Gatekeeping Christianity II
Without getting into the weeds, Christians denominations have to accept the Nicene Creed in order to be Christian. Mormonism reject it. So....
So there were no Christians for the first 300 years AD? Also, what about all the Aryans, Gnostics, etc who did not follow the creed, let alone the millions of Christians since then (including today) to whom the Nicene Creed makes no sense?
It's not quite that simple, though I think it's a good, valid question. Many Christians may not get this, but those who are aware of historical theology and its implications do. You may be one of those who thinks this is all nonsense and silly quibbling, but I can try to give you an explanation from an orthodox point of view.
The issue is not an necessarily an individual being aware of or correctly understanding the Nicene Creed or the Trinity. But in the NT (particularly Galatians), we see the authors concerned that certain beliefs could undermine a person's trusting in Christ for their salvation. This was the concern with the Gnostics in the 2nd century, though that's another topic that I won't get into to avoid getting too lengthy.
In response to Arius' denial of Christ's true divinity and relegation of him to a created being, St. Athanasius argued that its logical conclusion was that Christ lacked the power and authority to save. And this is how it's actually played out in history. When groups deny Christ's deity, he becomes an example to save oneself in some way, rather than the savior you can trust to save to the uttermost (Heb 7:25). It's been the case with Mormonism. You end up with law, not grace.
So those creeds didn't imply that all who lived before then weren't Christians, but meant to safeguard the message of salvation for the church in the future. Some of those earlier fathers may have spoken in some ways not consistent with Nicea, but other times they did. The councils sought to iron out those issues.
I don't disagree with this, but the question is, what do call unorthodox followers of / believers in Jesus Christ if not Christian?
Obviously, historically they were simply called "heretics," "witches," or "dead", but what do we call them in modern times?
John 8:58
Look I'm not a scholar in the field so I don't want engage in a long discussion where we ultimately come away in disagreement. I personally believe that the whole Arian thing to be a red herring.For approximately 1500 years, Nicene Christianity was the only form of Christianity. What people believed in the Apostolic period will remain a subject of speculation and debate.
What do you mean Arianism is a red herring? You mean it didn't exist or wasn't significant? Do you say the same for Gnosticism? Sabellianism? Marcionism? Docetism? Adoptionism? Montanism? Nestorianism?
There was never a time when Nicene Christianity was the only form of Christianity. It's just the only form of Christianity that you personally accept. It could also be called "mainstream" since it is the most popular version by a long shot. But the only form? Far from it.
However, looking at the history of how it became the dominant version of Christianity should give you pause. It wasn't a spiritual conviction that led most people to it by any stretch.
Let me guess... you happen to belong to one of the denominations that accept the Nicene Creed?
Perhaps you should look up the "no true Scottsman" logical fallacy.
The only three major nontrinitarian/non-Nicene self-proclaimed Christian groups are Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals/Apostolics, and drumbeat, Mormons. If you add them all together, they're probably not even 50 million. Compared to over 2 billion Nicene Christians, they're the fringe and extreme minority.
You missed Christian Scientists and Unitarians, but sure - trinitarians are the majority... and considering such beliefs were a death sentence for a thousand years, it's not too surprising.
You are committing another logical fallacy here: an appeal to the majority.
Just because people with different beliefs are persecuted within Christianity doesn't make them non-Christians.
Certainly they are Heretics to you, but your beliefs are heretical to them.
You missed Christian Scientists and Unitarians, but sure - trinitarians are the majority... and considering such beliefs were a death sentence for a thousand years, it's not too surprising.
I probably missed them because Christian Scientists don't even have a million members. I can't keep track of all the cults -- not my field of study. Ditto for the Unitarian Church (the one I'm thinking of). It's largely a secular meeting place for the irreligious.
You are committing another logical fallacy here: an appeal to the majority.
Like I said previously, I can't be polite here. You need to save that style of discourse for academic settings. if you detect bad faith or ignorance, it's fine to bring it to people's attention, but otherwise, you're not as cute or smart as you think are.. I went to a four-year college. I took three writing courses and wrote several papers on logic, reason, and argumentation -- I know exactly what logical fallacies are. I don't care about committing a foul if it's for the sake of making a point or just stating observable reality.
Just because people with different beliefs are persecuted within Christianity doesn't make them non-Christians.
I don't inherently disagree with the premise of this. Catholicism has a really dark history of prosecuting and massacring heretics. That's a low-point in Christendom. But I guess for them, they were protecting it. So I understand both sides to this conflict of ideas. That said, this doesn't give cover to truly aberrant religions like Mormonism that masquerade as Christanity while having completely different theological ideas, a new scripture, a different God, polytheism, sacraments/rituals, etc.
Certainly they are Heretics to you, but your beliefs are heretical to them.
Mormons who self-identity as the true restored church of Jesus Christ are deserving of the word heretics because of how dupliticious and insidious their tactics are. I don't mean to pick on your faith, but it deserves a lot of scorn for conning millions of people into what was once a sex cult that now wants legitimacy as a Christian church. Heretic is a strong word and is generally not apart of my vocabulary; I'm not the judgemental type, and again, I'm not a scholar or Christian theologian. Furthermore, I think the word is defunct in the modern era because of how splintered Christianity is.
Mormonism isn't my faith, nor do I disagree with your assessment of their duplicitous and insidious tactics.
The problem is that Christianity has been a source of duplicitous and insidious tactics since the beginning.
I get that you want to separate yourself somehow from the "bad" parts of Christianity and labelling / gatekeeping is one way to do that.
The fact remains that most of the "aberrant" theological ideas (revelation, scripture, godhood, afterlife, rituals etc.) that you speak of did not originate with Mormonism, as much as they want people to believe, but came from Christianity itself.
Mormonism isn't my faith, nor do I disagree with your assessment of their duplicitous and insidious tactics.
That's great to hear. This whole time I thougth I was exchanging words with some crypto Mormon who was trying to play mind games on me.
The problem is that Christianity has been a source of duplicitous and insidious tactics since the beginning.
Care to elaborate? I mean, I have some ideas about what you may be referring to. But it sounds like you're some anti-theist who wants to pick apart Christanity and score points on believing members for doing mental gynmanistics to justify their faith. I used to do that when I was 15-16. (No offense.) I don't know if this is your intention but it just seems at best a waste of energy, at worst, being a so-called fedora tipper.
I don't care about gatekeeping Mormonism and other weird sects like the Christian Scientists and Jehovahs. I'd love to have a potluck with all of them provided that arguments/fighting doesn't break out. But seriously, I just don't want them showing up at my door and growing larger in size with their dumb ideas--and I would argue--bad intentions. Like I said, there's something like 2.4 billion Christians on the planet. I don't concern myself with aberrant sects that number less than one hundred million, provided that they don't bother me or use what power they do have (like the Mormon Church) to enact dogma into policy.
In response to your question about why Arianism is a red herring -- it's because it's a defunct idea from 1700 years ago. I'm not a historian of religions. I simply do not care about the taxidermy and all the interesting unorthodox ideas during the evolution of Christianity. Well, I'm sure when I have time I'd like to do some reading. But what I'm getting at is that Nicene Christanity is the Christanity that considered valid and true by most people (ooops, fallacy). And I do believe we need a religion as a bedrock or social fabric and thus, I believe Nicene Christanity should be it.
I don't see the point in being an Arianan, gnostic, or Montanist/Pentecostal in the 21st century. I was raised Pentecostal actually -- so been there and done that. (I'm nondenominational now). These are red herrings in sense that you're bringing up defunct ideas. It's like mentioning Aristotielian physics when we have Newtonian and Einstein's physics today. Why waste time on debunked things that no body cares about anymore? Final point on Arianism...you do know that there's a certain prophet who allegedly got his ideas from an Arianian monk and went on to found the world's second largest religion? People can just join that religion if they care about Arianianism so much.
I completely agree with you that religions are not created equal and that they do not all deserve the same level of respect.
This is even more true with regard to religious people themselves.
I do find it curious, however, when religious people criticize other religious or supernatural ideas. I'm not talking about criticism of sex cults, doomsday cults or other extreme anti-social beliefs - that I basically understand.
What I don't quite get is calling certain beliefs "defunct" or "aberrant" simply because fewer people believe in them, especially when the major reason that so few people believe in them is because of thousands of years of persecution.
By that logic, Muslims are justified in calling Christians in the middle east followers of a defunct and aberrant religion.
As for the duplicitous and insidious tactics, you probably do understand a bit about what I am talking about.
Much of it is related to the persecution that has been used to "refine" the doctrine all along. These methods weren't restricted to a "low point in the Catholic church" but were employed and advocated by the earliest church fathers.
These tactics even predate the era of Christian political power.
Virtually all current orthodox doctrine is only orthodox because competing ideas were forcibly suppressed, books were burned, and people were tortured and killed. Many of the unorthodox ideas were actually more popular and widespread before such suppression.
Beyond that there is all the political maneuvering, intrigue and corruption not to mention scandalous activity from all levels that makes Joseph Smith look like a choir boy.
I'm not discounting all the good things that Christianity has done throughout the ages and today. In many ways, the beginnings of modern reason and morality were formed in that crucible, and much good is done in the name of Jesus.
But I do not think it is pointless to point out the compartmentalization required, not only to believe all the contradictory layers of doctrine, but to claim that the current orthodox position is the correct one simply because it survived, particularly by eating most of its brothers and sisters.
Comments
Post a Comment