The Constintinian Concesus a Positive or Negative Thing?

[SummaScriptura]

Tertullian wrote, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" to show persecution caused the truth to spread.

About 100 years later this guy comes along neamed Constantine. In broad outlines Constatine goes from pagan to Christian, from tolerating Christianity to recommending it.

Then Constatine gets all the church leaders together and says in effect, "disunity is bad for the empire and you should all get together, decide what's true and enforce that in all your churches".

The way this effected the church is now a matter of record.

What say you? Was this a good thing or a bad thing for the sake of the truth of the gospel?

 

[E.C.]

First off, Constantine was not just some guy. He was an emperor and is a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Second off, St. Constantine (as he is known) ended the persecutions. Something all should be thankful for.


Now, at the time of the Council of Nicea (325 and called by Constantine) the heresy of the day was Arianism. The Arians believed that Christ was not God and therefore considered him to be a creature created by God. (I believe the JW's have a similar belief)

At the time, most of the Christians were in the Roman Empire. Even though bishops may have disagreed over this issue (some having fallen to the heresy) it really needed to be called by an emperor.

What other method could have motivated the bishops and others to find an agreement other than from an emperor, whose predecessors had persecuted the Christians, than to say "Look, there's disagreement here. Obviously this isn't something small. I don't care what y'all decide, just end the disagreement"?

It is from this council that the Nicene Creed was "drafted" and later revised to its current form later on (without filioque).


In other words, sometimes you need a little outside help to solve a problem. Yes, it was a good thing what St. Constantine his calling forth of all the Christians helped set in stone what was already believed.

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland.

In a book by Orthodox writer Alexander Schmemann, "The Historical Road OF Eastern Orthodoxy"; he writes, quote: After Constantine´s conversion came the so-called Edict of Milan in 313, defining the principles of his religious policies. It solemnly proclaimed freedom "for Christians and all others to follow whatever religion they wished, " and the properties confiscated from Christian churches during the persecutions were returned to them. What did this religious freedom mean? If Constantine in proclaiming it, had been inspired by the Christian idea that one´s religious conviction should be independent of the state, the why was it enforced for so short a time and them replaced by the unlimited and obligatory monopoly of Christianity, which destroyed all religious freedom? Unquote

All this is rooted in the thought that there is a link between God and the world, and the State was the earthly reflection of the divine law. This is true in Byzantine, and Constantine is typical of this new religious state of mind because he grew up in a house-hold whose father had already, "dedicated to the One God, his children, his wife, his servants, and his whole palace." The author says, such a state of mind does not wholly explain his conversion to Christianity, but it helps us to understand better how Constantine himself eceived Christianity and how he became the representatiive of a new approach to the Church and its faith. Unquote.

Later on, the author wrote the Donatists (in Africa) appealed to the emperor, and the emperor, and Constantine then took an irrevocable step, inaugurating the tragic misunderstanding between the theocratic empire and the Church which was to last for many centuries.

Interesting what the author writes......

In Him, david.

 

[Kristos]

Well, Constantine & Helen are saints in the EOC, but Tertullian is not...

I know some Egyptians who take a lesser view of him than the Greeks. Maybe he was just in the right place at the right time to be used by God, but of course he didn't have to, just at Mary had a choice.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

What say you? Was this a good thing or a bad thing for the sake of the truth of the gospel?

It was definitely a good thing. Constantine ended the persecution of Christians in the West. The emperors in the East continued sporadic persecutions until Constantine eventually defeated them in battle. Many of the bishops and church leaders who gathered at Nicea bore the marks of these late persecutions with missing eyes, limbs, etc. The sudden approval of a persecuted religion scared the pagans and Jews, but the Christians did not retaliate against those who persecuted them.

People often misunderstand Constantine and his times. The world was majority pagan. Paganism would endure in rural regions even to the 600s. Christianity was still a minority in Constantine's day - only about 10% of the population in the West and about 30% in the East were Christians. The "Edict of Milan" in 313 simply granted a degree of toleration which allowed Christians to regain their property (i.e. Bibles, etc).

Christianity never became the official religion of the empire under Constantine. There is no evidence that non-Christians surged into the churches because the emperor(s) were Christian. There were no large expansive church building programs under Constantine. Christianity continued to be spread the same way as before Constantine, by the witness of the "rank and file" Christians and local leaders.

After Constantine´s conversion came the so-called Edict of Milan in 313, defining the principles of his religious policies. It solemnly proclaimed freedom "for Christians and all others to follow whatever religion they wished, " and the properties confiscated from Christian churches during the persecutions were returned to them. What did this religious freedom mean? If Constantine in proclaiming it, had been inspired by the Christian idea that one´s religious conviction should be independent of the state, the why was it enforced for so short a time and them replaced by the unlimited and obligatory monopoly of Christianity, which destroyed all religious freedom?

The above writer is ascribing too much of our modern views to Constantine and his day...


LDG

 

[E.C.]

Christianity never became the official religion of the empire under Constantine. There is no evidence that non-Christians surged into the churches because the emperor(s) were Christian. There were no large expansive church building programs under Constantine. Christianity continued to be spread the same way as before Constantine, by the witness of the "rank and file" Christians and local leaders.

Actually, his mother, Helena, went to the Holy Land and had many churches and cathedrals built at important places during Christ's life (Bethlehem, Jerusalem etc).

When building the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (in Jerusalem. Still stands) Helena and folks helping with the construction found three crosses. They determined that one is Christ's Cross and did so by carrying a dead body to it. The person was brought back to life.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Actually, his mother, Helena, went to the Holy Land and had many churches and cathedrals built at important places during Christ's life (Bethlehem, Jerusalem etc).

Yes, it is true that churches in the Holy Land were built on sites connected with Jesus. Constantine also had new churches built in his new capital Constantinople.

My statement is in connection with Christianity as a whole throughout the empire. Some claim that many pagans and opportunistic people joined the church just because the emperor was now a Christian. This would mean that the size of the churches would have swelled greatly and that new church buildings would need to be built to accomodate the larger numbers. However the archaeological evidence shows that the size of the church buildings remained the same. The church actually grew slowly and steadily over time.


LDG

 

[E.C.]

Well, the whole huge massive sized church building started in Western Europe. In the East, they were typically small, mainly because there are no pews so people stood the whole time! And still do in most EO churches. Some have pews.

With this in mind, and the fact that people do not change well, I still believe that many over time converted to Christianity.

Also keep in mind that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (and others) have been added onto over the centuries.

But still, the whole "massive sized 1,000's of square feet" cathedrals are mainly Western style.

 

[Gringo]

It was inevitable that the rapidly growing number of Christians throughout the ancient Roman Empire would have to find a concordate with the ancient Roman Emperors.

The supretext for Nicea was whether the Emperors would be in charge of the Church, and how long it would be before the Church ascended in its influence over them.

The subtext for Nicea, which has had long lasting influence on theology to this day, was whether to permit figures of speech in doctrinal statements (Jesus Christ is eternal like God the Father is eternal) or whether to use literal language (Jesus the Son is God as is the Father).

The literalists won the debate, and since then resisted figurative language. But the argument is based on the false premise that literal and figurative language do not refer to the subject, and the substance/existence/reality of the subject. Eg.

My love is beautiful (acceptable theological language in the Nicene tradition)
My love is a red, red rose (a metaphor; unacceptable in this tradition, but nonetheless refering to the same subject)
My love is like a red, red rose (a simile; unacceptable in the Nicene tradition, but nonetheless referring to the same subject) Ergo:

Jesus, the Son of God is God (not Father or Holy Spirit and meaning eternal in nature against the Arians)
Jesus is like God (meaning eternal in nature, "like" as in sharing the same characteristic of being an eternal being).

The same false premise was infused into the debate concerning baptism, even into the debate between Luther and Zwingli over the word "is" which tanked protestant unity during the reformation. Conclusion: they all should have consulted an English major. Murders, seiges, wars, schism, and the blood of millions would have been spared because of arguments over this issue.

 

[SummaScriptura]

It was inevitable that the rapidly growing number of Christians throughout the ancient Roman Empire would have to find a concordate with the ancient Roman Emperors.

The supretext for Nicea was whether the Emperors would be in charge of the Church, and how long it would be before the Church ascended in its influence over them.

The subtext for Nicea, which has had long lasting influence on theology to this day, was whether to permit figures of speech in doctrinal statements (Jesus Christ is eternal like God the Father is eternal) or whether to use literal language (Jesus the Son is God as is the Father).

The literalists won the debate, and since then resisted figurative language. But the argument is based on the false premise that literal and figurative language do not refer to the subject, and the substance/existence/reality of the subject. Eg.

My love is beautiful (acceptable theological language in the Nicene tradition)
My love is a red, red rose (a metaphor; unacceptable in this tradition, but nonetheless refering to the same subject)
My love is like a red, red rose (a simile; unacceptable in the Nicene tradition, but nonetheless referring to the same subject) Ergo:

Jesus, the Son of God is God (not Father or Holy Spirit and meaning eternal in nature against the Arians)
Jesus is like God (meaning eternal in nature, "like" as in sharing the same characteristic of being an eternal being).

The same false premise was infused into the debate concerning baptism, even into the debate between Luther and Zwingli over the word "is" which tanked protestant unity during the reformation. Conclusion: they all should have consulted an English major. Murders, seiges, wars, schism, and the blood of millions would have been spared because of arguments over this issue.

Very nice analysis.

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland.

The theocratic concept of the Byzantine church is in the "Epanagoge", a code of laws published at the close of the 9th Ct by Emperor Basil I...laws on the relations between Church and State. Many scholars have inferred the Epanagoge is a blending of the Church and Empire into a single Church-State body. The Epanagoge was a political law, and spoke of the state, not the Church. The State because it was Christian was organically linked with the Church.

Basically, the Patriarach is to preserve in piety and purity of life those people whom he has received from God...and lead unbelievers into adopting the faith. The Emperor is to safeguard and secure the strength of the nation by good governance.

As I wrote in post #3 that it was the Edict of Milan that made Christianity a legit religion...making it equal with other religious beliefs in the empire. But it wasn´t Constantine who enforced the Christian Church to be the leading religion...he opened the door, but it was his son Constantius (337 AD ff)who interpreted his power over the Church...after Nicea, the so-called ecumenical councils, with all the controversy over the Christ-Man (later the Holy Spirit) that was happening in the Eastern side of the empire, particularily between Alexandria, Antioch or Constantinople..many bishops appealed to the Emperor to resolve these controversy about the Christ-Man. All the emperor wanted was peace in the empire.

(some thoughts are quotes from Schmemann´s "The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodox".

For Now.

In Him, david.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Well, the whole huge massive sized church building started in Western Europe. In the East, they were typically small, mainly because there are no pews so people stood the whole time! And still do in most EO churches. Some have pews.

I'm not referring to the building of cathedrals. The building of cathedrals in Western Europe came at a much later time than Constantine's day.

With this in mind, and the fact that people do not change well, I still believe that many over time converted to Christianity.

That is my point as well, that over time people converted to Christianity in Constantine's reign and after as well.


LDG

 

[Rick Otto]

That allowing that persecution builds the church, you thank Constantine for ending persecution & building the church.

 

[E.C.]

As I wrote in post #3 that it was the Edict of Milan that made Christianity a legit religion...making it equal with other religious beliefs in the empire. But it wasn´t Constantine who enforced the Christian Church to be the leading religion...he opened the door

This is something that I have seen many Protestants ignore.

Many Protestants in the world seem to think that Constantine took the "covert or die" route and to think this is erroneous.


Lamorak, sorry, but to me it seemed like you were talking the building of churches and cathedrals.

 

[Rick Otto]

.
Many Protestants in the world seem to think that Constantine took the "covert or die" route and to think this is erroneous.quote]

Not me.

But it would be equaly erroneous to think that His professed conversion didn't influentualy pressure those who wanted his attention and influence for their own self-interests.

 

[prodromos]

But it would be equaly erroneous to think that His professed conversion didn't influentualy pressure those who wanted his attention and influence for their own self-interests.

Why focus on those people at that time? There are plenty of people today who are in Church for the wrong reasons, plenty of Tares sown among the Wheat. Christ made this much clear in a number of parables. Not all who profess to be Christians will be saved on the last day and there will be more than a few who are not visibly part of the Church who will be saved.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

this is an intresting discussion. I come from a protastant tradition and a Seventh-day Adventist tradition. Constantine is not looked on very highly in our tradation. He is viewed as the compromiser and the chruch is viewed as selling out and the codifing of Apostasy.

 

[SummaScriptura]

this is an intresting discussion. I come from a protastant tradition and a Seventh-day Adventist tradition. Constantine is not looked on very highly in our tradation. He is viewed as the compromiser and the chruch is viewed as selling out and the codifing of Apostasy.

It should not be a question of your "Protestant / RC / OC" perspective at all; if anyone does not feel a sense of outrage after reading what was done to the dissenters within Christendom once the machinery of Constantine, the ECF (especially Augustine) got inaugurated, realizing little children and women ended up on pikes because of it, there's something desperately wrong.

 

[prodromos]

It should not be a question of your "Protestant / RC / OC" perspective at all; if anyone does not feel a sense of outrage after reading what was done to the dissenters within Christendom once the machinery of Constantine, the ECF (especially Augustine) got inaugurated, realizing little children and women ended up on pikes because of it, there's something desperately wrong.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[SummaScriptura]

What on earth are you talking about?

Oh, just about the untold thousands of innocents who were victimized by civil authority because they belonged to the "wrong" church. Augustine said coercion by civil authorities on behalf of the church and in the name of Christ was okay becasue the parable says, "compel them to come in". The rest is a history of smoke, blood, misery and the tears of those who did not subscribe to the "right way".

Is it any wonder that a mere 200 years after Augie Daddy penned those words and legitimized the use of force in the name of Christ, that a sword was fashioned against Christain lands the likes of which the world had never seen nor has seen since.

Jesus obliquely prophesied this when He said, "those who live by the sword will die by it". The church chose to live by it and look what it got us; the Hagia Sophia is a museum and I'm outraged!