Yes, most were Christians, the rest were confused about what they believed or didn't.
So "confused" as they were, they were still able to set up a "Christian Nation"?
Since it takes a lifetime of study and guidance by the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible and even then, not fully or completely, it's understandable that they labored and disputed over doctrines.
Or, playing atheist here, it could be that humans have been making Christianity up over time.
Just a thought. Since clearly there were many competing ideas of "Christianity" during the early years after Christ died. From a
rationalist perspective it would make sense that a centralized dogma would have to arise and evolve and ultimately compete against other nascent dogmas.
But that's an unbeliever's view.
Don't need Erasmus to understand the Bible, we don't need any teachers. We have the Holy Spirit.
Actually I disagree with the no need for Erasmus to understand the Bible. Since it was due to much of the work of folks like Erasmus to better clarify and bring together the older manuscripts which then informed quite a bit of later translations into English (such as the KJV), one could fairly say that Erasmus was needed.
Unless of course you have copies of all the old Greek manuscripts. Is that what your church goes off of? Or does it rely on the KJV? Erasmus' work was often referenced in the development of the King James Version.
Again, the
history of the faith is, in my humble opinion, very important to know. And I fully understand why it is among the
least important for believers. The history of how you got the faith you have is kind of like "sausage". One doesn't like to see it made but one likes the end product.
The Bible itself is a construct of later generations. Even the 4 Gospels were written long after Jesus life.
As a non-believer I'm not invested in maintaining a belief anymore, so it opens up fresh views of the faith.
Christianity, when viewed from its history, looks all too human to me.
A nebulous faith leads to a nebulous understanding of God.
This is precisely why generations upon generations of the Church had to hash out the relationship. Again, why else were there so many different versions? Arianism, adoptionism, manichaeism, etc etc.
The history of how you wound up with the faith you wish to call "foundational" is built on the work, thought and efforts of countless generations after Jesus time.
The ideas came from God, they didn't evolve!
Again, is that why there were so many competing versions of Christianity during it's early years? Remember,
even Paul had differences with the Jerusalem Church. And who would have been more in the "know" about the mind of Jesus? Those who were ostensibly around him (Peter)? Or Paul who never met Jesus in the flesh?
The Nicene Creed brought clarity to Jesus as God in the flesh and the Trinity, but it wasn't due to ideas contrived or evolved, they just understood what was already written better.
So why would God's truth be so hard that it took almost 300 years to puzzle out?
What, specifically, was "already written" to bolster the ideas behind the Nicene Creed?
Arius and his followers referenced John 14:28 among their points. ("The father is greater than I").
The nature of the debate is less important than the fact that there
was a debate in the first place.
Who is to say which view was right? And why would there not be just
one Christological heresy but multiple ones?
The early history of the Faith is one of development, of competing ideas. And yes of
enforcement of particular ideas over others by command.
Arius' heresy was "anathematized". And later other heresies were suppressed.
Something like the Waldensians. These heretics were slaughtered. 80 were burned at the stake in Strassbourg. Others were burned in Toulouse. Was God unwilling to open some eyes such that it required
lighting the heretics on fire until they DIED for the "misunderstanding" to be clarified?
You see, as a non-believer I see a process by which the "market place of ideas" was not necessarily clearly outlined for all to see. In fact it looks almost exactly like what one would expect when people try to interpret the writings of other
people about things that cannot be externally verified.
So when I hear someone declare this to be a "Christian Nation" I wonder what they mean. Do they mean
their specific doctrine? Or is it merely just that everyone who was involved in founding this simply "believed" in some form of Jesus.
If the bar is set so low as to mere "belief" in some form of Christianity and Christianity is itself the result of millenia of work by people to "make" it (understand it, read it "correctly", "translate it", etc.) then I wonder what it means to be a "Christian Nation".
(NOTE: I am fascinated that you don't speak in any substantive terms about the actual
history of the church or the history of church thought. It tends to reinforce my general impression that many modern Chrisitans have little understanding of the history of their faith. In a sense, from the outside, it appears to be the faith of little children. But that seems to be precisely what is needed for belief: a giving up of anything that might appear to be critical assessment.)
A thorn in the Democrats side as well!
