state and empire -- a zillion things -- What is the function of your position here and now in these conversations?
In a way, you're now asking the question, "Why bother with history?"
If how Catholicism began is not relevant to the form it assumed, the things it did, and the impact it had in Europe, then the answer is, "No reason." But if history, if the origin of things, is useful in helping us understand why Catholicism became what it did, and did in Europe what it did, then the answer is, "To understand."
But I think you are imputing to me some sinister motive, perhaps. For you write,
Is it that you want to convince people that Christianity is a valid and necessary religion and path?
Well, yes, of course; but that is the work of Jesus Christ, not me.
Or is it to define why those you assert are semi-Christian, and even perhaps non-Christian, are not (enough) Christian, or perhaps not at all Christian? What are you trying to achieve? It is not clear to me.
You said, at the beginning, that you regarded Europe as having a "Christian" past. I'm simply probing that idea, asking whether or not we're justified in calling it "Christian."
Now, we've talked of the two possible standards for judging that: one is what you have called the "Protestant" standard (though we both know that Protestantism qua Protestantism does not begin before the Reformation), in which what the Bible declares is Christian; the other is the Catholic standard, in which whatever the popes and councils declare is called "Christian." And we are asking how we account for the fact that there are two very different standards here.
But there's a third view, neither Catholic nor Protestant. That is the view of many secular historians, who, ignoring the entire controversy, conflate both of the previous into a single idea they call "Christendom."
We're asking if that's wise or right.
Can you name specific persons or groups or do you mean to say that you suppose that *true Christians* remained true Christians while, around them, the perverse Pagan-Christian syncretism developed?
Certainly.
Firstly, there are the early Christians themselves, those living prior to Constantine, to Romanism, and to the syncretistic compromise. Secondly, there are innumerable objector sects. One that comes readily to mind is Peter Waldo, and his followers, the Waldenses. Then there were the Albigenses, or for that matter, the Augustinians, or the Helvetians, or Wycliffe, or Hus...there were quite a large number, actually.
And when Luther broke from the Catholic Church, it was over this very issue. Before the Inquisition, he famously intoned,
"Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason--I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other--my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me."
Here again you see the Catholic hierarchy's persistent problem: people kept reading the Word of God for themselves, and consequently kept breaking away from the authority of the popes and councils. This was not a new problem, but it was one they could suppress prior to the arrival of Gutenberg's printing press and the broader public literacy that it occasioned. After that, the Catholic Church could no longer keep people from knowing about the vast departures between Romanism and Christianity...and the Reformation was on.
Yes, I know. That's why I'm trying explain -- to fix your definitions.
But my objectives are different from yours. I am actually interested and supportive of the syncretism between those of the Judaic Christian school (for want of a better description) and the Indo-European peoples that were influenced by it. I do not necessarily *have a problem* with the way that Europeans modified and built their religion, their culture, their art, their philosophy. In any case I take it as it was, not as something that I simply dismiss or revise.
I have no problem with that project.
I'm only suggesting that you realize what a "Christian" actually is, and make your usage fit accurately. I think accurate use of terms is in everyone's interest, don't you?
The reason -- I already explained this -- is because I am interested in processes of reanimation and renovation of just what I describe. For you that is false-Christianity (I gather). And I also assume that it has no -- how to put this? -- salvific potency? or will not result in the salvation you define.
And yet I do not define salvation. The Bible does.
If anyone's account departs from that, then their conflict is with God, not with me. I have no power or right to make of Christianity anything Christ Himself has not made of it.
I do not yet understand what *salvation* means to you. And I also think -- given this is a philosophy forum -- that we would have to define what salvation is, so that if you assert it as an objecive it can be clearly understood what you are talking about.
I have no objection.
I will put a technical definition, one with many more nuances, in the link at the end. But for the moment, let me be simple, and use common language. To be saved is to be delivered from God's judgment against sin. This is done when a person recognizes his true condition as a rebel against God, and as someone guilty of wrongs that deserve redress from a righteous God. He also realizes that, due to his fallen nature, he is incapable of earning God's favour through merely doing good deeds or being better in the future. He admits the rightness of God in being against what he is and what he has done, and recognizes his desert of judgment.
Despairing thus of his own resources, he turns to God (
metanoia), and appeals to be forgiven and changed (also
metanoia), on the basis that Jesus Christ has died for the sins of all, (John 3:16) and he recognizes God's rightness in accepting that sacrifice in the place of the judgment that rightly would otherwise fall upon him. (2 Cor. 5:21) The repentant person gives himself thus to God, to be God's thereafter. And this is how a man is saved from sin.
That's the basic mechanics of salvation. But much more can be said about that theme theologically. So far I have not even mentioned things about Torah or Israel, for example, nor any other related issues. So if you want more detail, you can find it here:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/salvation/
I would also ask that we arrive at a definition of what Satan is, and what the demoniac is.
Let's start with salvation. We have enough to chew on there, first. I suspect you'll have further comments, and I don't want to rush past them. These other issues, we can address as they arise.
This means that multitudes of people who believed they were Christian did not receive the benefit of real Christian conversion that you define. Not a happy turn of events.
False teaching is not a light thing. It sends people to a lost eternity. And nothing could possibly be more serious than that.
But God knows the hearts of men. He knows who sincerely seeks Him, and who does not. And he has promised that all those who seek, find. Jesus said,
"For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened." (Matt. 7:8), and Paul says,
"The Lord knows those who are His." (2 Tim. 2:19). So whether they were in the world, a pagan land, or the Catholic empire, the Lord has always been able to find and save those who sincerely sought Him. He does not lose anyone who seeks Him.
We leave that in His capable hands. He is, after all, quite capable. And we do better to pay attention to ourselves, and to hearing the word He has sent to us, and responding.
)