I will get to all of these soon, but I wanted to look up some information first and haven't had a chance to get to the library, what with a combination of lots of hectic stuff to do at work, and all these bank holidays! Hopefully I'll have an opportunity soon.
Ask a Theologian III
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
- Status
I'm curious as to what interpretations of the nature of man are in theology. My first thought on the subject would be that there's disagreement between the Genesis narrative of man as inherently wicked and the NT narrative of man as good and capable of affecting change. Is the divide that clear cut, and how much is Jesus' death meant to be representative of it, or what would seem to be the switch from the one take to the other?
Asking which church is doctrinally correct, which one is most like ancient Christianity, and which is most in accordance with Christ's teachings, are three very different questions to which different answers could probably be given.
On which one is most like ancient Christianity, that is difficult, because there is no such thing as "ancient Christianity" - at least no single thing. Christianity was very diverse in antiquity. We can at least ask which modern church is most like the ancient mainstream church, the one we think of today as orthodox - although there again there were significant differences between different branches of the church, most especially between the Syriac-speaking sections and the Latin/Greek-speaking ones. At any rate, I don't think there can be much doubt that the various Orthodox churches today are most similar to the mainstream ancient churches. I would include the non-Chalcedonian churches such as the Church of the East in that (which aren't Orthodox, but are to all intents and purposes pretty much the same). But obviously no modern church can really be much like an ancient one, in the same way that no modern person can really have a similar outlook or worldview to an ancient person. We live in a different world. Even the Orthodox insistence on being as similar as possible to the early church itself distances it from them, because the early church had no such insistence (obviously).
By comparison, think of a jazz musician who strives with every fibre to play the same music that Louis Armstrong did in the 1920s. He may sound exactly like Armstrong, but he still has a completely different approach to music, because Armstrong himself wasn't trying to sound like somebody nearly a century earlier. So in a way, the more you try to imitate someone, the less like them you are, at least in that respect. (Rather like the self-defeating attempts of a friend of my girlfriend's to be as much like Nick Cave as possible - even though one of the key things about Nick Cave is that he doesn't try to be like anyone other than himself!)
I was a little surprised by this question since it seems to me that your priest's interpretation is the obvious one. I'm aware that this verse may be interpreted as a reference to Satan's primordial fall but hadn't known that people used it as evidence for Jesus' pre-existence, since it also seems clear to me that "I saw" could be understood figuratively or poetically.
Anyway, I did go and look this up in a few commentaries in the theology faculty. It seems that your priest's interpretation is the standard one. Indeed it's obvious that the whole speech of Jesus', from verse 18 to verse 20, is a response to the return of the 72 and their report, given in verse 17. In verse 19 Jesus tells them what authority they have, and in verse 20 he directly addresses what they say in verse 17, with a mild rebuke. So verse 18 should obviously be read in this context.
Now it may be that verse 18 is meant to be a reference to Isaiah 14:12 and the primordial fall of Lucifer. In fact Jesus' speech before the return of the 72, where he prophecies woe to various places, is meant to remind readers of Isaiah 14, so it would be natural to find another echo of it just a few verses on. However, to understand it as a reference to an event in the distant past doesn't really make sense. Why would Jesus react to the report of the 72 by talking about this? Especially as he goes on to discuss the significance of the mission of the 72. It makes much more sense to see it as a direct reaction to their report. The "I saw" is poetic: Jesus experiences a vision of Satan's downfall as a result of the actions of the 72.
Even if it is a reference to a primordial fall of Satan, I think it would be stretching it to interpret it as a claim to pre-existence on Jesus' part, since nowhere else in Luke or Acts is there any hint of Jesus' pre-existence. That's an idea we find in John, not Luke.
Of course, the whole passage is really about the activities and significance of Christian missionaries in Luke's own day. The point of this part of it is that Christian missionaries have the authority and power of Jesus himself, and their actions are leading to Satan's downfall.
Another possible interpretation is that verse 18 is meant to be a reference to an event in Jesus' own life, above all his death. So on this view, he is prophesying the defeat of Satan as a result of his own sacrifice on the cross. This interpretation, however, isn't really feasible either, for two main reasons. First, it's a non sequitur and makes no sense in context. Second, Luke doesn't view Jesus' death as salvific or defeating Satan; in fact he presents it as an unequivocably bad event.
So in sum, your priest's explanation is the standard one, and it's surely the correct one.
I should say, though, that we should always take care to distinguish between the different voices that we're always dealing with when reading the Gospels. I think it's clear that Luke intends this verse to have the meaning just explained. But it doesn't necessarily follow that this is what the saying was originally intended to mean, by Jesus or whoever first said it. It seems to me perfectly plausible that this is a genuine saying of Jesus', but that he said it in reference to a primordial fall of Satan; and that Luke (or his source) has reappropriated it by inserting it into this passage. In which case the meaning that Luke places on it would be quite different from its original meaning. That's just speculation on my part, though, and the fact that this verse does not appear in Mark or Matthew makes it hard to tell (Mark 6 and Matthew 10 are the parallel passages, where Jesus sends out 12 disciples rather than 72 - interestingly, Mark describes their activities whereas Luke does so only indirectly, through the disciples' own report; and Matthew forgets to describe their return at all). I couldn't find any information on how authentic this verse is thought to be.
Briefly, the obvious passage for is 1 Corinthians 15:22-28. The obvious ones against are Mark 9:42-47, which contrasts entering life to going to hell, as if these are mutually exclusive; and Revelation 20, which has similar implications. Also various passages in Matthew: 7:13, 7:21-23, and the whole of chapter 25.
No, this isn't academic at all! Only peer-reviewed research material counts for that. Plus of course this thread isn't on my specialist academic topic.
The passage you refer to is from one of the apocryphal endings of Mark - the Gospel proper ends at 16:8. That ending was added to bring it into line with Matthew. In Matthew 28:19 Jesus commands his disciples to baptise all nations.
There were certainly different traditions of Christianity with different attitudes towards Judaism - this was one of the big issues that Paul spent much of his time arguing about, as you can see from Galatians, which is a response to people who thought that in order to be a Christian you had to be a Jew first. (Though whether these people were themselves Jewish by background is uncertain.) Indeed there seem to have been people who retained this view for decades or even centuries afterwards; the martyrs of Lyons of 177 CE, for example, ate kosher meat.
I would say that the emphasis in Matthew upon "all nations" makes it clear that gentiles are included as well as Jews. I think that the Markan version has much the same meaning. "Creature" is actually ktisis (pl. ktisei), which means "created thing" - i.e. the same meaning as our "creature", more or less. But it is often used to refer to a legislative or social creation, such as a city (rather as we might use the word "foundation" to refer to a social group of some kind). It appears in this sense in 2 Peter 1:13. See also Colossians 1:23, where it has a very similar meaning to the Markan passage, and also Romans 1:25, where it has a different one.
Matthew was written well after Paul was active, but probably without knowledge of Paul's writings; if Matthew did know Paul's writings he would probably have disagreed with them (they had rather different views on faith and works). Paul certainly wasn't unique in his preaching to gentiles - he himself mentions other such apostles, such as Apollos, and stories such as Philip and the Ethiopian in Acts 8 indicate that major apostles were later regarded as having preached to non-Jews. Paul seems to have made more of a thing of it than others, at least as far as we can tell - but because we have no other contemporary sources for the period in which Paul was working, apart from Paul's own writings, it's very hard to tell. This whole period is so shrouded in controversy and disagreement that we can't really be sure of anything.
I'm puzzled by this as I don't see what the disagreement is. Can you give examples?
Unfortunately not, as it's more something that I've generally observed and wondered about, rather than something I have a firm grasp on. To reword, though; it would seem that in a lot of modern teaching if not supported biblically, the Genesis narrative is very much about the inherently wicked nature of man. The contrast to this that I'm seeing is with the conception of the nature of man as portrayed in the NT, particularly in the story of Jesus. That conception appears to be not that man is inherently wicked, but that man is capable of good in the world, and capable of change. These seem rather different conceptions; these seem opposite, in fact, and I'm curious as to, firstly, whether I'm imaging the difference between the two conceptions, secondly, how the subject of the nature of man (as inherently evil or good) is viewed in theology, and thirdly, how Jesus and particularly the resurrection is meant to fit into any explanation of the change from one conception to the other.
Hope I explained it better that time.
I don't think I've ever heard any interpretation of the Genesis story as implying the inherent wickedness of humanity. I don't see what there is about Genesis that would support this; it portrays Adam and Eve as choosing to disobey God, not as being compelled to do so by some inherently wicked nature that they can't resist. In the creation narrative, God creates man in his image and likeness. Now the traditional Christian understanding of the subsequent events is that, in the Fall, man lost the likeness of God but retained the image. So human beings remain basically good, but they have chosen to do wrong. When Jesus chose to do right, he chose with a human will (it is heretical to deny that Jesus had a wholly human will), but he also had a divine will which enabled him to choose without sin. As a consequence, human beings can (hope to) re-attain the likeness of God which was lost.
The idea that human beings are inherently wicked seems to me heretical, because it would entail either that Jesus was sinful or that he wasn't genuinely human. And indeed I would associate such views with gnosticism or related movements, which thought that humanity could be divided between worthless wicked people and good spiritual people (the gnostics themselves).
The idea that human beings are inherently wicked seems to me heretical, because it would entail either that Jesus was sinful or that he wasn't genuinely human. And indeed I would associate such views with gnosticism or related movements, which thought that humanity could be divided between worthless wicked people and good spiritual people (the gnostics themselves).
Hmm, I must be getting that impression from fairly incorrect teachings, then (or an fairly incorrect impression of certain teachings). I'd been under the impression that a fairly prevalent view (although one appearing contradictory in light of Jesus) was that original sin was representative of the inherent nature of man as distinct from God (that is, 'God is good and humans are wicked') rather than being representative of a tendency to sin despite an inherently good basis.
Thanks for the answer!
Thanks for the answer!
Well, Genesis 1:31 says that everything God made, including people, was "very good". I don't see anything in the following chapters to contradict that.
Irenaeus taught that Adam and Eve were created as children (morally, though perhaps not physically) and that God intended them to grow into his likeness over a long period. When they disobeyed him, it was like a child petulantly refusing to obey its parent, rather than a shattering fall into darkness. The consequence was that the growing up process ended up being a bit more painful and convoluted than it would have been otherwise. To what extent these views were typical of Christians at the time we don't know, but they're clearly a long way from any notion of an inherently evil nature to human beings. Certainly Christians have always thought that human beings are inherently limited, being creatures, and it is their limitations which open up the possibility of doing evil (a possibility which is not open to God) - but to say that they are inherently wicked would not be orthodox, because it would deny the genuine goodness of God's creation. That's why I say that such a view is more like gnosticism.
Irenaeus taught that Adam and Eve were created as children (morally, though perhaps not physically) and that God intended them to grow into his likeness over a long period. When they disobeyed him, it was like a child petulantly refusing to obey its parent, rather than a shattering fall into darkness. The consequence was that the growing up process ended up being a bit more painful and convoluted than it would have been otherwise. To what extent these views were typical of Christians at the time we don't know, but they're clearly a long way from any notion of an inherently evil nature to human beings. Certainly Christians have always thought that human beings are inherently limited, being creatures, and it is their limitations which open up the possibility of doing evil (a possibility which is not open to God) - but to say that they are inherently wicked would not be orthodox, because it would deny the genuine goodness of God's creation. That's why I say that such a view is more like gnosticism.
Do you think there is a tendency in modern Evangelical Christianity to see humans as inherently wicked? I know that is an accusation often leveled at them, but I haven't really seen it to be the case as such myself.
I think there's a strong tendency in evangelicalism to emphasise human guilt, and the claim that everyone is guilty of a great deal of sin all the time and undeserving of any consideration on God's part. But that's not the same thing as saying that we're all inherently wicked.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
I would not say that it was guilt or inherited wickedness. From what I was taught, it is the nature that is "bent" toward sin. Doing good does not change this nature, only God can by His will. If a person does wrong, it is nature taking it's course. A parent "trains" the child in making proper decisions. I think the difference is in the fact that humans think they can train themselves away from a sinful nature. After "Adam" "sinned", God "saw" humanity as unable to obtain perfection, which some see as God is "malevolent" or humans are "wicked", but it is just that grace needed to be restored. And Plotinus is right in that guilt and being deserving are part of "western evengelicals". Guilt would be taking the law too much into account and not letting grace work. The deserving part for me was probably the biggest "hurtle". I tend to agree that mankind is probably not deserving in part just like many Europeans saw Africans as not "deserving". Human nature clouded millions of eyes over the last 1500 years to that fact. Now with globalism to help overcome that, you still get people being accused of racism. God is not anti-human, but a human standing by himself does not deserve God. It is only by God's grace that He considers us His children. No one can say they deserve God more than any one else, that is the fallicy of religion. We are all equal receptors of God's grace. Sorry Plotinus if this is out of line, but wanted to add the perspective of the evangelical mindset or at least as I saw it.
Plotinus, would you mind giving me an overview of the concept of the Holy Wisdom, both as it was before Christianity in Greek philosophy and religion and then after it was incorporated into the Christian religion?
It depends on what you mean by "Holy Wisdom". That's not something you find in Greek philosophy. You do, however, find a cluster of concepts around the World Soul and the Logos which more or less correspond to the Jewish concept of Wisdom.
Basically, in Greek philosophy, there was a common idea of the divine power immanent in the physical world. For Platonists, this was the World Soul, an immaterial divine power that bears the same relation to the universe as the relation of the human soul to the human body. Stoics, of course, thought that the human soul is material, and they thought the same thing about the divine power, which they called the Logos and sometimes thought of as a fiery element. Later Platonists thought of the World Soul as a second God, below the High God, which runs the universe on his behalf, and they sometimes took the word "Logos" from Stoicism and used it to refer to this divine entity.
In Judaism, meanwhile, there was a tradition of taking the divine attributes and speaking about them as if they were independent entities in their own right. One of these was the divine Wisdom, which is personified in the Wisdom books such as the book of Proverbs. Another example is the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom itself. There are clear parallels between the Jewish tradition of Wisdom and the Greek tradition of the World Soul/Logos, and indeed the book of Wisdom is thought to show the influence of Greek philosophical ideas, so they did not develop in isolation from each other.
By the time of the Christian era these ideas were coalescing. A very significant figure in this was Philo of Alexandria, who appropriated the Greek term "Logos" to refer to the divine Wisdom and power in the created world as part of his general programme to interpret the Jewish scriptures as teaching Platonic philosophy. This attempt seems to have been completely ignored by the philosophers but impressed the Christians. We find similar ideas in the prologue to John's Gospel - although it is uncertain whether the author was familiar with Philo or whether its ideas should be interpreted in the light of Jewish Wisdom, Greek Logos, or both - and in Justin Martyr, with exactly the same caveats. After Justin, "Logos theology" became a commonplace in Christian theology, the basic idea being that the Logos is a second God after the Father (as in Middle Platonism), who runs the universe, and who was emitted by the Father on the eve of creation for the purpose of creating the universe, who is closely linked to human reason and acts as the universal teacher, and who is incarnate in Christ. You find these ideas in the apologists (such as Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus of Alexandria), Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. However, they were controversial, as some people thought that this kind of theology led to ditheism (i.e. positing the Logos as a distinct God), and Hippolytus got into some trouble for this.
As time went on, Logos theology developed. In the second century, to call Christ the "Logos" was to express his relation to the created universe, but in the third, it was more to do with his relation to the Father. And so we find Tertullian and Origen starting to expand on the idea and develop what we would think of as the doctrine of the Trinity, with the extension of the language of Logos theology to the Holy Spirit. And later, in the fourth century, theologians would come to reject the subordinationism of Logos theology - which makes the Logos very much a second divine figure after the Father - and develop the doctrine of the Trinity so that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all explicitly equal and fully sharing in divinity in the same way, differing only in their mutual relations.
Basically, in Greek philosophy, there was a common idea of the divine power immanent in the physical world. For Platonists, this was the World Soul, an immaterial divine power that bears the same relation to the universe as the relation of the human soul to the human body. Stoics, of course, thought that the human soul is material, and they thought the same thing about the divine power, which they called the Logos and sometimes thought of as a fiery element. Later Platonists thought of the World Soul as a second God, below the High God, which runs the universe on his behalf, and they sometimes took the word "Logos" from Stoicism and used it to refer to this divine entity.
In Judaism, meanwhile, there was a tradition of taking the divine attributes and speaking about them as if they were independent entities in their own right. One of these was the divine Wisdom, which is personified in the Wisdom books such as the book of Proverbs. Another example is the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom itself. There are clear parallels between the Jewish tradition of Wisdom and the Greek tradition of the World Soul/Logos, and indeed the book of Wisdom is thought to show the influence of Greek philosophical ideas, so they did not develop in isolation from each other.
By the time of the Christian era these ideas were coalescing. A very significant figure in this was Philo of Alexandria, who appropriated the Greek term "Logos" to refer to the divine Wisdom and power in the created world as part of his general programme to interpret the Jewish scriptures as teaching Platonic philosophy. This attempt seems to have been completely ignored by the philosophers but impressed the Christians. We find similar ideas in the prologue to John's Gospel - although it is uncertain whether the author was familiar with Philo or whether its ideas should be interpreted in the light of Jewish Wisdom, Greek Logos, or both - and in Justin Martyr, with exactly the same caveats. After Justin, "Logos theology" became a commonplace in Christian theology, the basic idea being that the Logos is a second God after the Father (as in Middle Platonism), who runs the universe, and who was emitted by the Father on the eve of creation for the purpose of creating the universe, who is closely linked to human reason and acts as the universal teacher, and who is incarnate in Christ. You find these ideas in the apologists (such as Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus of Alexandria), Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. However, they were controversial, as some people thought that this kind of theology led to ditheism (i.e. positing the Logos as a distinct God), and Hippolytus got into some trouble for this.
As time went on, Logos theology developed. In the second century, to call Christ the "Logos" was to express his relation to the created universe, but in the third, it was more to do with his relation to the Father. And so we find Tertullian and Origen starting to expand on the idea and develop what we would think of as the doctrine of the Trinity, with the extension of the language of Logos theology to the Holy Spirit. And later, in the fourth century, theologians would come to reject the subordinationism of Logos theology - which makes the Logos very much a second divine figure after the Father - and develop the doctrine of the Trinity so that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all explicitly equal and fully sharing in divinity in the same way, differing only in their mutual relations.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Thanks for the answers, as always.
When did the Catholic Church start? And is it possible/likely that their doctrines today differ from those practiced by Christians in the Ancient Church?
When did the Catholic Church start? And is it possible/likely that their doctrines today differ from those practiced by Christians in the Ancient Church?
The Catholic Church never exactly "started", because it's the historic, ancient church. The simple version of this is that the church existed as a single entity until the fifth century, at which point the Orthodox on the one hand and the Monophysites and Nestorians on the other split from each other, all claiming to be the "original" church. And later in the Middle Ages (at some unclearly defined point) the same thing happened with the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches - they split, each claiming to the "original". From an organisational point of view you can't really say which one was right. It's rather like when an amoeba splits - which one is the "original"?
The more complex version is the same, but with the added point that there was never really a single church organisation in the first place; Christianity was always a more or less loose coalition of churches even from the very first days of the religion.
It is certain that the doctrines of the Catholic Church differ from those of the original Christians, at least to the minimal extent that Catholics today believe (explicitly) things that the early Christians did not believe (explicitly). E.g. no early Christian texts attest to belief in the physical translation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The official Catholic line is that there is no contradiction, though, because although the early Christians might not have explicitly stated this doctrine and others, they were implicit in what they did explicitly teach. So the development of Catholic doctrine has been not a matter of making up new stuff, but a matter of teasing out what was always there implicitly.
Personally I think that there is some truth in this but to be honest it's hard to see a lot of these doctrines, especially those involving the Virgin Mary, in the New Testament. I think that Catholic teachings represent a development of early Christian doctrines in that they build upon them (rather than being complete innovations), but to say that they were always there implicitly is too strong.
The more complex version is the same, but with the added point that there was never really a single church organisation in the first place; Christianity was always a more or less loose coalition of churches even from the very first days of the religion.
It is certain that the doctrines of the Catholic Church differ from those of the original Christians, at least to the minimal extent that Catholics today believe (explicitly) things that the early Christians did not believe (explicitly). E.g. no early Christian texts attest to belief in the physical translation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The official Catholic line is that there is no contradiction, though, because although the early Christians might not have explicitly stated this doctrine and others, they were implicit in what they did explicitly teach. So the development of Catholic doctrine has been not a matter of making up new stuff, but a matter of teasing out what was always there implicitly.
Personally I think that there is some truth in this but to be honest it's hard to see a lot of these doctrines, especially those involving the Virgin Mary, in the New Testament. I think that Catholic teachings represent a development of early Christian doctrines in that they build upon them (rather than being complete innovations), but to say that they were always there implicitly is too strong.
GhostWriter16
Deity
A lot of Catholics would claim it was always there, which is why I asked the question. If you are following "Ask a Catholic II," its something that's been brought up many times.
Of course the Catholics will claim their doctrine is the first and only, but this does not mean that this is the case.
A related question: Many Protestants (Myself included) would claim that Catholicism was correct at one point, many years ago, but it began slipping in its doctrine as the Reformation approached. Now, obviously, which doctrines are correct is an opinion, at least from the perspective of this thread. However, would it be accurate to say that Catholic doctrines HAVE changed between 500 and 1500 AD?
Of course the Catholics will claim their doctrine is the first and only, but this does not mean that this is the case.
A related question: Many Protestants (Myself included) would claim that Catholicism was correct at one point, many years ago, but it began slipping in its doctrine as the Reformation approached. Now, obviously, which doctrines are correct is an opinion, at least from the perspective of this thread. However, would it be accurate to say that Catholic doctrines HAVE changed between 500 and 1500 AD?
I'm not following it, but certainly the Catholic Church has always been there (or at least, ever since the time of the first Christians). There's no doubt about that - as long as you understand that "the Catholic Church" does not mean the same thing when referring to antiquity. As a parallel, one can say without controversy that the English monarchy has existed for over a thousand years (interregnum aside), provided one understands that the English monarchy that existed a thousand years ago bore pretty much no resemblance whatsoever to the one we've got now. The controversial bit is what one thinks the ancient Catholic Church was like.
It would be entirely accurate and I don't think any thinking Catholic would disagree, at least on some level. Again, the issue is how one evaluates those changes: are they just a matter of making explicit what was always implicitly believed, or are they the introduction of innovative and novel ideas, or are they something in between? I'm inclined to think that most are something in between, but really this is the kind of question that can't really be answered, short of getting into a time machine and asking (say) Irenaeus of Lyons whether he agrees with the statement that (say) the Virgin Mary was conceived sinlessly. As long as people like him didn't address issues like that, we can never really confidently evaluate the relation of modern Catholic doctrines to ancient ones.
GhostWriter16
Deity
That makes sense, and I've always suspected we didn't really *Know* all that much about Christanity's earliest roots, because if we did, why would there be so many different groups with so many different beliefs, all claiming the Bible at inspiration? For instance, if we had something written by Paul that clearly said "Man has free will to choose God or reject him," than the Calvinists (Note, this is just as an example to illustrate a point) would pretty much have to give up their case, and likewise for the non-Calvinists if Paul had said "God chooses who is going to be saved." I would speculate the reason we don't have it written so clearly is because God WANTED us to search for answers and seek his guidance on them and to study, rather than to simply have the answers in front of us.
I bolded that last sentence as it was simply speculation and not really related to the rest of the post, but other than that, would you say what I just wrote is a fairly accurate picture?
I bolded that last sentence as it was simply speculation and not really related to the rest of the post, but other than that, would you say what I just wrote is a fairly accurate picture?
Yes, I would say so. But I'd add two caveats. The first is that we do actually have a lot of information on early Christianity - the problem is how to interpret it. E.g. we have writings from a whole range of second-century Christians, from Justin Martyr to Irenaeus to Basilides to Valentinus. There's not much doubt about what all these people believed, for the most part. So from that point of view we know a lot about early Christianity. But there's tremendous doubt over how they all related to each other. Do Justin Martyr and Irenaeus represent "orthodox" Christianity, and Basilides and Valentinus represent "heretical" sects, as in the traditional view? Or was there no such thing as "orthodoxy" and "heresy", and Justin Martyr and Irenaeus actually represent minority, partisan groups? There's really no way to be sure. So from that point of view, there's a great deal we don't know about early Christianity.
The second caveat is that much of the kind of thing you mention isn't really a matter of us not knowing what the early Christians believed. After all, Paul wrote down quite a lot of what he believed. It's more a matter the early Christians simply not thinking about things that would later become important. Issues such as predestination and free will didn't occur to them, so they didn't address them. So it's not like there are facts about the early Christians' views on certain matters, and we simply lack the facts; rather, there are no such facts, because the early Christians didn't have views on these matters.
(They did address the issue of free will and fate, invariably coming down in favour of free will in much the same way and for much the same reasons as the Platonists, but that wasn't quite the same issue.)
The second caveat is that much of the kind of thing you mention isn't really a matter of us not knowing what the early Christians believed. After all, Paul wrote down quite a lot of what he believed. It's more a matter the early Christians simply not thinking about things that would later become important. Issues such as predestination and free will didn't occur to them, so they didn't address them. So it's not like there are facts about the early Christians' views on certain matters, and we simply lack the facts; rather, there are no such facts, because the early Christians didn't have views on these matters.
(They did address the issue of free will and fate, invariably coming down in favour of free will in much the same way and for much the same reasons as the Platonists, but that wasn't quite the same issue.)
GhostWriter16
Deity
OK that makes more sense.
I figured they were good questions to ask, since I've been accused by multiple Catholics of ignoring "Christ's true Church", so I decided, rather than go through a pointless argument, better to just ask here.
And overall, yes, your post does make sense.
The only thing I would add is I tend to think the Bible writers themselves perhaps had views on issues that, say, the Church Fathers did not, since the Bible is ultimately the source of Christian doctrine, and many of the texts appear to be talking about such issues.
I figured they were good questions to ask, since I've been accused by multiple Catholics of ignoring "Christ's true Church", so I decided, rather than go through a pointless argument, better to just ask here.
And overall, yes, your post does make sense.
The only thing I would add is I tend to think the Bible writers themselves perhaps had views on issues that, say, the Church Fathers did not, since the Bible is ultimately the source of Christian doctrine, and many of the texts appear to be talking about such issues.
- Status
