What should Constantine or the Church have done?

fhansen · Feb 26, 2021

timothyu said:
Which as I have continually said was God's purpose in using the enemy for His own purposes. Forwarding scripture, not fallible religion.

All humans are out of sorts with God to one degree or another: He necessarily uses weak vessels in the case of all believers-and He can use the actions of unbelievers as well. But to forward only Scripture, to a bunch of eager interpreters who cannot hope to come to agreement on its meaning, except to agree with themselves, would be a pretty foolhardy choice. Instead God revealed the gospel to a certain group of people and it has been carried intact down through the centuries by that same church in spite of their personal fallibility. The writings that make up NT Scripture were preserved down though the early centuries by that same church (religion, as you say) which then set about to come up with the canon. Later millions and millions of people would argue about what it means to say. But the church, in the east and in the west that first received the gospel preached it before a word of the New Testament was even written.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Feb 26, 2021

timothyu said:
The Gospel of the Kingdom is about the governance of God and not of man. To represent God's governance man must put God's will first which is love all as self. Any representation in the world or government would have to follow that above all else. How's that been working out? We are to be ambassadors of another Kingdom, another world if you wish; not governments of man.

Since you demand perfection knowing we can never arrive at perfection in any human system of institution then it's no wonder you consider any effort to improve things wasted effort.

Of course while the Gospel calls us to ultimate loyalty in God's Kingdom it does not forbid participation in this mortal coil. In fact, God seems to judge us based on how we choose to act within the world, so what's the argument for suggesting that Christians should be above the concern of earthly government when it seems we have a duty to participate to some degree in it? When it comes to morality, when it comes to stability and when it comes to what is right.

I don't know what you expected the early Christians to do with Constantine. Bar him from the Church, refuse his patronage, tolerate idol worship? You inveigh against the whole system because of it's flaws, never pausing to consider that God works within such systems to bring about his will. Was it a cosmic mistake that Europe became Christian, just a happy coincidence?

Ignatius the Kiwi · Feb 26, 2021

timothyu said:
Which gospel?

The Gospel as laid out in the Nicene Creed and confessed to by most we would generally term small o orthodox. I don't know what your gospel is since i can't see it anywhere in history, so how did the Church abandon it? By it's association with Rome? It was never an article of faith that one couldn't be part of Rome. Paul was a Roman citizen and made great use of that status. He didn't object to in principle even Governers or Kings coming to the faith.

So why do you?

timothyu · Feb 26, 2021

Philip_B said:
I think such a view is ungracious and inelegant

See #45

Philip_B · Feb 26, 2021

Valletta said:
Constantine allowed the free practice of religion, after ten years or so Catholics began to build churches in which to worship and could openly spread the Gospel, doing God's will.

Christians had Churches before that, however it certainly accelerated in a climate of toleration, and even modest support. It is however kind of misleading to refer to Catholics in the time of Constantine, as at this stage the only sense of Catholic was as a note of the Church as was documented at the first council of Constantinople where the Church was described as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, and at the First Council of Nicaea 325, where Constantine was present in the anathema at the end of the Creed "But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change - these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes."

Valletta said:
It can be argued that the isolation allowed readings at mass to differ from area to area, Catholics wanted only Holy Scripture to be read at mass. With better communication and the ability to openly discuss and worship God it was only decades later when the Catholic Church made the final determination and gave the world the Bible.

That the New Testament is a product of the early Church is not in question. That Constantine could order the production of 50 copies of the Scriptures suggests that clearly by that stage there was an understanding of what should be in our out. It was not the product or the gift of one part of the Church, and indeed my understanding is that that part of the Church did not close the Canon until the Council of Trent in 1571. When it comes to the 27 books of the New Testament, there is a long history of agreement back to Origen nearly 100 years before the First Council of Nicaea. It is thought by many that two of our most important manuscripts Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are part of the product of Constantine's 50 Bibles.

timothyu · Feb 26, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Of course while the Gospel calls us to ultimate loyalty in God's Kingdom it does not forbid participation in this mortal coil.

Which is why I said 'To represent God's governance man must put God's will first which is love all as self. Any representation in the world or government would have to follow that above all else.'

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
never pausing to consider that God works within such systems to bring about his will.

So you missed me saying 'God was able to forward scripture within the opposing system, scripture that clearly states the opposition between the two forces. Talk about a win for God. God used the system of man to convict itself.'

timothyu · Feb 26, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
The Gospel as laid out in the Nicene Creed and confessed to by most we would generally term small o orthodox. I don't know what your gospel is since i can't see it anywhere in history, so how did the Church abandon it?

Jesus said there was only one Gospel and He mentioned it by name, the Gospel of the Kingdom... not the good news of the governance of the world of man.

timothyu · Feb 26, 2021

fhansen said:
But the church, in the east and in the west that first received the gospel preached it before a word of the New Testament was even written.

Agreed and to maintain the Gospel of the Kingdom it needed to be forwarded in an opposing institution of the world of man to insure it's safety. They may not have followed it but they moved it forward through time as they used it to justify their existence.

fhansen · Feb 26, 2021

timothyu said:
Agreed and to maintain the Gospel of the Kingdom it needed to be forwarded in an opposing institution of the world of man to insure it's safety. They may not have followed it but they moved it forward through time as they used it to justify their existence.

Interesting speculation-I guess. None of us follow it perfectly anyway, truth be told-but carrying it is a duty.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Feb 26, 2021

timothyu said:
Which is why I said 'To represent God's governance man must put God's will first which is love all as self. Any representation in the world or government would have to follow that above all else.'

If only we could all be so sinless and perfect as you. I guess since we can never reach perfection in performing the Gospel we shouldn't bother in any other endeavour.

timothyu said:
So you missed me saying 'God was able to forward scripture within the opposing system, scripture that clearly states the opposition between the two forces. Talk about a win for God. God used the system of man to convict itself.'

Are we talking about the same system which turned from Pagan idolatry to the worship of the true God and at least sought to implement Christian virtue and morality into law and society?

I agree this convicted people, but the way you're describing it makes no sense. Unless you think God didn;t want Rome to become Christian or did God orchestrate this knowing how flawed mankind is? IN which case what are you even arguing? Can you at least admit it seems better for the Empire to have become Christian than to have remained Pagan?

Ignatius the Kiwi · Feb 26, 2021

timothyu said:
Jesus said there was only one Gospel and He mentioned it by name, the Gospel of the Kingdom... not the good news of the governance of the world of man.

Right and your interpretation is unique with you. My interpretation is not derived from my own understanding, but rather the collective Church's understanding over the last two thousand years. If you consider yourself outside of that structure then I wish you well. I prefer the company of the Apostles, Saints and Doctors of the Church. Rather than you, random esoteric internet poster.

timothyu · Feb 26, 2021

fhansen said:
Interesting speculation-I guess. None of us follow it perfectly anyway, truth be told-but carrying it is a duty.

Well, the movement was at a point especially after the scattering of the nation where the 'time of the gentiles' would be needed to keep the scripture about Jesus and His Gospel of the Kingdom from fading out before the end of days.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

timothyu · Feb 26, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
If only we could all be so sinless and perfect as you. I guess since we can never reach perfection in performing the Gospel we shouldn't bother in any other endeavour.

All God asks is allegiance to His ways and governance over the governance of self serving mankind

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Are we talking about the same system which turned from Pagan idolatry to the worship of the true God and at least sought to implement Christian virtue and morality into law and society?

So the Empire came Christian while the church became worldly. Ironic.

timothyu · Feb 26, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
I prefer the company of the Apostles, Saints and Doctors of the Church. Rather than you, random esoteric internet poster.

By all means, you go ahead. And I will be happy to be on the outside. As Jesus said, His Kingdom is not of this world.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Feb 26, 2021

timothyu said:
All God asks is allegiance to His ways and governance over the governance of self serving mankind

Whose denying this? The problem for you is that it isn't mutually contradictory to serve a government or be part of a national identity and serve God at the same time. Christians have always praised people who sought God before the wills of men. Ignatius, Athanasius, Becket, More, whomever you care to name. These are the examples we have.

timothyu said:
So the Empire came Christian while the church became worldly. Ironic.

What do you mean the Church became worldly? It was always part of the world, fulfilling it's mission within it. I presume we are speaking about the ecclesiastical structure more than the Church in general.

The spiritual function of the Church never ceased and there was always attempts to get closer to God. Councils determined regulations for clergy, rules for monasticism and theological study was never put aside.

Monasticism only became prominent in the fourth century when Christians obtained this sort of power. Many Christians felt it too easy to live in a world which accepted them and chose the harshness of the desert. So it's not as if the Church as a whole completely embedded itself within the state.

timothyu said:
By all means, you go ahead. And I will be happy to be on the outside. As Jesus said, His Kingdom is not of this world.

Wouldn't you prefer to be in the company of someone like Ignatius of Antioch? Justin Martyr? John Chrysostom? Maximos the Confessor? I mean, if you are the only one Jesus has reached in two thousand years that seems like a poor track record.

timothyu · Feb 26, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Christians have always praised people who sought God before the wills of men.

The idea is to also do as He wills.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
So it's not as if the Church as a whole completely embedded itself within the state.

Agreed, and the mainstream institution set them aside or made them saints to convince the masses they were better off sticking with and supporting the mainstream than enduring the hardships of living according to the Kingdom. It is not the masses that are at fault for denying the Kingdom. It is those who maintain their own institutions.

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Gregory Thompson · Feb 27, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
God's criteria for being successful is living a righteous and good life in accords with the gospel. I don't think that limits the gospel to only being believed by the poor and powerless. Nor do I think we should consider it a failure that the Empire became Christian. That's a self-defeating attitude which condemns any possible future success to being marginal and ineffective.

God's criteria for being successful is revealed in Hebrews chapter 11, without faith it is impossible to please him. It is also written that what you have done to the least of (these) all humanity, you have also done unto God.

It is also written that the righteous shall live by faith.

The above post appears to describe conforming to the pattern of the world and departing from faith living.

Valletta · Feb 27, 2021

Valletta · Feb 27, 2021

Philip_B said:
Christians had Churches before that, however it certainly accelerated in a climate of toleration, and even modest support. It is however kind of misleading to refer to Catholics in the time of Constantine, as at this stage the only sense of Catholic was as a note of the Church as was documented at the first council of Constantinople where the Church was described as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, and at the First Council of Nicaea 325, where Constantine was present in the anathema at the end of the Creed "But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change - these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes."

That the New Testament is a product of the early Church is not in question. That Constantine could order the production of 50 copies of the Scriptures suggests that clearly by that stage there was an understanding of what should be in our out. It was not the product or the gift of one part of the Church, and indeed my understanding is that that part of the Church did not close the Canon until the Council of Trent in 1571. When it comes to the 27 books of the New Testament, there is a long history of agreement back to Origen nearly 100 years before the First Council of Nicaea. It is thought by many that two of our most important manuscripts Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are part of the product of Constantine's 50 Bibles.

The Catholic Church, in the process that spanned centuries, was getting close to what we have today, but the first list of New Testament books the same as we have today (in the same order as well) is credited to Saint Athanasius, after Constantine was dead. The final list of 73 books was was approved by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. which included the list, the list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Feb 27, 2021

Michael Collum said:
God's criteria for being successful is revealed in Hebrews chapter 11, without faith it is impossible to please him. It is also written that what you have done to the least of (these) all humanity, you have also done unto God.

It is also written that the righteous shall live by faith.

The above post appears to describe conforming to the pattern of the world and departing from faith living.

Whose denying Hebrews 11 or the need for faith? What in particular in my post means conforming to the world? Are Christians to avoid doing anything similar to what non-Christians do? What specifically offends you about the Christianization of Rome and subsequent rulership of Christian monarchs?

Would you have preferred Rome remain Pagan?

What should Constantine or the Church have done?

Oldbie

Dissident

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Dissident

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Similar threads