Page History

...

I have pressed the question, whether Christians who recognize the significance of specifically Christian means of salvation \-\- primal as well as primary and secondary \-\- should not, "as a general rule, at least, avoid speaking of anyone as implicitly a Christian except in the first sense of the words \[_sc._ clarified in Notebooks, 13 December 2002\]." But, having continued to reflect on it, I've finally concluded that the question is not well formulated.

Why not? Because it fails to take account of the fact – -- that I myself have long since noted and called attention to! – -- that "to imply" may be understood not only in the one sense of "to presuppose," but also in the other sense of "to anticipate." Clearly, the first sense in which I've allowed that one may be said to be "implicitly Christian" is the sense in which "to imply" is tacitly understood to mean "to presuppose" – -- to presuppose, namely, the Christian proprium. And if this were the only sense in which "to imply" could be understood, then, just as clearly, this is the only sense in which anyone could be said to be "implicitly Christian." But if "to imply" could also be understood to mean "to anticipate," then to say that someone is "implicitly Christian" could mean, that she or he anticipates the Christian proprium, as distinct from presupposing it.

...

The second reflection is that, because it is always only later, after P has been actualized, that the possibility of P can be identified as such, so it is also only later, after X has been actualized, that what implies X in the sense of anticipating, as distinct from presupposing, X is identifiable as doing so. In other words, anticipations of X can be identified as such, as predictions or prophecies of X, only as vaticinia ex eventu.

11 December 2004