Did Augustine corrupt Christianity with NeoPlatonism?

[Catholicwife32]

Who is right? It can’t be be determined by logic. This isn’t the scientific method. There is no proof. For some, this awareness that it’s impossible to know seems to disprove Christianity altogether. For others, there is a tendency to view it as a worry we should not have because God cares about our sincere pursuit of Him. Salvation is not dependent on us knowing everything about the world in order to figure out WHO is right. And that actually leads to a more hopeful view that is actually present in the Catechism. If we are humble about our ability to know anything, than we can be hopeful of salvation for those outside of the Church all without denying that those who know the Church is necessary for salvation would be sinning if they stayed out.

But moreover, there is one aid we have in addition to logic. We can pray. We can ask God where He is guiding us. And we can trust that in listening to His Word in prayer that we are sincerely trying to follow Him. Thus even with some missteps, even if we get confused here in there, we can rest assured that God loves us and isn’t looking to send us to Hell for things that aren’t our fault.

 

[AlNg]

is being “neo-platonist” a bad thing?

I don’t think so, as long as it is not taken to extremes. IMHO, non Christians have had some very good ideas which should not be rejected out of hand.

 

[ZMystiCat]

ZMystiCat, shall we continue?

Sorry, I got the notification right before heading out to do stuff. I also had dinner.

How is this referencing pagan practices? What other verses can you cite that reference pagan practices?

According to the NABRE footnote, the idea of “putting on Christ” is a reference to both OT belief and beliefs held by “pagan mystery cults”. Chances are, one such cult was popular in Galatia, and some Galatian Christians were perhaps converts from such a cult. I’m not that familiar with the local cults of the time, but Paul may have brought up their belief to help the Galatians understand what was going on at baptism.

Some other references include:

• Acts 17:28: Paul quotes a couple works. One is Cretica by Epimenides, and the second is Hymn to Zeus by Aratus. Both were, as you may guess, originally applied to Zeus, but Paul took the phrase and applied it to God, implying that the Greek way of seeing Zeus was not entirely unlike how Christians should understand God.
• 1 Corinthians 15:23: Paul quotes a phrase found in a play written by the Greek dramatist Menander.
• Titus 1:12: Paul again quotes Epimenides.

Now, none of this is to say that these Greek philosophers and dramatists were Divinely inspired. There was, however, bits in their writings that, when properly applied, pointed to the truth. Relevant to this discussion, though, it shows that the idea of taking Greek thought and properly applying it was a practice even the Apostles adopted.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

I wouldn’t call it Pagan. It wasn’t religious in nature. Moreover, Christianity is supposed to be a catholic/universal faith. This means that while the Jews were the chosen people, God was preparing the whole world. The story of the Jews is only part of the story, though that’s what we focus on in scripture. But in John’s Gospel especially, the time of the crucifixion is marked when the Greeks approach Christ and start showing interest.

John’s gospel also begins with “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God . . . etc etc.” The Word is then said to become flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. In the Mass, we encounter God’s Word (Jesus) through the scriptures and then through the Eucharist. If you think of the Word of God as the book, the bible, then you’re not understanding. It’s very supernatural and mysterious.

When pagans were preached to (as we see in the Acts of the Apostles), they aren’t condemned for their paganism exactly. St. Paul praises them for being a very religious people and mentions the temple dedicated to the Unknown god. He then tells people that they’ve had encounters with a god they do not understand. So he takes their religious experience, this encounter with the Word and then tells them who the Word is.

Every time early Christianity went to a new people, Christianity took the pagan practicizes and Christened them. Pagan temples were converted to Christian churches, pagan holidays were converted to Christian ones. People’s natural religocity was adapted to Christianity while trying to root out the idoltry and occultism, etc.

I can agree with this to an extent, we must always profess Christ in a loving way and not one that is completely antagonistic. But this politeness with preaching the Gospel is not akin to saying that the paganism was in anyway shape of form compatible with Christianity. If so, then you’re saying that the truth does lay within us, and that almost sounds universalist.

Paul and most of the early Christians and early church fathers understood that the different religions were men’s attempt to reach God, while Christianity is God reaching man. That human reason alone could come to a semblance of the truth but what is needed is God’s revealed truth and his grace to receive it.

As a new Catholic I try to be patient and learn, but I am always a bit concerned at how many Catholics take an almost immediate reaction to my suggestion that pagan thought is corrupt thought. I don’t get the almost borderline universalist thought that just because there is a mystery to things that perhaps it includes these other religions. It doesn’t. There is nothing you can actually learn about these other religions and faiths that you cannot learn about truth without the Bible and Christianity first.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Now, none of this is to say that these Greek philosophers and dramatists were Divinely inspired. There was, however, bits in their writings that, when properly applied, pointed to the truth. Relevant to this discussion, though, it shows that the idea of taking Greek thought and properly applying it was a practice even the Apostles adopted.

I am in agreement that men through their rational faculties can come to certain truths that appear compatible with the Bible, but at the same time, in my opinion, they’re merely a semblance of the truth. They’re not real truth. Truth is revealed. I respect other faiths but I know they stem from vastly different presuppositions and meet different end goals.

When a Buddhist says love thy neighbor, and a Christian says the same thing, they can both appear to be the same thing. But the former is intended to aid in the reaching of a state of Nirvana, while the latter is a command by the one true God. These two truths serve different ends. There is no reason to assume that just because there is a semblance of truth in the former, that it completely relates with the latter. It’s corrupted truth. It’s a completely man made faith.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Who is right? It can’t be be determined by logic. This isn’t the scientific method. There is no proof. For some, this awareness that it’s impossible to know seems to disprove Christianity altogether. For others, there is a tendency to view it as a worry we should not have because God cares about our sincere pursuit of Him. Salvation is not dependent on us knowing everything about the world in order to figure out WHO is right. And that actually leads to a more hopeful view that is actually present in the Catechism. If we are humble about our ability to know anything, than we can be hopeful of salvation for those outside of the Church all without denying that those who know the Church is necessary for salvation would be sinning if they stayed out.

But moreover, there is one aid we have in addition to logic. We can pray. We can ask God where He is guiding us. And we can trust that in listening to His Word in prayer that we are sincerely trying to follow Him. Thus even with some missteps, even if we get confused here in there, we can rest assured that God loves us and isn’t looking to send us to Hell for things that aren’t our fault.

I am sorry but this is dangerously close to universalism. Why be Catholic at all?

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

I think that when it came to the early Christians and their relations with pagans, they merely being political in order to get people to understand the revealed truth by relating it to things they would easily understand. I am sure they weren’t equating it with the revealed truth. It is just a method of evangelizing.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

I don’t think so, as long as it is not taken to extremes. IMHO, non Christians have had some very good ideas which should not be rejected out of hand.

I agree, but the presuppositions of those ideas should be examined to see what purpose they serve. If it serves not to glorify God then it shouldn’t be outright rejected per se, just shown that it’s getting there but still misses the mark.

Truth is not just truth for truth’s sake. It must serve a purpose, and ask to what end?

If I do sound harsh I should note I am very Thomistic.

 

[Catholicwife32]

But this politeness with preaching the Gospel

Politeness? I will never understand people who think that lying to people is moral! There’s nothing polite about false praise, especially if you have an agenda. Preach with the truth only. Be tactful but don’t be deceptive!

is not akin to saying that the paganism was in anyway shape of form compatible with Christianity.

Religious devotion is humanity raising their hands to God. Christianity is God reaching His hand to us. I see from your other comments you already acknowledge this.

If so, then you’re saying that the truth does lay within us, and that almost sounds universalist.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the truth does lay within us.” That isn’t a phrase I’m used to. Depending on what you mean by it, I would agree or disagree. For instance, Catholicism teaches that the moral law is written on the human heart and can be known without it being prescribed or taught to us.

We are not universalists in the sense that all religions are equal paths to the divine. We do believe that Christianity is catholic/universal.

There is nothing you can actually learn about these other religions and faiths that you cannot learn about truth without the Bible and Christianity first.

Neoplatonism is a philosophy. It isn’t paganism. Catholicism still tries to dialogue with the world as philosophies change. For instance, John Paul II’s theology is based on phenomenology.

We aren’t ones who believe that we only have the bible. We have reason and the world around us too. Divine Revelation is important but it gives us something extra. It’s not an alternative. And either way, it’s pretty heavy stuff.

Here’s an Orthodox priest discussing Neoplatonism and Christianity. I wouldn’t say he’s expressing anything that could be a form of NeoPlatonism corrupting Christianity. I do get the impression that the Orthodox generally feel that Christianity became over-intellectualized. They’re very much oriented toward Christian mysticism rather than constantly thinking so hard about everything.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

I was speaking of being polite and not coming in and saying that your beliefs are just utter horse trash. I was saying that one should evangelize by finding common ground, understand the other person and where they’re coming from, and not be arrogant.

We are in agreement about religious devotion being men raising their hands to God but as I’ve said before, no matter how religiously devoted another is to their deity, if it’s not the truth that can conform to scripture, it’s not revealed truth. It should be seen as “truth” that misses the mark.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the truth does lay within us.” That isn’t a phrase I’m used to. Depending on what you mean by it, I would agree or disagree. For instance, Catholicism teaches that the moral law is written on the human heart and can be known without it being prescribed or taught to us.

We are not universalists in the sense that all religions are equal paths to the divine. We do believe that Christianity is catholic/universal.

The Bible also says that we were dead in our trespasses but God. It says the heart is deceitful above all things. There is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. This very conversation we are having was already had in Romans 3:6-19.

The moral law is written on the hearts of all men, their conscience bearing witness. This is to show that man is not blameless and has a sense of right and wrong, but knows not the true right and wrong which is revealed. Everyone has a code of ethics or a moral framework, even criminal organizations have a “moral” code that they judge, accuse and defend each other with.

A semblance of truth does lay within us, but we need revelation for it to be understood, complete. Whole.

Last, I am not against neo-platonism. Augustine, who is accused of being the biggest neoplatonist, is my favorite Saint.

The only thing I found to be dangerously universalist on your part is hoping that that door would be wide into heaven since we do not know who will be saved and that it is the God who will do the saving. Even as to question who is to say who is in the right?

It almost reads as though you’re taking a speculative notion about not knowing who is saved, and that only God knows and does the saving, and stretching it to almost sound universalist. That if a person sincerely follows their religion no matter how wrong it is, that they’re counted as seeking after Him and might be included in heaven. Is this right? IF so, why would you hope for this? It cheapens Christ’s death on the cross.

What do we know objectively? That He is the way, the truth, and the light, no one comes to the Father except through Him.

 

[Catholicwife32]

We are in agreement about religious devotion being men raising their hands to God but as I’ve said before, no matter how religiously devoted another is to their deity, if it’s not the truth that can conform to scripture, it’s not revealed truth.

You’re using words very vaguely here. It’s not clear what you are trying to communicate.
The Catholic view of scripture is different than the Protestant view. I’d recommend Dei Verbum but its a dry read. Catholic Answers had a bit about our view here:

Scripture and Tradition | Catholic Answers Tract

[deleted rest. Was rushed and harsh. Needed to get to bed but felt I’d been too harsh so got rid of it]

 

[ServusDei1]

The EO is WAY more neo platonic than the Aristotelian west.

 

[ServusDei1]

And just a reminder, the East has its fair share of Neo Platonists too.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

You’re using words very vaguely here. It’s not clear what you are trying to communicate.
The Catholic view of scripture is different than the Protestant view. I’d recommend Dei Verbum but its a dry read. Catholic Answers had a bit about our view here:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/scripture-and-tradition

Does not tradition conform to the Bible though? As said in your link, they tend toward the same end.

I am not preaching sola scriptura. That’s not what this is about. 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?

The bible can be interpretted a multitude of ways. That is why there are so many Protestant denominations. A bible alone faith is a downright stupid faith because language does not exist outside of culture and things are lost in translation. As such, the older it becomes, the more we rely on translators to interpret the bible for us. The more distant we become from the original source’s culture of origin, the harder it for even the historians to fully understand it. They have to rely on materials clues in other sources to try to recreate the culture and then try to translate it.

I think there is this tendency among some Catholics to think that if they’re strict on this notion, that they’re going to sound like evangelical fundamentalists. I am not a Protestant, but I am a traditionalist.

I just think there should be a defense of the faith that amounts to what you said in light of scripture + tradition, but as I said before in an earlier post; you’re taking a speculative notion church leaders have said about not knowing who is saved, and that only God knows and does the saving, and stretching it to be universalist. 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.

Where do they get this? This not only cheapens the death of Christ on the cross, but also begs the question, why be Catholic at all?

Seriously, what is the fear about taking an assured approach that says; HE is the way, the Truth, and the Light, no one comes to the Father except through Him? What kind of doctorate in divinity does one need to interpret that???

Should we not be grateful that there is even a gate to heaven at all? That God decided to come down and save us from eternal damnation? Christians should be grateful every day, not cheapen it by saying there might be other ways, and because we don’t ultimately know, perhaps hope that door is very wide instead of very narrow. You hope this??? Why???

What do we know objectively ? What has been said before by Church leaders? The early church fathers? The road is narrow.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

The EO is WAY more neo platonic than the Aristotelian west.

Yes, but he thinks the process of theosis isn’t neoplatonic. I mean it’s bordering on Eastern pagan mysticism, IMO.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

And just a reminder, the East has its fair share of Neo Platonists too.

He think their neoplatonists don’t go that far, and that our neoplatonists produced a lot of heretics. He cites the Renaissance period as evidence.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

The bible can be interpretted a multitude of ways. That is why there are so many Protestant denominations. A bible alone faith is a downright stupid faith

To be fair to the Protestants, they’re more united than you think about the basic fundamentals; trinity, salvation, grace, etc.

Sometimes I think that some Catholics would rather side with a Buddhist than an evangelical when it comes to doctrine because they just think the latter is just so darn “narrow minded”.

Yet, Protestants, Calvinists no less absolutely ADORE St. Augustine, so much so they want to count him as their own. While I’ve read on this very site no less, some Catholics consider him and Aquinas to be too harsh.

 

[Sophie111]

Is my friend saying that Catholicism is built on hijacked Greek philosophy and fused it with Christianity?

Yes it is, and later Aquinas baptised Aristotle.
Church soul talk is pure Aristotelian “science”.

The correct word is not corrupted or fusioned.
Its baptised.

Its simply ancient “science” being adapted as a vehicle or framework for systemetising Christian faith.

Much of what you think is pure Christianity (eg soul talk) did not come from Jesus - yet is not incompatible with Jesus’s teaching.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Yes it is, and later Aquinas baptised Aristotle.
Church soul talk is pure Aristotelian “science”.

The correct word is not corrupted or fusioned.
Its baptised.

Its simply ancient “science” being adapted as a vehicle or framework for systemetising Christian faith.

Much of what you think is pure Christianity (eg soul talk) did not come from Jesus - yet is not incompatible with Jesus’s teaching.

Do you mean apologetics? Isn’t there a concept of the Logos; the created order where everything else proceeds? It seems as though every philosophy or religion on Earth will have a semblance of the truth as revealed to us. It’s just perhaps that the Greeks were closer to it than anyone else at the time? But it still has to be examined in light of scripture and tradition, no?

 

[Sophie111]

But I could see the fear that some might think in that others would take this thinking too far. I was actually going to say that some of the Eastern Orthodox way of thinking, such as the process of Theosis, sounds WAY more neoplatonic and almost akin to Eastern pagan mysticism, but that’s just my two cents.

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.