Baptist view of Constantine

[St Antony]

I discussing the concept of "symphonia" in the Eastern Orthodox thread (the idea that Church and State should work together and complement each other in building a Christian society), I noticed several comments to the effect that Constantine had an extremely negative influence on the Church, and basically perverted Christianity. This especially seemed to come from Evangelicals and other conservative Protestant denominations.

In my view Constantine probably did more to spread the message of Christ than anyone outside of the Scriptures and should be celebrated. He never proselytized but only indirectly supported the Church, providing money for churches, relief for the poor, and facilitating efforts to resolve disputes in the Church like the Council of Nicaea. He really had little or nothing to do with developing any church doctrine or in governing the Church in any way. The Roman Empire was probably 5-10% Christian when he legalized worship of Christianity in 313 with the Edict of Tolerance. By his death in 337, the Empire was probably a quarter Christian and well on its way to being mostly Christian within a couple of centuries. Sure, many of these Christians were nominal or not devout to what we would want, and probably not saved, but how many people heard the Gospel because of his policies that wouldn't have heard otherwise?

Just wondering if any Baptist, as the largest conservative denomination in the U.S., have any strong opinions on Constantine and his role in the growth of the Church? Is it the Da Vinci Code book? Personally, after Jesus and Paul, I can't think of another human who did more to spread the faith in human history. What do you'll think?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I discussing the concept of "symphonia" in the Eastern Orthodox thread (the idea that Church and State should work together and complement each other in building a Christian society), I noticed several comments to the effect that Constantine had an extremely negative influence on the Church, and basically perverted Christianity. This especially seemed to come from Evangelicals and other conservative Protestant denominations.

In my view Constantine probably did more to spread the message of Christ than anyone outside of the Scriptures and should be celebrated. He never proselytized but only indirectly supported the Church, providing money for churches, relief for the poor, and facilitating efforts to resolve disputes in the Church like the Council of Nicaea. He really had little or nothing to do with developing any church doctrine or in governing the Church in any way. The Roman Empire was probably 5-10% Christian when he legalized worship of Christianity in 313 with the Edict of Tolerance. By his death in 337, the Empire was probably a quarter Christian and well on its way to being mostly Christian within a couple of centuries. Sure, many of these Christians were nominal or not devout to what we would want, and probably not saved, but how many people heard the Gospel because of his policies that wouldn't have heard otherwise?

Just wondering if any Baptist, as the largest conservative denomination in the U.S., have any strong opinions on Constantine and his role in the growth of the Church? Is it the Da Vinci Code book? Personally, after Jesus and Paul, I can't think of another human who did more to spread the faith in human history. What do you'll think?

I'm sure Constantine and most of his immediate supporters and followers were wonderful Christians, but
did the Inquisition count as spreading the faith? The faith of Constantine, whatever it was, was not the same as that of the Apostle Paul, and the faith that spread under Constantine's rules was not Biblical faith.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

How did Constantine's wonderful Christian edict of tolerance fail to prevent The Dark Ages when "heretics" who refused to submit to what Constantine started were burned alive at the stake or boiled in oil? Christians are not always nice, true, but why did they feel they had to kill other Christians?

 

[St Antony]

How did Constantine's wonderful Christian edict of tolerance fail to prevent The Dark Ages when "heretics" who refused to submit to what Constantine started were burned alive at the stake or boiled in oil? Christians are not always nice, true, but why did they feel they had to kill other Christians?

I'm not aware of any heretics at this time. There was just "the Church" The Inquisition and other crimes committed against fellow Christians came 500-1000 years later. If the Christians of this time did not have "Biblical Faith" then how would the Faith have sustained itself from Jesus and the Apostles until modern times? Remember, there were no denominations at this time; just Christian communities who might have worshiped differently and had somewhat different doctrines at times, but who discussed these differences in the great early church councils.

 

[now faith]

I discussing the concept of "symphonia" in the Eastern Orthodox thread (the idea that Church and State should work together and complement each other in building a Christian society), I noticed several comments to the effect that Constantine had an extremely negative influence on the Church, and basically perverted Christianity. This especially seemed to come from Evangelicals and other conservative Protestant denominations.

In my view Constantine probably did more to spread the message of Christ than anyone outside of the Scriptures and should be celebrated. He never proselytized but only indirectly supported the Church, providing money for churches, relief for the poor, and facilitating efforts to resolve disputes in the Church like the Council of Nicaea. He really had little or nothing to do with developing any church doctrine or in governing the Church in any way. The Roman Empire was probably 5-10% Christian when he legalized worship of Christianity in 313 with the Edict of Tolerance. By his death in 337, the Empire was probably a quarter Christian and well on its way to being mostly Christian within a couple of centuries. Sure, many of these Christians were nominal or not devout to what we would want, and probably not saved, but how many people heard the Gospel because of his policies that wouldn't have heard otherwise?

Just wondering if any Baptist, as the largest conservative denomination in the U.S., have any strong opinions on Constantine and his role in the growth of the Church? Is it the Da Vinci Code book? Personally, after Jesus and Paul, I can't think of another human who did more to spread the faith in human history. What do you'll think?

What is your view on the Arch of Diana?

What was it purposed for?

Did Constantine mix Christian beliefs with Pagan ?

Why do we worship on Sunday?

Personally I don't think he has anything to do with the divinity of Christ Jesus,and would not consider him in the same sentence as the Apostles or our Lord.


You do realize his vision of the Sun behind the cross in battle is symbolic.

As far as a government run Church that made decrees of man over God,we protested and have won the battle.

 

[now faith]

I'm not aware of any heretics at this time. There was just "the Church" The Inquisition and other crimes committed against fellow Christians came 500-1000 years later. If the Christians of this time did not have "Biblical Faith" then how would the Faith have sustained itself from Jesus and the Apostles until modern times? Remember, there were no denominations at this time; just Christian communities who might have worshiped differently and had somewhat different doctrines at times, but who discussed these differences in the great early church councils.

It was the Roman Church that committed the genocide,and enforced their religion with acts of morbid violence to the point there could not be any other teaching but the Catholic.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I'm not aware of any heretics at this time. There was just "the Church" The Inquisition and other crimes committed against fellow Christians came 500-1000 years later. If the Christians of this time did not have "Biblical Faith" then how would the Faith have sustained itself from Jesus and the Apostles until modern times? Remember, there were no denominations at this time; just Christian communities who might have worshiped differently and had somewhat different doctrines at times, but who discussed these differences in the great early church councils.

so why are there denominations now and how do you know which one has Biblical faith?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I'm not aware of any heretics at this time. There was just "the Church" The Inquisition and other crimes committed against fellow Christians came 500-1000 years later. If the Christians of this time did not have "Biblical Faith" then how would the Faith have sustained itself from Jesus and the Apostles until modern times? Remember, there were no denominations at this time; just Christian communities who might have worshiped differently and had somewhat different doctrines at times, but who discussed these differences in the great early church councils.

So the Inquisitions were not conducted under the faith of Constantine? Did the faith of Constantine change over the centuries, so the latter folowers of Constantine had become unbiblical in their faith, or were the following Biblcal commands in the Inquistion?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I discussing the concept of "symphonia" in the Eastern Orthodox thread (the idea that Church and State should work together and complement each other in building a Christian society), I noticed several comments to the effect that Constantine had an extremely negative influence on the Church, and basically perverted Christianity. This especially seemed to come from Evangelicals and other conservative Protestant denominations.

In my view Constantine probably did more to spread the message of Christ than anyone outside of the Scriptures and should be celebrated. He never proselytized but only indirectly supported the Church, providing money for churches, relief for the poor, and facilitating efforts to resolve disputes in the Church like the Council of Nicaea. He really had little or nothing to do with developing any church doctrine or in governing the Church in any way. The Roman Empire was probably 5-10% Christian when he legalized worship of Christianity in 313 with the Edict of Tolerance. By his death in 337, the Empire was probably a quarter Christian and well on its way to being mostly Christian within a couple of centuries. Sure, many of these Christians were nominal or not devout to what we would want, and probably not saved, but how many people heard the Gospel because of his policies that wouldn't have heard otherwise?

Just wondering if any Baptist, as the largest conservative denomination in the U.S., have any strong opinions on Constantine and his role in the growth of the Church? Is it the Da Vinci Code book? Personally, after Jesus and Paul, I can't think of another human who did more to spread the faith in human history. What do you'll think?

The Da Vinci Code book? wasn't the author of that book a child molester or sodomite of something like that, and that's why he wanted to change Jesus into a pervert who was used by the church of Rome as a smokescreen to hide their fortunes while they pretended that the Pope knew nothing about priests molesting altar boys? Anyways, that's what I heard was the motivation behind "the Di Vinci Code."....Just a smokescreen cover-up trying to hide the child molestation scandals that were covered up by the higher-ups of the Constantine faith.

 

[TillICollapse]

I'm not aware of any heretics at this time. There was just "the Church" The Inquisition and other crimes committed against fellow Christians came 500-1000 years later. If the Christians of this time did not have "Biblical Faith" then how would the Faith have sustained itself from Jesus and the Apostles until modern times? Remember, there were no denominations at this time; just Christian communities who might have worshiped differently and had somewhat different doctrines at times, but who discussed these differences in the great early church councils.

From what I understand, it wasn't 500-1000 years later. It was 61 years later (after the First Council of Nicaea) that the first heretic was executed.

The various sects who were non-Nicene were made illegal to even meet or communicate their own beliefs as the result of an edict issued in 380. Those deemed heretics weren't even allowed to live within the city of Constantinople itself a few years later.

 

[JM]

For a historical overview, including notes on Constantine, check out this podcast. The episodes are short and give plenty of detail.

History of the Christian Church - Communio Sanctorum

 

[Avid]

From what I understand, it wasn't 500-1000 years later. It was 61 years later (after the First Council of Nicaea) that the first heretic was executed.

The various sects who were non-Nicene were made illegal to even meet or communicate their own beliefs as the result of an edict issued in 380. Those deemed heretics weren't even allowed to live within the city of Constantinople itself a few years later.

Thank you for pointing out these truths.

It is odd to have a Catholic come to a Baptist sub-forum, and say, "There was just "the Church" The Inquisition and other crimes committed against fellow Christians came 500-1000 years later." It is revisionist history that leaves out all other views, and includes only those views that are favorable to the one side. Usually, that is the side that wins the war, and thus, writes the history books.

It may be helpful to study this from a different view.

The Trail of Blood
by J. M. Carroll

http://trailofblood.com/

These are accounts that differ from the "official" account we have been getting in this thread. Essentially (as told by John Foxe,) there were about 25 million people killed directly or indirectly by this institution over that period. This includes those killed by governments influenced or controlled by that institution. Most notably, there were many martyrdoms of people who refused to worship a piece of bread as God. (violation of the Second Commandment.)

Exodus 20
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
​

The origin of that institution has been obscured as well.

 

[St Antony]

Reading these comments, it's hard for me to comprehend the intensity of the level of dislike toward the Catholic Church over historical events from hundreds of years ago. To boot, the SBC has been the largest Protestant denomination in the US for a while and Protestants have always outnumbered Catholics by a wide margin. If anything, it seems it would be Catholics who would be angry, if anyone is, because discrimination has affected them more recently (i.e. the 1857 anti-Catholic riots in Louisville, KY, anti-Catholic sentiment against Al Smith and JFK running for President). The Reformation up through the English Civil War happened, at the least, over 300 years ago. Are most Baptist still this angry over events occurring hundred of years ago?

 

[Avid]

... anti-Catholic sentiment against Al Smith and JFK running for President...

JFK was required on a number of occasions to answer the same question. I can remember some of this.

At confirmation, JFK was required to swear allegiance to the pope and the Roman Catholic institution above all other allegiances. This needed to be reconciled with the oath of office he would take if elected pres. These two diametrically opposite things were the concern, and the prohibition against Roman Catholics holding public office was keenly understood for this reason.

Have you, as a Catholic, sworn allegiance to the pope in this manner? What scripture of the Bible requires this?

 

[Tallguy88]

JFK was required on a number of occasions to answer the same question. I can remember some of this.

At confirmation, JFK was required to swear allegiance to the pope and the Roman Catholic institution above all other allegiances. This needed to be reconciled with the oath of office he would take if elected pres. These two diametrically opposite things were the concern, and the prohibition against Roman Catholics holding public office was keenly understood for this reason.

Have you, as a Catholic, sworn allegiance to the pope in this manner? What scripture of the Bible requires this?

I never had to swear allegiance to the Pope as a temporal ruler. I'm not a medieval fief of the Pope. I think I did swear to be faithful to the teachings of the Church and to the Pope in a spiritual sense.

Are you saying Catholics should be barred from political office?

 

[Tallguy88]

I'm sure Constantine and most of his immediate supporters and followers were wonderful Christians, but
did the Inquisition count as spreading the faith? The faith of Constantine, whatever it was, was not the same as that of the Apostle Paul, and the faith that spread under Constantine's rules was not Biblical faith.

How can Constantine be held responsible for something that happened roughly 1200 years after his death? There's plenty of things to criticize him for (killing family members, supporting Arianism later in life, being a generally brutal Emperor, etc) that it is unnecessary to try to connect him to things from a Millennium later If your point is that he was a bad guy.

 

[JM]

Please, do not pay any attention to the "trail of blood" theory.

 

[Avid]

... Are you saying Catholics should be barred from political office?

I am saying they were for a very long time for this very reason. This is how the Roman Catholic Institution was able to control whole nations. and even whole continents. The ones in positions of power in government had sworn allegiance to the pope, and did according as they were told by their Church.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution was diametrical opposed to the the way things were done all over the world. JFK had to answer these questions specifically, and not only one time.
.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkKiPbsmcuI

.
Again, these questions were asked many times for this reason.

 

[Avid]

Pay no attention to the theory that ALL Churches that are not Roman Catholic are Protestant.

 

[Avid]

I never had to swear allegiance to the Pope as a temporal ruler...

Maybe 100 years ago or more, you would have.