Platonic and Christian Theology: A Paper Analyzing the Relationship between Platonic Thought and Christian Philosophy.

Leonard O Goenaga

Professor Boronat

POT3013

November 10, 2008

 Platonic and Christian Theology: A Paper Analyzing the Relationship between Platonic Thought and Christian Philosophy.

Being quite the intellectual, Augustine, having received a prestigious academic chair within the Latin world, was oddly in internal turmoil. Having been a devout follower of Manichaeism, Augustine was moving away from the religion on the basis of a theological disagreement. In its place, Augustine pursued skepticism, only to later fall under the sway of Neoplatonism. It was here that his vehicle to Christianity, that of reason under Neoplatonic influence, would take him into the embrace of Christianity.[1] Having arrived through this vehicle of reason, Augustine was to become one of the most inspirational thinkers in Western Christianity, and would be the father of thought further developed during the medieval era. It is no wonder then, that even now, Christians freely speak of his thought as common dogma: from his concept of original sin, to his ideas of just war. The interplay between reason, Augustine’s Christianity, and his Platonic influence thus begs the question: if Augustine found immeasurable value between these two schools, what could a comparison between Christianity and Platonism provide for modern readers and practitioners? What similarities and differences do these two invaluable schools of belief and thought hold? This paper will focus on detailing and comparing Christian Theology with Platonic Philosophy, underscoring the similarities and differences between the two, and concluding with an evaluation of this assessment.

First and foremost, a discussion of the similarities between Platonic Philosophy and Christian Theology necessitates a brief summary of the nature of God. To start, God is a perfect being, containing within himself the reason for His existence, and absolute freedom. In addition, the Christian God contains various Omni-traits, as have been agreed upon by the Christian theologians of the ages. He contains within himself absolute intelligence, power, goodness, freedom, and needs no external force for His continued existence. Within this absolute freedom, we find a will that wished creation into being, with no external or internal factors forcing the creation of this world. Rather, God created the world simply because He desired to.  In addition to these characteristics, God is also a reasonable and all knowing figure, allowing humans to understand him on a rational basis, and concerning himself greatly with man’s affairs. Upon creation, God desired man to find fulfillment and completion in a loving relationship with Him. However, man, containing a free will in the image of the freedom of God, yet not containing the all-knowingness of God, could choose between entering into a genuine relationship with God (as loving presupposes choice and free will), or rejecting him. It is from this rejection of God that sin and imperfection enters the world, and it is God’s redemptive plan, through the saving powers of Grace through the salvation and revealed self-expression found within Jesus Christ (the λογοσ), that God made manifest his plan to reconnect humanity to their primal purpose: intimacy with the Father. It is from this brief summary of the Nature of God and the purpose of humanity that we build upon.

After establishing the absolute freedom and power of the Judaic-Christian God, we can now establish the Creation, and humanities relation to God. The Christian God created the world ex nihilo, or ‘out of nothing’. His purpose for creating the world is his own, and is not dependent, like the Platonic Demiurgos, on any external or internal factor. The infinite God created simply because he had the power and freedom to do so, and in this we find his purpose for doing so. Within this creation, which he deemed Good, we find the creation of Man in His image (Genesis 1:26[2], 31[3]). With the character of the Christian God established, and a general summary of creation made, we can now move to Human Nature and Man’s intended purpose.

As earlier mentioned, man’s purpose is to enter into an intimate relationship with his Creator, for a flock without a Shepard is lost. Man is lost in the sense that by following himself, his own impulses and his selfishness, man is trapped in a life of sinfulness, and sinfulness stands in opposite to the goodness and relationship God intends for Humanity. God created man with the purpose of making him in His “image and likeness” (Gen 1:26). However, Man has the ability to dedicate himself to God, or to sinful materialism. To combat man’s sinfulness, God revealed his self-expression in his son, Jesus, whom man could emulate to fulfill the above-mentioned purpose (As the Father, the Son, and the Spirit exist in a loving trinity). Through loving Christ, and modeling oneself after Him, man could fulfill his created purpose (entering into relationship with God, and modeling oneself ‘in His image’). Jesus, the Logos, is the revealed knowledge of God, and represents a physical entity that individuals can learn to and follow, in order to enter into communion with and understand God’s expression and love. This purpose and idea is personified in the Christ, and made manifest in the form of Jesus’ teachings and His sacrifice and resurrection. Jesus is thus “God’s ‘definition’ of what humanity and the world are all about,” (Komonchak 28). Jesus is the Christ destined to save humanity from their self-imposed sinfulness, and steer them on a redemptive path towards their initial intended purpose.

Another important topic on the subject of Human Nature is the element of Grace. Grace can be defined in Christian terms as the “sphere of the freely offered love-relationship between the triune God and humans,” (Komonchak 711). This is somewhat similar, as a factor for motivating good, with the Platonic concept of Eros (developed in the Phraedrus and Symposium). According to this concept, “the impulse to philosophy arises when the soul recognizes the imperfect copies of ideas present in material reality, and with longing love (Eros) strives to transcend the corporeal and reach the purity of ideal forms,” (Brauer 664). The similarity is drawn with Christianity in this: The Christian understands God to be the source of Goodness and Completion (as to the Platonist the source of Goodness is the Good and the world of transcendent ideas/Forms), and through the divine Grace of God, man’s “desire for good and the freedom to pursue it is established,” (Komonchak 711). The force that motivates the Christian to do good is the divine grace given to him by God, and he is established in a general longing for completeness via a relationship with God through the saving Christ, whereas the motivating factor for the Platonist to do good is the longing love (eros) to reach the perfection of ideals, and thus share these ideas with humanity. The Christian concept of human nature desiring divine intimacy can is similar to the Platonic longing love (eros) to connect with the world of ideas/Forms. In addition, both, as found in Christian Charity, and as found in the Republic’s Philosopher Kings and knowledge of The Good, can be forces for moral good and love in the world.

The Decline of Institutionalized Religion, and the Future of Faith in Europe.

Leonard O Goenaga

Professor Thiel

CPO3103

November 24, 2008

The Decline of Institutionalized Religion, and the Future of Faith in Europe.

 When asked to define Western European historical identity, several things come to mind: the birth of the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the Scientific revolution, the birthplace of democracy, the enlightenment, modernism, secularization, and others. Given the Western European innovations mentioned, many individuals look to Western Europe as a model for future states. Individuals may make the genuine error of observing an overt secularizing trend within Europe, and mistakenly deposit such a prediction for the world as a whole. They, like the Hebrew Prophets and modern Evangelists, herald the message of secularization as if a predestined destination for man. Given the standards Europe has set for much of the world, this understanding may at first sound reasonable. However, given the diversity of the world, the rise of religious fundamentalisms, and other factors, such a prophecy may be premature. With Europe’s profound religious history, as both the vehicle of Roman Catholicism and the home of the Protestant reformation, it is fascinating to find it to be the home of secularization. To ignore Western Europe as a trendsetter is asinine, and as such, a survey of the nature of Religion in Europe is warranted and rewarding. What can such a survey accomplish? Is the claim of Western Europe as secular genuine? Are the predictions that a totally secularized Europe grounded?  Are there any exceptions or revivals? This paper will survey the current state of European religious health, analyzing the trends of religious decline, the increase in secularization, and the exceptions of religious stability and growth in Europe. This paper will explore and conclude whether a possible cure for Europe’s religious sickness appears on the horizon, or whether it is plagued to continue in its trend of pluralism and secularization.

            It is interesting that when we refer to Western Europe, we speak of a division from its eastern counterpart by means of some imaginary line produced between former communist countries and the parliamentary western states. However, a more historical, and some would argue more profound, division existed way before the development of Marx’ communist ideology. This first great division between Western and Eastern Europe is an important religious one: The split between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Before an exploration of the state of religion in Europe is made, the divided identity of Europe needs clarification. From this Eastern and Western divide, with the West inheriting a Roman Catholic tradition (which later led to the reformation, with strong protestant movements in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Scandinavian countries), and the East inheriting Orthodoxy, we receive an illuminating understanding to the continental divide, as well as certain nation-bound religious inclinations. Exactly which nations do we speak of when we refer to Eastern and Western Europe? For the West, we mean those traditionally Roman Catholic countries, including but not limited to the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Scandinavian states, and others. For the East, we refer to nations that belong to the Orthodoxy tradition, including Romania, Bulgaria, and Russia.[1] This leaves out several countries, including those of Central Europe, which may be defined not only by its Ex-Communist identity, but also by its religious affiliations. The Central European countries of “Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and what was East Germany…[also] developed within Western Catholicism,” which may be revealing in understanding their European identities, and their similarities with the traditionally Western nations (Davie 4). Having established an understandable division of Europe on a historical level of religious traditions, we may now continue our evaluation of religion within Europe, with particular focus on the reformed countries (Protestant United Kingdom, Germany, and the Scandinavian countries), traditionally Catholic countries (Italy, France, and Poland), and interesting European religious innovations (as found by Islam, New Age, and Christian revivals in Europe).

The first assumption made in the discussion of religion in Europe, is that it is a spiritual desert. Missionaries will preach the message of the need for a spiritual awakening in the land of Luther and Calvin. Compared to the Americans, where churches are vibrant, active, and visible, Europe’s Christianity seems somewhat belittled in comparison. Many surveys have expressed the importance religion plays in individual’s lives, and in one such survey Europeans averaged 21%, compared to a hefty 90% average of individuals in Muslim nations, and around 60% for Americans in 2002 (Jenkins 27). Further still, individuals in Europe do not merely express dissatisfaction with religion through a lack of church attendance, but also out right claiming atheism, with “a survey of British respondents in 2004… [finding] only 44 percent admitting to belief in God, with 35 percent denying that belief, and 21 percent ‘don’t know,’” (Jenkins 27). In addition, France saw an increase from individuals claiming no religion grow from 11% to 34% between the years 1973 and 1944 (Jenkins 27).

This decline in the belief of God is not the only indicator of spiritual corrosion. In addition, core Christian doctrines have seen sizable declines. “In 1957, 71 percent of British respondents declared that Jesus was the Son of God, but by 2001, the figure had fallen to 38 percent,” (Jenkins 27). Another core Christian Orthodox belief has seen tremendous decline as well. Belief in the historical existence of Jesus shows a sharp decline between age groups, with 80% of those over 65 believing in the historicity of Christ, compared to only 54% of those between the ages of 18-24 (Jenkins 27).  A third leg of study that individuals point to in their arguments for a secularized Europe is that of Church attendance. Compared to about 40% of Americans who report weekly attending some place of worship, only about 20% of Europeans do the same (Jenkins 28).[2] Lower still, Britain boasts of about 15%, Germany 12%, and the Scandinavian countries below 5% (Jenkins 28). The evidence is stacked higher still, when one looks at the numbers of individuals who never attend services. “As of 2000, though, such absentees made up 60 percent of French respondents, 55 percent in Britain, and between 40 percent and 50 percent in Scandinavia and the Low Countries,” (Jenkins 28). With these statistics, it would appear that organized Christianity has taken an insignificant backseat to Europeans. Post-1975, “Britain’s churches lost around 20 percent of their adult membership,” similarly, in Germany, the Evangelical Church (EKD), has lost about half it’s membership in the last half-century (Jenkins 28). One can only conclude that within the traditionally protestant countries (Britain, Germany, Denmark, etc.), institutionalized Christianity is in a crisis, but can the same be said of their Catholic neighbors? Also, is a declined in the practice of denominational Protestantism enough to conclude a death of it, or as Grace Davie coins, do we merely find a situation of ‘believing without belonging,” (Davie 8)?

A Conversation With a Mormon

Hello Friends,

I had a conversation with a Mormon today. I was defending Christianity within a chatroom, and he asked me for my denomination. I told him, and then he said he was Mormon, and after some discussion he asked me to explain to him why Mormonism is not part of Christianity (Christianity being Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy). Here was the discussion. I’m going to skip down to the core of the discussion, starting after he mentioned Baptism of the dead.  After I touch on that, it really picks up. I post this in a humble spirit, and hope God uses it to reach out to Mormons, and equip fellow believers with some additional knowledge. Enjoy:

<Kannoth>: Actually, may I ask a simple question before we go further?

<Kannoth>: Since you mentioned baptism is needed to enter heaven.

<Lord`Saladin>: Go on then.

<Kannoth>: Answer yes or no, please: Is Baptism needed in order to go into heaven?

<Lord`Saladin>: Yes.

<Kannoth>: Is Baptism needed for salvation, which thus leads to heaven?: Yes or no.

<Lord`Saladin>: Understand, however, Baptism is not simply the act of immersion, but also the covenant that goes with it.

<Lord`Saladin>: Yes.

<Kannoth>: Alright, so you’re clarifying Baptism. Baptism is obviously asked upon by every Christian as a means of acknowledging one’s faith publicly. This is the traditional understanding of baptism. However, you’re saying that Baptism is needed to go itno heaven and have salvation.

<Kannoth>: In other words, you’re saying an ack of works is needed in order to get into heaven…

<Kannoth>: Since we’re talking about physical baptism (baptism of the dead), and not just some concept of spiritual baptism.

<Kannoth>: So the act of baptizing is then needed to enter heaven, correct?

<Lord`Saladin>: Yes.

<Kannoth>: Well we have a problem. This contradicts our source of Righteousness (Romans 1:16-17). “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast,” (Eph. 2:8-9, NIV).

<Kannoth>: So no act of our own can mitigate whether we get into heaven (ex.: baptism), but it is only by the gift God gives to us.

<Lord`Saladin>: Again, however, it is the covenant of Baptism that also accompanies the physical act that makes it so important…

<Kannoth>: There is the problem with baptism needing to be a requirement to enter heaven: It is poor theology. No work leads to salvation. It is purely a gift from grace. Baptism is only a public declaration of faith. An act the Christian should do in obedience. However, it will not nullify one’s entrance into heaven.

<Lord`Saladin>: The immersion and subsequent upcoming from beneath the water represent a new life, and also an act of cleansing away any previous sin before that point.

<Kannoth>: That only touches into one of the main areas of Doctrine (salvation). Now, may I define the central Christian Doctrines that Mormonism will have to agree to to be considered Christian?

<Kannoth>: Saladin, the act of Baptism is only a public represntation of the TRUE baptism; that of the Spirit. The ‘born again’ Jesus tells Nicodemus. It is no physical requirement needed to get into heaven.

<Kannoth>: But I don’t want to go down that tangeant, I’d like to define Christianity.

<Kannoth>: May I?

<Lord`Saladin>: Go on then.

<Kannoth>: There are 5 Central Key Theological issues. If Mormonism disagrees with any of them, it cannot be considered Christian. In addition, there are three essential other Doctrines as well.

<Kannoth>: Here are the first five:

<Kannoth>: All three branches can agree upon these central Doctrines (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox): 1) the Deity of Christ (John 8:58), 2) Salvation by Grace (Eph. 2:8-9), and 3) Resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:14), 4) the Gospel (Gal. 1:8-9), and 5) Monotheism (Exodus 20:3). Before we even progress, would you say Mormonism is in agreement to all these central doctrines?

<Kannoth>: Before we even progress, do you agree all five of these are central to being considered ‘Christianity’. If not, we don’t need to go on.

<Lord`Saladin>: Yes.

<Kannoth>: Alright, good. Now there are three others:

<Kannoth>: Secondary essential Doctrines: 1) Jesus is the only way to salvation (John 1:14-16), 2) Jesus’ virgin birth (Matt 1:23), 3) The doctrine of the Trinity (Matt 28:19).

<Kannoth>: Do you disagree with any of those three?

<Lord`Saladin>: No.

<Kannoth>: Which?

<Lord`Saladin>: <Kannoth> Do you disagree with any of those three?

<Lord`Saladin>: <Lord`Saladin> No.

<Kannoth>: Alright then, good.

<Kannoth>: So if I were to show that Mormonism conflicts any of these eight, can we say Mormonism is not Christianity, but an offshoot?

<Lord`Saladin>: If you mean show in terms of demonstration of lack of understanding of LDS doctrine, no.

<Kannoth>: Alright, let me hit a first point then.

<Lord`Saladin>: Which also means, rather than bulldozing over any word I have to say, you bring up each point, and I will confirm or otherwise.

<Kannoth>: The divinity of Jesus, and the character of the Monotheistic God.

<Kannoth>: THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS SECTION 130 says “The aFather has a bbody of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of cSpirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not ddwell in us.”

<Kannoth>: Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (D. & C. 130:22) and that Jesus is a creation. It teaches that he was begotten in heaven as one of God’s spirit children (See the Book, Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, p. 8). This is in strict contrast to the biblical teaching that he is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), eternal (John 1:1, 2, 15), uncreated, yet born on earth (Col. 1:15), and the creator all (John 1:3; Col. 1;16-17).

<Kannoth>: This is denying the Trinity, denying Christ’ divinity, and denying the nature of God.

<Kannoth>: Then and there, just stating God the Father as having a body of flesh and bone’s as tangible as man’s, is outside Christianity.

<Kannoth>: For that alone we can classify Mormonism as what it is: Mormonism.

<Kannoth>: There are many more points we can move to as well.

<Lord`Saladin>: Right.

<Lord`Saladin>: Then let me cover this.

<Kannoth>: Sure.

<Kannoth>: There are followup points regarding the divinity of Jesus and the nature of the Trinity as well.

<Lord`Saladin>: John 1:14 reads: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

<Lord`Saladin>: Which brings about John 3:16 – For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son…

<Lord`Saladin>: It is stated Christ was begotten of God.

<Lord`Saladin>: In multiple places.

<Kannoth>: Ah yes, I agree. That’s the trinity. Begotten, hints at the Trinitarian relationship: Three parts of a whole. However, Mormonism disagrees here. Mormon Theology teaches three distinct parts that form the office of the trinity.

<Kannoth>: Also, context of John 1 also highlights that the Word was with God, and before all creation.

<Lord`Saladin>: I am just coming to the Trinity…

<Kannoth>: Yup.

<Lord`Saladin>: Matthew 28:19 reads: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

<Kannoth>: Yup.

<Lord`Saladin>: It lists them as separate. Now, of course, they are one in the sense of purpose.

<Lord`Saladin>: Their purpose is one and the same.

<Lord`Saladin>: God and Christ each have physical bodies, physical bodies that have attained perfection.

<Kannoth>: No no. It does not list them as three seperate beings. To say they are three seperate entities is to say there is this office called the trinity, and there are three persons in it.

<Lord`Saladin>: The Holy Spirit, which dwells in each of us who accept it, is in spirit form so it can dwell within.

<Kannoth>: If you say God and Christ have seperate bodies, than you’re saying the trinity isn’t one being with three persons, but three seperate persons acting together.

<Lord`Saladin>: Neither, Kannoth, does it say they are one.

<Lord`Saladin>: Find where it says they are one being of three parts.

<Kannoth>: Of course. God is one. A center to Christianity is Monotheism. To reject monotheism is the reject Judeo-Christianity, which is the point I’m trying to make. By seperating them, you’re denying that central Doctrine of Monotheism, yet also running into problems with the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ.

<Kannoth>: Mind you, the Trinity is never mentioned in scripture. You used the verses to devise the concept of the trinity, however what I just posted of the Doctrine and Covenants talks about God and Jesus having different bodies, physical ones, meaning they are seperate.

<Kannoth>: You’ve agreed with this. And to agree with this is to deny monotheism, which would deny the title of Christianity.

<Kannoth>: We haven’t even touched the nature of the Gospels, how forgiveness of sins is attained, etc.

<Lord`Saladin>: Hm.

<Kannoth>: That nature of God is distinctly un-Christian.

<Kannoth>: Do you have facebook?

<Kannoth>: My name is Leonardo by the way.

<Lord`Saladin>: I see you are a good manipulator of words.

<Lord`Saladin>: My name is Saladin.

<Lord`Saladin>: I have Facebook, yes.

<Kannoth>: I do not think I am manipulating anything, rather scripture is scripture.

<Kannoth>: Would you like to exchange Facebooks, perhaps if we ever wish to have discussions (I have to leave work soon).

<Lord`Saladin>: It is not for online acquaintances.

<Kannoth>: Understandible.

<Lord`Saladin>: Scripture is scripture yes.

<Lord`Saladin>: The bible, we also know, has been changed to suit the designs of man

<Lord`Saladin>: Multiple times

<Kannoth>: Also, Mormon theology completely goes against the Doctrine of Monotheism (God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.)

<Kannoth>: Lord, that’s a red herring. We have the most accurate texts any generation has had. I study the greek, and the accuracy of the New Testament in comparison to any other ancient text is uncomparible.

<Kannoth>: Plus, if you want to say the doctrine has been changed to suit the designs of man, what stops me from saying that’s exactly what a Mormon is trying to do

<Kannoth>: ?

<Lord`Saladin>: Oh, I know.

<Lord`Saladin>: However, consider this…

<Lord`Saladin>: Perhaps as a closure to this discussion…

<Kannoth>: It’s an unprovable. However, I can open up my Greek, and point to where every Greek verse comes from (the Papyrus, it’s century, etc).

<Kannoth>: Sure. Although I would have liekd to continue this.

<Kannoth>: There are a plethora of other points where Mormonism disagrees outright with Christianity.

<Lord`Saladin>: Look at the structure of Christ’s church, that He set up whilst in this world…

<Lord`Saladin>: Tell me ANY denomination where it is the same.

<Lord`Saladin>: There is only one.

<Kannoth>: Wait. We agreed that if Mormonism disagreed with any of those 5 Doctrines, it isn’t Christian. It was clear there was a disagreement between the Monotheism of God. I think the case is set.

<Kannoth>: Christ’s church is simply the collective body of believers, not a physical institution.

<Kannoth>: It was never a single entity, but a loose collection of house churches.

<Lord`Saladin>: Now, who decided the definition of Christianity?

<Lord`Saladin>: Was it God?

<Lord`Saladin>: But, step away from any belief you may have.

<Kannoth>: We define Christianity through the source of Righteouss, the Bible.

<Lord`Saladin>: Oh dear.

<Lord`Saladin>: My friend, I am afraid to say you sound near robotic,

<Lord`Saladin>: *.

<Kannoth>: If you want to ignore the bible, you’re putting into question your source of righteousness and truth.

<Kannoth>: You’re not degrading me personally instead of discussing and debating the ideas. That’s usually an end to a conversation.

<Kannoth>: You agreed that it had to adhere to all those 5 central Doctrines, and it did not.

<Kannoth>: You now are questioning the definition of Christianity. That’s not what you yourself agreed to above.

<Lord`Saladin>: Hm… How to explain this…

<Lord`Saladin>: Hm.

<Kannoth>: Do we mean the Doctrine of Monotheism?

<Lord`Saladin>: Damn, if only this had taken place at a time other than 20 past one in the morning when my back is murdering me.

<Kannoth>: Friend, get some rest.

<Lord`Saladin>: Okay.

<Kannoth>: I do not want to bring you any uncomfort, honestly.

<Kannoth>: Let me say this, it was a pleasure talking to you.

<Lord`Saladin>: Let me give you the answer to your every question…

<Kannoth>: Sure. This being that of Monotheism and how God and Jesus can both have seperate physical bodies?

<Kannoth>: Alright, I would ask of you only the same. This is no academic teaching, but rather a study of the Bible, God’s word. <Kannoth>: It was a pleasure talking to you. <Lord`Saladin>: My friend, I have done the same. <Lord`Saladin>: On multiple occasions. <Kannoth>: Have a good day. God Bless, and merry Christmas.

Pray.

–

Leonard O Goenaga