• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Constantine and the decliine of the church

football5680

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2013
4,138
1,517
Georgia
✟105,332.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion, he decriminalized it and gave it preferential treatment above Paganism. Constantine paved the road for the eventual conversion of the empire but when he was living there were not enough Christians to make this feasible because the majority were still Pagan. Even under persecution, Christianity was growing rapidly so the decriminalization made it even faster. This period was incredibly positive in Christian history and other than the time when Jesus and the apostles walked the Earth, it was the most important. It set the stage for the spread of Christianity throughout the world and the salvation of countless individuals.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,797
14,247
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,428,162.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Just wanted to get opinions on how the historical church changed after Constantine made Christianity the state religion.

Was the change good or bad for the church, the historical faith, and for ecclesiastical structure?

Thanks in advance,

Marc
You are thinking of Emperor Theodosius I
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Well just by protecting the followers of Jesus is one of the changes...no other Roman Emperor had done this...but that it was considered a type of State religion is witnessed by the forced baptisms of his armies and his outlawing of "the Sabbath" (see the Sabbath decree) and other things...He allowed councils to be formed which would narrow down who would be considered "Christian" among the varieties of Christian fellowships that were extant in his time (the decisions however were left to the councils)...an example of this was the promotion of Sunday Easter resurrection celebration as the focus as the legal norm, where many in the east still celebrated the Pascha with their focus "on His death till He comes" celebrated on the 14th of Nisan as the Apostles had taught them to do...but he did not make doing so illegal (again the decisions were left up to the councils)...for even these always ended their fast on the next 1st day (Sunday in Roman terms) following the Pascha and rejoiced and held early morning service celebrating His resurrection...so in effect, for the Church, he made majority rule the modus operandi...and then there was the officiation of December 25th making it a legal holiday...He claimed to be converted (to be a Christian) but was not baptized till his death bed, yet forced his military to be baptized at threat of death...and killed a wife and son during this time...
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Just wanted to get opinions on how the historical church changed after Constantine made Christianity the state religion.

Was the change good or bad for the church, the historical faith, and for ecclesiastical structure?

Thanks in advance,

Marc

Historians think Constantine's patronage was a big break for the church. It came shortly after some of the most infamous persecutions in church history and put an end to that. Conspiracy theorists prefer to think Constantine actually took over the church and altered its teachings, for which there is no real evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Alive_Again

Resident Alien
Sep 16, 2010
4,167
231
✟20,491.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
It has been said that it was both good and bad. On the one hand, there was a great deal of freedom previously unknown. Property was given to the church as some pagan facilities were made churches.

The state began to assert its influence in ways that were often carnal. Laws against the Jews and eventually heretics came about. For Christianity to flourish, there should be no coercion. People should have some freedom to walk according to their conscience (if it doesn't harm any other) and some tolerance for doctrinal variance is healthy.

So the state exerts influence. His sons weren't quite the believers he was and for some time carnal influence began to prevail more and more in the church. It's as though it was a "service" to provide the church by exerting temporal authority.

A little "pomp" and financial privilege entered in. You could stand to benefit socially by being a Christian, as the emperor was. I'm sure people "joined the church" who were not spiritually reborn.

It has been suggested that Constantine used the church to his own advantage, playing both the pagans and Christians at the same time. His coinage reflected both "churches". It was commonplace for people not to be baptized until before their death, because it was believed that baptism thoroughly cleansed you from all sin. Their faith was misplaced.

I still think it was better to be able to spread the message without being in fear of your life (or at least having to be ready to die all of the time). We're blessed to do that now in America. But when church and state become linked, it does seem to cause problems.

The Edict of Milan, Constantine, March 313

"It seemed to us that, among those things that are good for mankind in general, the reverence paid to the Divinity deserved our first and chief attention, and that it was proper that the Christians and all others should have liberty to follow that mode of religion which to each of them appeared best; so that that God who is seated in heaven, might be kind and helpful to us, and everyone under our government.

And therefore we judged it a good measure, and one consistent with good judgment, that no man should be denied the right to practice the rites of the Christians, or to whatever other religion his mind directed him, that thus the supreme Divinity, to whose worship we freely devote ourselves, might continue to extend his favour and goodness to us.

And accordingly we give you to know that, without regard to any provisos in our former order to you concerning the Christians, all who choose that religion are to be permitted, freely and absolutely, to remain in it, and not to be disturbed in any way, or molested.

And we thought it fit to be thus special in the things committed to your charge, that you might understand that the indulgence which we have granted in matters of religion to the Christians is ample and unconditional.

And perceive at the same time that the open and free exercise of their respective religions is granted to all others, as well as to the Christians; for it befits the well ordered state, and the tranquillity of our times that each individual be allowed, according to his own choice, to worship the Divinity; and we mean not to take away from the honor due to any religion or those it honors.

Moreover with respect to the Christians, we formerly gave certain orders concerning the place appropriated for their religious assemblies; but now we declare that all persons who have purchased some places, either from our treasury or from anyone else, must restore them to the Christians, without demanding payment of any kind, and that this be performed immediately and without dispute.

. . . And that the spirit of this our gracious order may be known unto you all, we declare that you cause it by your authority to be published everywhere."
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,625
29,207
Pacific Northwest
✟816,639.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Just wanted to get opinions on how the historical church changed after Constantine made Christianity the state religion.

Was the change good or bad for the church, the historical faith, and for ecclesiastical structure?

Thanks in advance,

Marc

As others noted, Constantine didn't make Christianity the state religion, rather he instituted official toleration--decriminalizing Christianity. Constantine did, however, act rather favorably toward Christianity, offering it his patronage, and even was the host for the first ecumenical council in Nicea (though under Constantine Nicea was also overturned in favor of the Arians, as Constantine's closest religious advisers were themselves Arians or at least sympathetic to Arianism). His sons were divided between the Nicene and Arian camps--a tug-of-war that would continue until Julian the Apostate, and eventually Theodosius I making Nicene Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

And as others have said, with Constantine's patronage came good and bad. The unprecedented freedom of worship Christians experienced was, of course, a boon. And yet attaching stately power and authority to the Christian Church also bore a lot of ill. When the State sought to act in the Church's "favor" by criminalizing heresy, even using violence to squelch heretics, it didn't do the Church any real, actual favors. And it also began the long struggle between Church and State that would largely define the middle ages, in both East and West.

Though that struggle between Church and State isn't Constantine's fault, as the man could hardly have known the future.

And so it is that Church and State rarely play nice together. It is usually inevitable that the State will try and lord itself over the Church, or else many in the Church will attempt to make the State the strong arm of the Church. Neither is acceptable. And history is replete with the disasters of of both--crusades, inquisitions, pogroms, etc. And in the last century, one only need see the way the Nazis co-opted the Christian Church in Germany, the Reichskirche.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

Knee V

It's phonetic.
Sep 17, 2003
8,417
1,741
43
South Bend, IN
✟115,823.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Others have commented on Constantine thoroughly enough, so I'll leave that one be.

What would you say, however, specifically changed about the church after Constantine? Doctrine? Practice? Something else?
 
Upvote 0

1watchman

Overseer
Site Supporter
Oct 9, 2010
6,040
1,227
Washington State
✟358,388.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have seen from history that the real Church emerged after Constantine and his State regulated religion of the Papacy which he supported. The Protestant Reformation was God's recovery of the true Gospel testimony and the spreading of the Word of God in truth, as printing was developed in circa 1500.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,797
14,247
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,428,162.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I have seen from history that the real Church emerged after Constantine and his State regulated religion of the Papacy which he supported.
Where on earth do you see Constantine supporting the Papacy?
The Protestant Reformation was God's recovery of the true Gospel testimony and the spreading of the Word of God in truth, as printing was developed in circa 1500.
Which is why there are as many versions of truth as there are Protestant Churches. If that is a 'recovery' why are we worse off?
 
Upvote 0

Alive_Again

Resident Alien
Sep 16, 2010
4,167
231
✟20,491.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
The Protestant Reformation was God's recovery of the true Gospel testimony and the spreading of the Word of God in truth, as printing was developed in circa 1500.
Which is why there are as many versions of truth as there are Protestant Churches. If that is a 'recovery' why are we worse off?

We're a long ways from being "worse off". If there were no "choices" in the field of ministry, we'd all have to settle for what's available.

What was available prior to the Reformation was just as prophesied, a lot of deception and flesh and bondage. Widespread immorality among the clergy, buying and selling of offices, manipulation from various monarchies. The church was in trouble!

When the printing press and the Word of God became popular again, people began to notice where error crept in and a great desire for revival entered in.

As in Jesus' day, the "spirit of religion" hates to be displaced by truth. So they sought to put those who desired to follow God according to their conscience to nought. They implied they'd go to Hell if they didn't "repent" and began loosing anathemas that were by no means of God.

Although the church has never completely agreed on certain doctrines, it's not important that we agree on everything. We must agree on placing the importance of what Jesus said first and foremost. We must believe in the present day ministry of the Holy Spirit (for everyone). It is BETTER that Jesus left, because He left the Comforter. But the church has to believe in the promises (mix faith with the seed of the Word) in order to reap what God has already given.

There's coming a day where we won't be arguing about doctrinal matters. We'll be pointing to Jesus (and no one else) and listening to the Holy Spirit in manifestation and laying aside the rest of "dead ol' religion". That's what ministers life, not the outward forms.

Life is FAR BETTER today since the Reformation. There wasn't a choice before and if you dared to implicate that, you'd be taking your life into your own hands.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Today you have a whole range of erroneous teaching to choose from.

We all agree to that. But only some of us still think we can sell the idea that one side or the other--Protestant or Catholic--is exempt from it. :sigh:
 
Upvote 0

Alive_Again

Resident Alien
Sep 16, 2010
4,167
231
✟20,491.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Alive Again, your words: "But the Lord is faithful to guide and He has given us His Word".

The Lord gave us His One and only church when He left.
The Body is the church and there is only one Body (It doesn't have a sign out front because it is not a place.) We're not supposed to have faith in the Body, but the Head.

The "one true" or "one and only"thing as has been presented lately is a form of spiritual pride that 2 segments of the church have built upon for almost 2 millenia. The enemy has prevailed mightily over it. That should tell us something.

It's time to stop preaching the church and just lift up Jesus. That is the true function of the church. Then you will start seeing signs.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

HumbleMan

Ragamuffin
Dec 2, 2003
5,258
274
Mississippi by way of Texas
✟32,880.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Thank you for all the replies.

I'm not always so good at expressing my thoughts coherently, especially after lunch and before afternoon coffee. So please bear with me if I ramble....

The two things that come to my mind is first: when the persecuation ended, the faithful became comfortable. I look at the church in China and how it is exploding despite oppression from the government, and then I look at the church in general and see the shallowness of of the theology, the disregard for history, and the attitude of entitlement like the world owes the Christian something just because we say so.

Second, and please know that I am not a RCC basher, I see through history that the farther away the church got from being "underground", the more the power of the church led to corruption of the heirarchal church, including simony, the sale of indulgences, the political and financial motivations of it's leaders.... etc.
 
Upvote 0

Alive_Again

Resident Alien
Sep 16, 2010
4,167
231
✟20,491.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
and the attitude of entitlement like the world owes the Christian something just because we say so.

People perceive that something is preached a certain way about speaking and your inheritance. The success thing about Word of Faith is that you get into agreement with the mind of Christ. No part of your inheritance is yours because you're "entitled" to it. At the same time, it is yours whether or not you avail yourself of it or not.

The "saying" part of it is just one method of entering into the things of God. But if you're off the track, it doesn't matter if you know how to start the motor and steer, etc.

Entering into the mind of Christ isn't just speaking the Word (because the Word says many things). It's flowing with God's purpose in your life.
 
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Site Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,995
5,824
✟1,011,690.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I'm reading a book right now called:
Heretics: The Creation of Christianity from the Gnostics to the Modern Church by Jonathan Wright. This book draws to light the connection with the Legalization of Christianity and the beginnings of the standardizing (or normalizing) of orthodoxy theology.

I think that the biggest result was the legitimization of communication and sharing between the Churches and their Bishops; which resulted in this process of on going quest for normalization.

The book is brief, and easy to read. Anyone interested in History should read it.:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0