What happened to the Christianity that gave us the Holy Roman Empire...

[prodromos]

I have a sneaking suspicion that I am on someone's ignore list

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Well this "dissident Christian" as you imply I am believes in te Trinity, the Incarnation the physical REsurrection, and conditionally in sacramental theology, depending on how you define it. If you define it as Rome does, then I am against it!

Then I am confused as to why you're against the historic Church which established those doctrines. You seem to want to condemn the Church after 320 but it was the same Church whose members helped to explain the theology you accept.

Maybe you forgot before PC revision of history took over, but shortly after Catholicism took over Europe- Eiurope entered intot eh dark ages for a millenia.

I'm not sure what you mean about politically correct revisions but how draw the direct connection between Christianity and the fall of the Western Roman Empire? Would you then draw a connection to Eastern Christianity and the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire some thousand years later and a resurgence of the west?

The Dark ages is a misnomer. They weren't particularly dark, but only refer to a lack of resources. Of course things changed when the Western ROman empire fell. It was a civilizational collapse and barbarians filled the vacuum. It was the Church which kept the candle of civilization alive and educated Europe in the midst of any such 'darkness'. This of course doesn't describe the situation in the Eastern Roman Empire.

You can disagree all you wish, but it is a fact that asd teh church became watered down with nominal believers , who became "Christian" because it was the proper thing to do to stay in favor (Just like in Europe and America). Doctrine and false theology took root and what was fought against int eh first century became doctrine by the fifthe and sixth century!

What false doctrine? What false theology? Why necessarily connect that with the Church/State arrangment when you admit a plurality of different heterodox opinoins existed prior to? If anything the union of Church and State helped to make Nicaean Christianity the dominant expression of Christianity in the western/eastern world.

Conversion by compulsion is not a biblical conversion.

Ideally conversion would be voluntary, but if not for the forced conversions of the heathen do you really think Christianity would have become the dominant force it was in the medieval and early modern era? You would likely think baptism of infants is not biblical either and we'll simply have to disagree. I look at the result of Christianisation and think the benefits outweigh the negatives.

I am not here denying the negatives that existed.

As I sadi there were advantages for the church being free to express itself. But when Church and state married- it brought evil to both!

It changed things but how did it necessarily add more evil? You seem to have an American conception, that the Church and State should be separated and that for them to at all be aligned is to diminish the other. Historically this is an untenable position and a novel one for any Christian to take. Church and State had always been separate entities (except in the Monastic orders who ran certain states), and it was understood that this was how things should be. The King would take care of the secular realm, while the Church the spiritual. If this whole arrangement was an error, a fundamental evil, I have to wonder how you can trust the theology of that same Church.

I am not willing to vilify my Christian ancestors in this regard. They faced different political circumstances than we in the modern era and did the best they could. Power as a political force, which the Church did use and take up, was going to be filled. If you surrender all political power to your enemies and leave only that power for those hostile to the Church to use it, Christianity would have ceased to exist long ago.

You condemn Church for it's partnership with Rome, but what would have happened had they done what you suggest? Be implacable enemies to governing authorities. Never compromising, never listening? They would have been viewed rightfully as partisans who would never contribute to society. They would have been persecuted by those who took up power the moment they had it. There would have been no one to stop many Julians for the pagans had no such reservations.

I'm simplifying elements and there's more than can be said. Yet I think my view at least sees the reality of the situation. Not some idealization of what Christians should have done. Christians of the fourth century were not followers of the enlightenment.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have a sneaking suspicion that I am on someone's ignore list

Not mine, I love your posts!

 

[nolidad]

Then I am confused as to why you're against the historic Church which established those doctrines. You seem to want to condemn the Church after 320 but it was the same Church whose members helped to explain the theology you accept.

Well I accept the Doctrines that align with Scripture as written! But as that church became the Roman church and did lead the world into the dark ages (not not just for resources as the phrase the enlightenment shows)

I'm not sure what you mean about politically correct revisions but how draw the direct connection between Christianity and the fall of the Western Roman Empire? Would you then draw a connection to Eastern Christianity and the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire some thousand years later and a resurgence of the west?

The Dark ages is a misnomer. They weren't particularly dark, but only refer to a lack of resources. Of course things changed when the Western ROman empire fell. It was a civilizational collapse and barbarians filled the vacuum. It was the Church which kept the candle of civilization alive and educated Europe in the midst of any such 'darkness'. This of course doesn't describe the situation in the Eastern Roman Empire.

Well I will stand as the millenia from the 6th -16th centuries were the dark ages. It is not as just one-liners as you say!

Ideally conversion would be voluntary, but if not for the forced conversions of the heathen do you really think Christianity would have become the dominant force it was in the medieval and early modern era? You would likely think baptism of infants is not biblical either and we'll simply have to disagree. I look at the result of Christianisation and think the benefits outweigh the negatives.

I am not here denying the negatives that existed.

Well I would call it Christendom and not Christianity! If someone does not exercise faith in teh death and resurrection of Jesus alone for their salvation, they may go to church in a "Christian sect" but they are not Christian.

I agree that Christianizing a country has its benefits! By enforcing the morals and standards of the New Testament an nation can really prosper as we see throughout Western history! But Christianity without Christ leads to what we see today- lots of religion but fewer and fewer relationships.

BTW Baby baptism does not save the child! Nor does it remove a supposed stain of original sin! All are by birth sinners, for we have a sin nature given at conception! On that the Bible is clear!

It changed things but how did it necessarily add more evil? You seem to have an American conception, that the Church and State should be separated and that for them to at all be aligned is to diminish the other. Historically this is an untenable position and a novel one for any Christian to take. Church and State had always been separate entities (except in the Monastic orders who ran certain states), and it was understood that this was how things should be. The King would take care of the secular realm, while the Church the spiritual. If this whole arrangement was an error, a fundamental evil, I have to wonder how you can trust the theology of that same Church.

The state is Gods civil authority and the church is Gods spiritual authority (if it is still a believing church). By separation I am against one sect holding sway over the nation as was the practice in Europe. Separation does not appear in the constitution and the intent of the amendment was so that no one sect could dominate over another!

You condemn Church for it's partnership with Rome, but what would have happened had they done what you suggest? Be implacable enemies to governing authorities. Never compromising, never listening? They would have been viewed rightfully as partisans who would never contribute to society. They would have been persecuted by those who took up power the moment they had it. There would have been no one to stop many Julians for the pagans had no such reservations.

No we are to obey the governing authorities, not be the governing authorities. I do not argue the physical effects, but the spiritual effects of that marriage caused. The Papcy became a defacto cesar! The church the defacto Roman Empire. Kings could not reign without the blessing and acquiescence to the papacy, and you should know the great corruption of the papacy that took place because of that absolute power!

 

[nolidad]

I have a sneaking suspicion that I am on someone's ignore list

Not on my ignore list- Just being ignored, for the reasons I gave you!

 

[prodromos]

Not on my ignore list- Just being ignored, for the reasons I gave you!

Cool, although I don't recall you giving any reasons. Which post was that?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Well I accept the Doctrines that align with Scripture as written! But as that church became the Roman church and did lead the world into the dark ages (not not just for resources as the phrase the enlightenment shows)

I should have written, written records instead of resources. The reason it is known as a Dark age is because of the lack of substantial written resources when compared to later eras. Education was provided by the Church and any semblance of classical civilization was taught by them (what limited resources existed in the Latin west). But wouldn't you condemn that? Do you even think it a bad thing that Western Rome fell?

Also, by blaming Western Christianity for the fall of Rome, you borrow from the spirit of early YouTube atheists. Doesn't the migration of Barbarians and internal weakness of the West Roman State speak and the inevitable collapse of Empire speak more to it's collapse than Christianity? Or are you suggesting Christianity in Rome was a paristic force that destroyed the Roman State from within instead of strengthening it? Wouldn't you be for that?

Well I will stand as the millenia from the 6th -16th centuries were the dark ages. It is not as just one-liners as you say!

I don't know what this sentence means. Please clarify in relation to my original response.

Well I would call it Christendom and not Christianity! If someone does not exercise faith in teh death and resurrection of Jesus alone for their salvation, they may go to church in a "Christian sect" but they are not Christian.

I agree in principle but we obviously would have different views. I am not willing to condemn the historic Church (even the Roman side of the Church) as non Christian and apart from God entirely.

Your response thus far have all implied that the Church erred somewhere in the 300s and was restored only when the Protestant reformation occurred. I cannot agree with this vision for reasons I've stated before. Also for the theological reason that it seems nonsensical for God to establish a Church and not even protect his sheep. It's the same problem I have with Muslims, Mormons and JWs. They all believe man thwarted God's will.

I agree that Christianizing a country has its benefits! By enforcing the morals and standards of the New Testament an nation can really prosper as we see throughout Western history! But Christianity without Christ leads to what we see today- lots of religion but fewer and fewer relationships.

Interestingly enough in the modern secular milieu we see ourselves in today we see a lack of Christianity being enforced anywhere. The very notion of having Christian standards is anathema to many in the west and is considered a bad thing. Western Society once had Christian standards, but no longer. Has secularization and a strict separation of Church and state as you seem to envision, helped Christendom? Or weakened it? I think it is beyond doubt the latter.

The state is Gods civil authority and the church is Gods spiritual authority (if it is still a believing church). By separation I am against one sect holding sway over the nation as was the practice in Europe. Separation does not appear in the constitution and the intent of the amendment was so that no one sect could dominate over another!

This offers nothing in terms of judging the utility of the arrangement in medieval Europe. You're looking at things from an American perspective but if you're going to judge the historic Church it would do well to look at them from their own perspective. Power structures and governmental systems are not static and medieval Christian clergy had their place in the system.

I quite frankly appreciate the synthesis. As much as Emperor could hold physical power over his subjects and even his bishops, he could not be garunteed everything Spiritual by the Church. I think it a good thing that the Secular authority of the King was not unilateral and all powerful. You could compare it to the American system in how power is divided between the three branches.

No we are to obey the governing authorities, not be the governing authorities. I do not argue the physical effects, but the spiritual effects of that marriage caused. The Papcy became a defacto cesar! The church the defacto Roman Empire. Kings could not reign without the blessing and acquiescence to the papacy, and you should know the great corruption of the papacy that took place because of that absolute power!

Did the Pope become a Caesar? He was not as powerful as you seem to think and he didn't lead great armies. He never had, as far as I can tell, absolute authority. The Power of the Pope came from his spiritual authority rather than any force he might exert on those he disagreed with. While Popes at times could hold Kings to account they couldn't always and were subject to Kings and Emperors.

This kind of authority can only take you so far and it is not necessarily corrupting. When the Popes held Kings to vows to crusade they could only excommunicate as a last resort. They couldn't force them to do anything. There's a few memorable episodes of that happening in history where Kings only reluctantly lived up to their vows.

I don't agree with the Catholic Church but as an institution for keeping the powers of Europe in check I respect it. I respect it even more for the calling of the crusades and the Ideal that Christians shouldn't be fighting other Christians. While corruption did exist that doesn't illegitimate the institution itself.

 

[nolidad]

Cool, although I don't recall you giving any reasons. Which post was that?

look hared among your posts and mine to you you will find them!

 

[nolidad]

I should have written, written records instead of resources. The reason it is known as a Dark age is because of the lack of substantial written resources when compared to later eras. Education was provided by the Church and any semblance of classical civilization was taught by them (what limited resources existed in the Latin west). But wouldn't you condemn that? Do you even think it a bad thing that Western Rome fell?

Also, by blaming Western Christianity for the fall of Rome, you borrow from the spirit of early YouTube atheists. Doesn't the migration of Barbarians and internal weakness of the West Roman State speak and the inevitable collapse of Empire speak more to it's collapse than Christianity? Or are you suggesting Christianity in Rome was a paristic force that destroyed the Roman State from within instead of strengthening it? Wouldn't you be for that?

1. I do not blame Chritianity for the fall of western Rome. Rome fell from its own decadence.

2. No I am saying that teh Spiritual corruption of teh gospel hid the true gospel until men like Hus and Tyndale and Gutenberg starting making the Bible available to the average person.

The church did many wonderful things, I am not denying that. It was the spiritual darkness that the Roman church did by corrupting sound biblical doctrine that is the gfreater issue here!

As the Lord warned us:

Matthew 16:26
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

If I had to choose for Western civilization th epropserity that the Church helped bring at the expense of saving doctrine, or living meager lives and knowing the Lord in a saving relationship, I choose the latter!

This offers nothing in terms of judging the utility of the arrangement in medieval Europe. You're looking at things from an American perspective but if you're going to judge the historic Church it would do well to look at them from their own perspective. Power structures and governmental systems are not static and medieval Christian clergy had their place in the system.

I quite frankly appreciate the synthesis. As much as Emperor could hold physical power over his subjects and even his bishops, he could not be garunteed everything Spiritual by the Church. I think it a good thing that the Secular authority of the King was not unilateral and all powerful. You could compare it to the American system in how power is divided between the three branches.

And the church accomplished this by muddying teh gospel to the point where they no longer taught the true gospel excpet with man made additions in order for a soul to be saved.

Did the Pope become a Caesar? He was not as powerful as you seem to think and he didn't lead great armies. He never had, as far as I can tell, absolute authority. The Power of the Pope came from his spiritual authority rather than any force he might exert on those he disagreed with. While Popes at times could hold Kings to account they couldn't always and were subject to Kings and Emperors.

Reads the bull Unum Sanctum.

But Kings served at the pleasure of the POpe until the reformation. And though they were under the kings of the individual nations, Yes the Pope could call an enormous army if he chose to. Remember the crusades called by the popes!

And yes through history there were always ebbs and flows of the Papal stranglehold on Europe, but it was mostly kongs ceded to the pope for fear.

 

[tz620q]

Reads the bull Unum Sanctum.

But Kings served at the pleasure of the POpe until the reformation. And though they were under the kings of the individual nations, Yes the Pope could call an enormous army if he chose to. Remember the crusades called by the popes!

And yes through history there were always ebbs and flows of the Papal stranglehold on Europe, but it was mostly kongs ceded to the pope for fear.

This is the History forum on Christian Forums, so most of the people on here have read a lot of history, some of them even teach it. It is a great place to learn; but to do that requires one check his bias at the door and be open to admitting, "I was wrong". You urged people to read Unam Sanctum and said that Kings served at the pleasure of the Pope. You could not have picked a worse example from history to make this point. So take 2 minutes and google Unam Sanctum and read the wiki article on it. Then if you would like, respond to this post with what you think.

 

[nolidad]

This is the History forum on Christian Forums, so most of the people on here have read a lot of history, some of them even teach it. It is a great place to learn; but to do that requires one check his bias at the door and be open to admitting, "I was wrong". You urged people to read Unam Sanctum and said that Kings served at the pleasure of the Pope. You could not have picked a worse example from history to make this point. So take 2 minutes and google Unam Sanctum and read the wiki article on it. Then if you would like, respond to this post with what you think.

I was not linking the Bull with Popes controlling the armies of European Kings.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The beginning of the Holy Roman Empire simply started with the very influential wife of the Emperor becoming a Christian; this not only ended the persecution of the Church, but resulted in it becoming "the" official religion of the Roman Empire. It culminated in the Council of Nicaea and the "standardizing" of doctrines (more or less); everything that happened after that was either theological driven or more often than not politically driven.

 

[A_Thinker]

You are being woefully simplistic here.

Where is the Church as was? WHY did it change?

This church was not Jesus' church ... which was a church NOT tied to temporal power.

Why the change from Jesus' church ?

 

[A_Thinker]

I think he means how do you go from that to the effeminate religion it has become today.

That's a rather subjective judgment ...

 

[A_Thinker]

Loving one another was about how Christians treat each other, not about how they treat unbelievers.

Uhhh ... no ...

Matthew 5

43 You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘Hate your enemy.’

44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even Gentiles do the same?

 

[A_Thinker]

I was hoping that non-Catholics could get past their anti-Catholicism for this thread but clearly I was asking too much.

What has been particularly anti-Catholic about the posts here ?

 

[A_Thinker]

What do you think King Hezekiah was, or King David?

Men of God, placed in positions of secular power.

Though Hezekiah, David, and others (for the most part) followed God's lead, ... there were multiple other Israelite kings that did not (i.e. Ahab, Zerubabel, Manasseh, etc.) ... and the states representing God's people eventually came under the judgment of God ... and were given over to conquest and captivity.

The lesson of the OT was that earthly kingdoms led by fallen men ... would never ultimately fulfill the desires of God.

 

[A_Thinker]

So you would say that King Hezekiah, King David and King Solomon were involved in abomination?

Not to any overwhelming degree, ... but many of their forerunners and successors were ...

 

[A_Thinker]

You need to re-read your Bible. Not only are we not all God's people, at the end the Kingdom is established through dividing sheep from goats and an enormous army brought for battle.

Christ doesn't need armies.

Christ destroys His enemies without any help from us ...

Revelation 19

11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

King of kings and Lord of lords.

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21 The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

 

[Inkfingers]

Christ doesn't need armies.

Christ destroys His enemies without any help from us ...

Revelation 19

11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him

I've added a point of emphasis in your quote. You may wish to spend some time considering what precisely it means to be "Lord of Hosts".