Did Augustine corrupt Christianity with NeoPlatonism?

[AugustineFanNYC]

You must realise that Christianity is an Eastern religion and that its founder was middle Eastern and the first wave of gentile converts were Greeks from all over the Middle East?

It would be very strange then if our philosophic and religious roots did not have more in common with Buddhism or Greek thinking than that of less than religiously well educated US Catholics 2000 years later in the West.

I think you would have an amazingly interesting and mind blowing Catholic journey if you did a Church history paper at your local Catholic Uni.

Again, Buddhism may have some semblance of the truth that mirrors Christianity but in the end I look at the presuppositions of each philosophical tenet and ask what do they serve and to what end? I think Buddhists and Christians teaching both serve different ends. I see nothing that I could gain from Buddhism, spiritually, in light of scripture and tradition. I only see it as another attempt man has made to try and reach God.

I get what some in here are saying about historical context but they’re inverting what it means that the Church is universal. It’s universal because it preaches revealed truth, a truth that all men have been searching for in their own sincere albeit misguided ways. It doesn’t matter where our faith was founded in or that Christ was a Middle Eastern man, in the end the Gospel is universal.

 

[Sophie111]

I dont understand why this is difficult for you.
All religions express their beliefs through the models and systems of thought and reason in which they are born and spread. Christianity is no different.

90% of the theology taught to priests is held on a skeleton of basic philosophic concepts that are pure Aristotle. This was the work of Aquinas in C13. In C5 it was Plato but his thought had too many weaknesses for Christianity which is why Aristotle eventually won out when his works on the Soul and Metaphysics were rediscovered around C12.

Catholic Mysticism is still heavily Plato.

As others have mentioned Transubstantion (substance/accidents), the Trinity (Nature Person) soul talk (matter/form, active/passive intellect, material souls, spiritual souls, minerals/plants/animals/humans/angels) God talk (essence/existence) …all these concepts are pure Aristotle - with some turbo charging from Aquinas.

Welcome to the real Christianity

 

[Sophie111]

I dont really know what you are on about.
I am simply explaining to you the useful place of ancient Greek “science” in explaining Christian beliefs.
Its simply basic Church History.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

I dont really know what you are on about.
I am simply explaining to you the useful place of ancient Greek “science” in explaining Christian beliefs.

And I am saying that I get what you’re saying. I am not denying that you’re wrong. We didn’t take Greek ‘science’ because it happened to be there, because the early church fathers and other people such as Aquinas happened to reside in the West. It was examined in light of scripture too. It was seen as being very useful to bring light to Christian beliefs. It was seen as conforming and expanding upon Christian beliefs.

This doesn’t mean that everything else, such as Buddhism does the same thing.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

I dont understand why this is difficult for you.
All religions express their beliefs through the models and systems of thought and reason in which they are born and spread. Christianity is no different.

90% of the theology taught to priests is held on a skeleton of basic philosophic concepts that are pure Aristotle. This was the work of Aquinas in C13. In C5 it was Plato but his thought had too many weaknesses for Christianity which is why Aristotle eventually won out when his works on the Soul and Metaphysics were rediscovered around C12.

Catholic Mysticism is still heavily Plato.

As others have mentioned Transubstantion (substance/accidents), the Trinity (Nature Person) soul talk (matter/form, active/passive intellect, material souls, spiritual souls, minerals/plants/animals/humans/angels) God talk (essence/existence) …all these concepts are pure Aristotle - with some turbo charging from Aquinas.

Welcome to the real Christianity

But why say that it’s all Plato or Aristotle, and not that the Church made these ideas whole by filling in the gaps with the revealed truth? I mean how is this difficult for you? People are rational enough to know God but not give him credit as it says in Romans 1. They neither glorify Him nor give Him credit even though his presence is evident through creation. The Greeks just had a profound amount of knowledge they were able to discern from creation and reason alone. It gave testament to Christian beliefs about such things, but they were still not blameless.

And this certainly doesn’t give free reign to just seek truth in every other religion. I swear the Church is filled with some crypto-pelagians.

 

[Sophie111]

But why say that it’s all Plato or Aristotle, and not that the Church made these ideas whole by filling in the gaps with the revealed truth? I mean how is this difficult for you? People are rational enough to know God but not give him credit as it says in Romans 1. They neither glorify Him nor give Him credit even though his presence is evident through creation. The Greeks just had a profound amount of knowledge they were able to discern from creation and reason alone. It gave testament to Christian beliefs about such things, but they were still not blameless.

And this certainly doesn’t give free reign to just seek truth in every other religion. I swear the Church is filled with some crypto-pelagians.

Sorry, I dont understand how it is that you believe you can yet well grasp actual Church History and its implications for current theology simply by 30 minutes of your own reasoning on the few bones you have been thrown.

There is nothing I can say to relieve you of your confusions because there are so many mistaken conclusions and assumptions in your somewhat over extended responses I don’t know where to start.

If you find it interesting take a paper as suggested. It takes time to come to grips with this stuff.
God bless.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Sorry, I dont understand how it is that you believe you can yet well grasp actual Church History and its implications for current theology simply by 30 minutes of your own reasoning on the few bones you have been thrown.

There is nothing I can say to relive you of your confusions because there are so many mistaken conclusions and assumptions in your somewhat over extended responses I don’t know where to start.

If you find it interesting take a paper as suggested. It takes time to come to grips with this stuff.

Oh what a cop out. Just throw it out that I am too confused to understand without taking the time to explain where I err. You do know where to start, you just refuse to do so.

You’re basically saying that Christianity is not universal or unique. That it falls under the trappings of any religion, being based in it’s geographical location and the system of thought in that region. So these Christians such as Aquinas didn’t carefully vet the thinking of the Greeks, mull over their presuppositions to see if they conformed to Christianity, and then adopt them?

Why is a masters thesis needed to explain this matter further?

Are you a Christian?

 

[Catholicwife32]

Does not tradition conform to the Bible though?

I don’t know what you mean by conform. It doesn’t contradict the Bible, but there is ambiguity of what is in tradition. The Church settles some debates through ecumenical councils. Really, a lot of it is trusting the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church.

I am sorry if I am being vague, but the idea was to say that if a non-Christian religion has something that doesn’t conform to the Bible, and as such in turn not to sacred tradition, then it’s not Christian. I mean how is this confusing?

Icons were definitely a way of taking cultural custom with pagan roots. It was hotly debated but the council approved them. I wouldn’t call it conforming in the strictest sense.

Some Catholics say that if a person sincerely follows their religion no matter how blasphemous it is, that they’re counted as seeking after Him and might be included in heaven.

Christ is the Truth. Saint Edith Stein said the pursuit of truth is the pursuit of God. Indeed what leads a person into the Church from outside of it IS Christ. They are following Christ before they know who He is.

Hence wherever they are on that journey, the question is whether they knew the Church was the Church and refused to enter it or whether they did not enter because they did not know.

Knowledge is not knowing something is taught but knowing it is true.

Christians should be grateful every day, not cheapen it by saying there might be other ways

Christ is the Way. He was not a mere teacher of the Way. You’re denying that He is the way and claiming He taught a way that is a beurocractic system with lots of holes to fall through.

and because we don’t ultimately know, perhaps hope that door is very wide instead of very narrow

The road is narrow indeed. And the first will be last and the last first. Those of us in the Church and most devout will be last. And if we grumble at the seeming unfairness, we won’t enter. That doesn’t mean we aren’t called to our devotions, but if you want to be a saint, stop worrying about yourself. Take your eyes off the water below your feet and your fear of sinking into Hell. Your self concern will make you sink. Look up at Christ and walk on the water. You cannot get to Heaven on mere self preservation. You must love God with all your heart. It’s very counter intuitive but that is a large part of the gospel.

What do we know objectively ?

Nothing. Our experience of the world is subjective. Only God know things objectively.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Nothing. Our experience of the world is subjective. Only God know things objectively.

That is relativism.

Icons were definitely a way of taking cultural custom with pagan roots. It was hotly debated but the council approved them. I wouldn’t call it conforming in the strictest sense.

As long as they were reinterpreted to glorify God. Again, ask what is the end goal, what purpose does it serve?

Christ is the Truth. Saint Edith Stein said the pursuit of truth is the pursuit of God. Indeed what leads a person into the Church from outside of it IS Christ. They are following Christ before they know who He is.

Hence wherever they are on that journey, the question is whether they knew the Church was the Church and refused to enter it or whether they did not enter because they did not know.

Knowledge is not knowing something is taught but knowing it is true.

Then why be Catholic? Why evangelize? So if a person is following Islam or Buddhism fervently, their truth they’re pursuing, that was Christ leading them even though they did not know?

Why would Christ just not lead them to a saving knowledge of Him from the very beginning? What you’re basically teaching is neopelagianism, except that you’re saving your logic in the end by saying that it’s Christ ultimately doing the saving. Jesus saves…but he can do it through Islam too.

Christ is the Way. He was not a mere teacher of the Way. You’re denying that He is the way and claiming He taught a way that is a beurocractic system with lots of holes to fall through.

What holes? For a long time it was taught that there is no salvation outside of Christ. Now that’s too bureaucratic? And that Christ leads others through their respective non-Christan faiths?

The road is narrow indeed. And the first will be last and the last first. Those of us in the Church and most devout will be last. And if we grumble at the seeming unfairness, we won’t enter. That doesn’t mean we aren’t called to our devotions, but if you want to be a saint, stop worrying about yourself. Take your eyes off the water below your feet and your fear of sinking into Hell. Your self concern will make you sink. Look up at Christ and walk on the water. You cannot get to Heaven on mere self preservation. You must love God with all your heart. It’s very counter intuitive but that is a large part of the gospel.

Work out your faith with fear and trembling.

 

[Roguish]

Is this true? If so, I’m bummed. I mean is being “neo-platonist” a bad thing?

Did neo-Platonism get mixed in with Christianity? Yes. Is that a bad thing? No. Neo-Platonism is a correct metaphysical model, so it cannot possibly “harm” the truth. Of course Neo-Platonism isn’t quite religion, so it cannot stand on its own. But as an admixture to Christianity it has great value.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Did neo-Platonism get mixed in with Christianity? Yes. Is that a bad thing? No. Neo-Platonism is a correct metaphysical model, so it cannot possibly “harm” the truth. Of course Neo-Platonism isn’t quite religion, so it cannot stand on its own. But as an admixture to Christianity it has great value.

Yes. I see that now. The way my friend put it, he made it seem as though it was religious in scope.

 

[Sophie111]

Oh what a cop out. Just throw it out that I am too confused to understand without taking the time to explain where I err. You do know where to start, you just refuse to do so.

This is a forum.
If you want personal tutorial level of attention PM me and I will provide you charge rate and bank account details.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

This is a forum.
If you want personal tutorial level of attention PM me and I will provide you charge rate and bank account details.

Just recommend a book, or a lecture series to start off from.

 

[BartholomewB]

Over a hundred years ago Edwin Hatch went into the whole question very thoroughly in his last book, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church. Just as a taster, here’s the opening paragraph of the Introductory lecture:

It is impossible for any one, whether he be a student of history or no, to fail to notice a difference of both form and content between the Sermon on the Mount and the Nicene Creed. The Sermon on the Mount is the promulgation of a new law of conduct; it assumes beliefs rather than formulates them; the theological conceptions which underlie it belong to the ethical rather than the speculative side of theology; metaphysics are wholly absent. The Nicene Creed is a statement partly of historical facts and partly of dogmatic inferences; the metaphysical terms which it contains would probably have been unintelligible to the first disciples; ethics have no place in it. The one belongs to a world of Syrian peasants, the other to a world of Greek philosophers.

The influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian church : Hatch, Edwin, 1835-1889 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

xxiii, 359 p. ; 23 cm

archive.org

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Just dumb.

First off, if Catholicism is a pagan corruption, then so is Orthodoxy – precisely because the substance of the faith is about 99% in common. Both believe in the Trinity. Is that pagan? Both believe in Christ’s true humanity and divinity. Is that pagan? Both accept veneration and interecession of saints, predominantly Mary. Is that pagan? Both have a priesthood. Is that, too pagan? What about the Real Presence of the Eucharist? Or the Liturgy? Or Baptism, iconography, and a general sacramentality? Is that pagan?

All of these are either core beliefs or practices of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. How can he claim Catholicism is a pagan corruption when Orthodoxy also holds these same core essentials? They’re either both pagan, or not.

Second, philosophy has been used from the beginning to help shed light on Christian Faith. From the beginning, church fathers would see what was good from pagan philosophy and use it to bear witness to the universal Logos, Christ who enlightens all men.

This most certainly did NOT start with Augustine. And Augustine was NOT the only one to utilize Neo-platonism.

Third, there are multiple philosophical traditions within Catholicism. Not just neo-platonic.

Fourth, any Catholic should respect Augustine. Many Orthodox have an automatic distaste for Augustine, since they feel they have to, after all he’s so Catholic and Western-sounding. But why? Why can’t we appreciate West and East?

The Catholic Church in fact DOES appreciate both, because it is universal. Not just Latin West, but Syriac East, Greek East, Chaldean, Coptic, etc. If you don’t want to study Augustine, how about looking at any of these other traditions, which often make up the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Also, has your friend never heard of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite?