Blame it on Martin Luther?

Christian Post ^ | 12/06/2021 | Carl R. Trueman

[Campion]

You’re correct. I always confuse Donatism with Docetism somehow.

[marktwain]

1. the work of al-Ghazali destroying the scientific questioning in the Islamic world

2. Hulagu Khan who destroyed Baghdad and the Caliphate, ending the triumphalism of Islam

3. the reconquista again giving a moral blow to Islam

4. the Marathas conquering the Gurkhani (i.e. the “Mughal”) empire.

Those are certainly important items. But Islam came very close to conquering Christendom several times. We might add the various revolts against the Islamic Khan in what is now Russia, which finally succeeded in 1380.

It wasn't until Europe (Christendom) developed science and technology Islam could not match, that the Muslim threat was actually contained, then placed on a serious defensive position, then relegated to third class status with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.

Nearly all the tech which Christendom developed to defeat Islam passed through the Umma to Europe and Christendom. The Chinese and the Islamics both had first and second chances to develop it and use it and gain final advantage over Christendom.

They either chose not to develop it or could not develop it.

I put the reconquista right at the beginning of the modern era.

That is how I see it; but I do not claim to be a scholar of the conflicts between Islam and Christianity. I have only read some articles and a book or two.

[Salvavida]

The main issue of the Donatists was the issue of hermaneutics: how is the Bible interpreted. It is still the issue of today. That one issue decides everything.

- who the fathers where
- baptism
- soteriology (justification, sanctification, glorification)

That is the incongruence between the RCC and Christians, just as it was during the Donatists schism, and it continues to this day. Hermaneutics is the issue, and we will never come together on it.

[boatbums]

And catholic church is still run by old men who do not want to give up their power or position...hmmmm...sound like our congress.

And not a few old women in congress, too. Some of the younger ones are worse, though.

[circlecity]

“The fathers uniformly affirm that infant baptism was practiced in apostolic times.”

I personally agree with the Donatist’s on this one - I don’t see a biblical basis for infant baptism.

“The logical result of Donatism is to assert that the power of the sacraments comes from the righteousness of the human minister, rather than from Christ himself with the minister being merely a visible mediator or stand-in.”

I agree with you on this one. This is a grave error.

[Cronos]

But there are a few problems with your assumptions

1. Europe (Christendom) vs Islam and Chinese --> this one is the most egregious. We in the west (and me at one point as well) do this most often that we completely forget about the ancient Church of the East - the Church in Ctesiphon-Seleucia. This, the Assyrian Church, had adherents as far away as Mongolia. The Uyghurs were Christians first, as was the wife of Genghis Khan and the wife of Hulagu Khan

2. tech passed through the Umma -- this is the story that many non-historians use to portray a "golden age of Islam" when Islam supposedly preserved the ancient works while Europe was barbaric. This is false:
a. the ones who copied the ancient texts in the Islamic world were near unanimously Christians and some Zoroastrians. Not Muslims
b. The Christian world also included the Roman empire - which still continued until 1453, we forget about that
c. Even west of Croatia, the "dark ages" were only from 450 to 800 in France, were barely from 453 to 640 in Italy and hardly touched Spain before the Muslim conquests.

Both the terms "dark ages" and "byzantine empire" were created by German scholars in the 1800s as a way of disparaging everything that came before themselves.

[marktwain]

But there are a few problems with your assumptions

You are putting your words in my text.

1. Europe (Christendom) vs Islam and Chinese --> this one is the most egregious. We in the west (and me at one point as well) do this most often that we completely forget about the ancient Church of the East - the Church in Ctesiphon-Seleucia. This, the Assyrian Church, had adherents as far away as Mongolia. The Uyghurs were Christians first, as was the wife of Genghis Khan and the wife of Hulagu Khan

So? Nothing I wrote is contradicted by what you wrote. The Khans became Islamic after Hulagu Khan. (not sure how soon, exactly, but it was clearly Islamic long before 1380. All part of the vast destruction caused by Islam.

2. tech passed through the Umma -- this is the story that many non-historians use to portray a "golden age of Islam" when Islam supposedly preserved the ancient works while Europe was barbaric. This is false:

a. the ones who copied the ancient texts in the Islamic world were near unanimously Christians and some Zoroastrians. Not Muslims

b. The Christian world also included the Roman empire - which still continued until 1453, we forget about that

c. Even west of Croatia, the "dark ages" were only from 450 to 800 in France, were barely from 453 to 640 in Italy and hardly touched Spain before the Muslim conquests.

So? Again, nothing you write contradicts what I wrote. The tech did pass through the Umma from various places to Europe. It doesn't matter if it were Christians who copied ancient texts. The Islamic civilization, such as it was, was not able or was unwilling to develop them as Christendom did (Europe). I never claimed there was a "golden age of Islam". If anything, just the opposite.

Yes, Constantinople was not completely conquered until 1453, which just emphasizes my point that Islam wasn't really contained until Europe (Christendom) developed modern technology which the Muslims and Chinese were unable or unwilling to do.

Christendom is the home and source of science and the modern age.

I am not sure what you are trying to say about the terms "dark ages" and "byzantine empire". They were not part of my thesis.

My central thesis is both the Chinese and Islam had a chance to develop the technologies that Christendom developed to conquer them before Christendom did. The Chinese and Muslim civilizations (we can add India if you like) were conquered because they were unable or unwilling to develop modern technology, mostly because their religion/political organization were unable or unwilling to do so.

[Cronos]

You are putting your words in my text. - I definitely did. I apologize

For point #1 I wanted to point out that Christianity should not be considered a European only or even European mainly religion

The reason I emphasise on that is because of the wealth of history and knowledge in the Church of the East

#2 The tech did pass through the Umma from various places to Europe -- and that's where I disagree with you. In what I've seen, the level of that is exaggerated - a lot of what "the West" got was not from or through the umma, but either internally or from Christian sources in Constantinople and from the Church of the east

My central thesis is both the Chinese and Islam had a chance to develop the technologies that Christendom developed to conquer them before Christendom did. The Chinese and Muslim civilizations (we can add India if you like) were conquered because they were unable or unwilling to develop modern technology, mostly because their religion/political organization were unable or unwilling to do so. -- That, I agree with.

[marktwain]

For point #1 I wanted to point out that Christianity should not be considered a European only or even European mainly religion

Apology accepted. I do not disagree with you on where Christianity is today.

But at the time of the beginning of the modern era (about 1450), Europe was the overwhelming last redoubt of Christendom under siege by Islam. Sure, there were Christians in Ethiopia. There were some in India, I think. There were quite a few under the despotic control of Islam. There were Christian kingdoms in Russian Asia.

The tools the Modern era is built on, the compass, reliable ocean crossing sailing vessels, paper, printing, gunpowder, mathematics, astronomy, metallurgy.

All of those, or precursors, were available to Islam, China, India, elsewhere before they became well known and used in Christendom. They may even have been independently discovered or re-discovered in Europe. Europe independently developed their own sailing ships, in my opinion. But gunpowder, for example, clearly was known in China, long before Europe. Paper was developed in China. China had printing blocks, but never developed the printing press. Algebra was developed in India, I recall. The Chinese had ocean crossing vessels a bit before Europeans, but destroyed them. Most of those technologies moved from the East, through Islamic controlled lands, to Europe.

But I think we agree on that.

Off hand, I cannot think of any significant technology developed by Islam.

Perhaps you can give me an example or two.

[Cronos]

I can’t think of any Muslim invention or invention created by Muslims, even nominal ones.

I am prejudiced against Islam, but imho a civilization declines the more muslim it gets