In Fig's thread about the discovery that apparently humans existed 80,000 years ago, I commented:
From 325 A.D. to, say, 1800 A.D., the mainstream of Christendom--the powerful, influential sects who got to decide who was Christian and who was not--would have tried, convicted, branded a heretic, excommunicated, and possibly executed a fellow Christian who admitted believing that there were humans on Earth 80,000 years ago.
Father_JD seems to disagree with that ***essment:
And I responded:Well have you imbibed revisionist historical "theories" that there were equally valid forms of Christianity and the bigger or more entrenched party merely "won out".
But if you are right, and the idea that a majority of Christendom was overrun by a cabal of corrupt leaders teaching false doctrines is a false, fabricated history, then what kind of respect can you have for the Reformers who fought that orthodoxy--an orthodoxy they risked their lives trying to bring down? And what the heck are your doing in a PROTESTANT church? Read what Wesley said about post-Constantine Christendom (The More Excellent Way, Sermon 89 is but one of several) and tell me that Wesley was a fellow "Imbiber of revisionist history."
So my question is this: Did John Wesley have a totally incorrect understanding of the history of post-Nicene Christianity? Did Wesley imbibe too much revisionist history?