Christianity without Satan?

[The Liturgist]

It was a Unitarian church, not a Christian one

I attended for around six years and almost always stayed behind for coffee and conversation after the service and not once did the Goodness of God or the way to eternal life ever come up e.g. nobody ever wanted to talk about Jesus

One of the reasons I left

And he was worried about my mental health, not offended by what I mentioned

(((Edit: He obviously thought that a belief in Satan is the product of a mental disorder rather than a part of Christianity! - another reason I left)))

Naturally, I'd never bring up the topic of Satan in my current (Christian) church

There are times, however, when a discussion of the Adversary is relevant. If your pastor never preaches about, for example, the temptation of Christ in the desert by Satan, that would be a worry.

 

[The Liturgist]

"In fact, Origen's contribution to theology was arguably greater than that of Augustine.” I agree.

Origen did not argue against the existence of Satan, furthermore, and it is also debateable whether or mot the Fifth Ecumenical Council actually anathematized him, or if this was instead an act of Emperor Justinian.

Origen got a raw deal, for these reasons:

• Origen died in the peace of the church, as did Theodore of Mopsuestia; I think it is wrong to pronounce someone anathema post-mortem. It is certainly contrary to the old Roman value “Nil Nisi Bonum” (of the dead, let no ill be spoken).
• St. Gregory of Nyssa also believed in apokatasis, but was not anathematized, owing to his popularity and status as the younger brother of St. Basil the Great, as one of the Cappadocian Fathers.
• Origen was unfairly blamed for causing Arianism, when in fact Arius was a pupil of the Antiochene school of theology, and Origen one of the pillars of the Alexandrian school, which produced St. Athanasius, the greatest opponent, and ultimate victor, over Arius.
• Origen often speculated about theological concepts he did not actually believe in, something admitted by his detractors, but was nonetheless criticized for it.

I think the contribution of Origen probably is slightly greater than Augustine, in that Origen set in motion the catechesis that formed Pope Paul of Alexandria, who was martyred, his successor Pope Alexander of Alexandria, who was tortured for his Christian faith, and Alexander’s pupil St. Athanasius, who not only defeated Arianism almost single-handedly, but also defined our modern New Testament canon, and wrote the definitive explanation of the Incarnation of Christ, as well as an absorbing biography of St. Anthony the Great, the early Christian monastic hermit.

Origen also substantially influenced the Cappadocians, who formed their own theological school which was quite Orthodox, and which helped to unify Antiochene literalism and Alexandrian typological-allegorical-prophetic exegesis.

 

[The Liturgist]

I believe Karl Barth is right in this case: Karl Barth: Believing in Demons makes us Demonic. There is a negative force, represented in the Bible by demons and Satan. It's what I would call "suprapersonal evil," a kind of madness that can suck people and whole group in. But as negation, it's not really a person. Augustine saw that evil wasn't created by God, because it's not a thing. It has no power of its own, but is a corruption of good things. Barth points out that Satan can't be a fallen angel, because he is a murderer and liar from the beginning (John 8:44). Jesus seldom speaks of it, and only in rejection. (Indeed Luke 10:18 suggests its destruction.) I recall Barth once saying (and I haven't found a source for this, so my memory may be wrong), we don't believe in Satan; we believe against it. To give it reality and study it, even as an enemy, is dangerous. But still, there's no question that suprapersonal evil is a real danger, even if in some sense it doesn't exist.

I don’t believe Karl Barth was correct on this, and I don’t believe your interpretation of Barth is correct, either, since Karl Barth was basically advocating that we basically “believe against” something which he admitted the existence of.

A much better and more ancient approach to facing the Adversary can be founded in the Life of St. Anthony, which shows how the devil operates, and shows an example of the devil being overcome. The Ladder of Divine Ascent is another classic in this respect.

 

[jahel]

How does that apply?

 

[hedrick]

A much better and more ancient approach to facing the Adversary can be founded in the Life of St. Anthony, which shows how the devil operates, and shows an example of the devil being overcome. The Ladder of Divine Ascent is another classic in this respect.

Im afraid we have very different assessments of Anthony. He’s the last person I would point to.

 

[zippy2006]

I believe Karl Barth is right in this case: Karl Barth: Believing in Demons makes us Demonic. There is a negative force, represented in the Bible by demons and Satan. It's what I would call "suprapersonal evil," a kind of madness that can suck people and whole group in. But as negation, it's not really a person. Augustine saw that evil wasn't created by God, because it's not a thing. It has no power of its own, but is a corruption of good things. Barth points out that Satan can't be a fallen angel, because he is a murderer and liar from the beginning (John 8:44). Jesus seldom speaks of it, and only in rejection. (Indeed Luke 10:18 suggests its destruction.) I recall Barth once saying (and I haven't found a source for this, so my memory may be wrong), we don't believe in Satan; we believe against it. To give it reality and study it, even as an enemy, is dangerous. But still, there's no question that suprapersonal evil is a real danger, even if in some sense it doesn't exist.

So does believing in suprapersonal evil make us suprapersonally evil?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So does believing in suprapersonal evil make us suprapersonally evil?

IF what he posted happens:

"It's what I would call "suprapersonal evil," a kind of madness that can suck people and whole group in."

 

[Martyr's Crown]

Maybe lots of churches also ? (haven't checked recently)

We should also pray for any Christians coming from churches in where they started having a founder which held on to the Christian values based from God's Word and having Jesus Christ as the head. As nowadays; Many churches are welcoming in post-modernism as well as there are new age practices sneaking into them, which they Christianize.

Many churches will become deceived as the falling away progresses! So praying also for other Christians to remain in Christ and stand strong in their faith, is also very important! Yet, we should also pray for those who claim being Christian but aren't truly saved too!

 

[The Liturgist]

Im afraid we have very different assessments of Anthony. He’s the last person I would point to.

Why is that? St. Anthony overcame the passions and withstood an extreme demonic attack which nearly killed him. And we know that these attacks occur, from the recorded experience of Christian ascetics among the Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, Assyrians and Roman Catholics, among other denominations, over the centuries. And in no respect did St. Anthony act irresponsibly - before seeking to depart the secular life, he followed the literal commandments of our Lord, selling his posessions, and he set some aside to provide for a safe and comfortable existence for his younger sister; neither did St. Anthony harm anyone. He, and the mysterious figure of St. Paul the Hermit, were the gentlest of the Desert Fathers.

Someone who concentrates in continual prayer in the desert, on their own, as a hermit, will logically acquire much more knowledge about the devil than anyone else. This is a given, since we know from all four aspects of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral that the devil likes to interfere with people praying.

 

[The Liturgist]

View attachment 268014

How does that apply?

I am talking anout the book, not the icon. And that icon I have never seen before.