What should Constantine or the Church have done?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That Jesus is the Son of God is important. But the NT describes this in a number of ways. Mandating a specific pseudo philosophical explanation is a different thing. I think the doctrinal discussions about Christology were useful. I’m interested in Christology myself. But the Church has been far too willing to judge people based on speculative theology.

I can understand why a dissident such as yourself would be unsupportive of Nicene Christianity being the official creed of the Empire. Yet why should I (or anyone at the time of Nicaea), as someone who supports that system, advocate for your freedom to subvert that one faith? What would that accomplish? I could imagine a hypothetical scenario wherein Christianity always remains fractured and instead of having the reformation in the year 1600, you have an ineffective and unorganized Christianity more at war with itself than doing it's true mission in bringing the Gospel to the world.

At least, it would have been even more at war with itself than it was historically.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The church was never meant to wield power in the world of man. It represented another Kingdom built upon opposing principles. What you suggest is no different than what the Jews were looking for in a leader at the time of the crucifixion, a worldly king.

Well we've been over this before and I don't care to repeat myself. But am I advocating what the Jews were? Not exactly, I'm just not content with the idea that the Church should have no power or place within society. That at every turn where the Church could exert influence or power we are taught to think that is wrong.

If what you're saying is true, it was wrong for the Church to require Henry the Second to publicly repent of his crimes. That was an exercise of power, spiritual power but power nonetheless. Same as it was an exercise of power that the Old Paganism was mostly destroyed and rendered a belief for uneducated country people.

If those things were good, then you cannot maintain this principle of complete separation between the Church and this world.

 

[hedrick]

I can understand why a dissident such as yourself would be unsupportive of Nicene Christianity being the official creed of the Empire. Yet why should I (or anyone at the time of Nicaea), as someone who supports that system, advocate for your freedom to subvert that one faith? What would that accomplish? I could imagine a hypothetical scenario wherein Christianity always remains fractured and instead of having the reformation in the year 1600, you have an ineffective and unorganized Christianity more at war with itself than doing it's true mission in bringing the Gospel to the world.

At least, it would have been even more at war with itself than it was historically.

I’m not looking for a Christianity at war with itself. I’m looking for a Christianity that doesn’t consider disagreements over theological language to be war.

Yes, if the Church had been more broad minded, the Reformation probably wouldn’t have been necessary.

Nicea didn’t actually solve the problem. All it took was a new emperor and things reversed. Chalcedon tore the Church apart. Many historians think it was in part responsible for the inability to resist Islam.

 

[timothyu]

I'm just not content with the idea that the Church should have no power or place within society.

It does, as an alternate example. One cannot be such by aligning itself with the opposition.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I’m not looking for a Christianity at war with itself. I’m looking for a Christianity that doesn’t consider disagreements over theological language to be war.

Yes, if the Church had been more broad minded, the Reformation probably wouldn’t have been necessary.

Nicea didn’t actually solve the problem. All it took was a new emperor and things reversed. Chalcedon tore the Church apart. Many historians think it was in part responsible for the inability to resist Islam.

A Christianity partially at war with itself is endemic to Christianity. The search for Orthodoxy or right belief, is one of the major features which separates Christianity from other esoteric religions and gives it part of the legitimacy it has, at least when compared to Paganism or other forms of religion which do not insist on any particulars. Hence why no one cares about Shinto, not even the Japanese.

What I would suggest is that if the Church broadly didn't gather around the Nicene definition of things Christianity might not have had the spiritual integrity to last to the time of the reformation, or if it did it would have been an entirely local affair and assuming Islam still comes along in such a hypothetical, what would be the reason to oppose Islam? After all, we don't insist Jesus is God, we don't insist Jesus must be worshipped.

Nicene Christianity didn't solve the problems in the Church outright. There can't ever be one solution to anything. Yet it gave strength to the faithful and developed a common theological language which unites all Christendom to this day in at least some ways, regardless of our differences.

You probably have some valid critiques of Chalcedon, but even the Coptics won't go as far as you to say the Nicene creed is not necessary. At least Chalcedonians and Coptics can agree on that.

 

[timothyu]

The fact man finds it hard to agree is the very reason Jesus taught us the Gospel of the Kingdom, which basically tells backwards man to repent of trying to have it our way all the time, and simply follow the governance/will of God. But no, we have to make it over in our own images, building our own institutions, absolutely none of which will matter when Jesus returns.

 

[RDKirk]

Well we've been over this before and I don't care to repeat myself. But am I advocating what the Jews were? Not exactly, I'm just not content with the idea that the Church should have no power or place within society. That at every turn where the Church could exert influence or power we are taught to think that is wrong.

If what you're saying is true, it was wrong for the Church to require Henry the Second to publicly repent of his crimes. That was an exercise of power, spiritual power but power nonetheless. Same as it was an exercise of power that the Old Paganism was mostly destroyed and rendered a belief for uneducated country people.

If those things were good, then you cannot maintain this principle of complete separation between the Church and this world.

Christ never intended His Church to wield the sword or have access to the sword of earthly kings. That's why we've wound up with wars between nations both claiming to be "Christian."

Jesus has never lied:

"All who live by the sword will die by the sword."

Romans 13 does not make Jesus a liar, for all earthly kingdoms will fall.

"For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds."

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It does, as an alternate example. One cannot be such by aligning itself with the opposition.

Christ never intended His Church to wield the sword or have access to the sword of earthly kings. That's why we've wound up with wars between nations both claiming to be "Christian."

Jesus has never lied:

"All who live by the sword will die by the sword."

Romans 13 does not make Jesus a liar, for all earthly kingdoms will fall.

"For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds."

Do you mean Church in the sense of the Clergy or Church in the sense of everyone part of her? If the former I agree clergy shouldn't wield the sword or military force or at the very least there should be reservations about it. The Idea of the Knights of Malta defending that Island against the Ottomans isn't all that offensive to me.

If in the sense of the latter, everyone part of the Church lay and clerical, I must disagree. The laity are under no obligation to live as pacifists and indeed if you have been put into the position of power within a country or political order it is your duty to wield the sword. Even if that results in death or physical harm. A country cannot run otherwise and Paul was explicit on the point that God has arranged the civil authorities to wield the sword in the pursuit of justice. If Paul tolerated that of Pagans, why should we oppose Christians having that power?

 

[timothyu]

If Paul tolerated that of Pagans, why should we oppose Christians having that power?

Because Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world and neither should we be. Think of yourself as the Red Cross that served both sides.

 

[prodromos]

I recall Christ taking a whip to people in the temple courtyard.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Because Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world and neither should we be. Think of yourself as the Red Cross that served both sides.

Both sides huh. Tell me, during the Russian revolution, what side was worse. The Whites or the Reds?

 

[timothyu]

I recall Christ taking a whip to people in the temple courtyard.

Another reason why oil and water don't mix. The parasites of the secular world don't care who they feed off of. But Followers of Jesus do not play those games, or at least they shouldn't.

 

[timothyu]

Both sides huh. Tell me, during the Russian revolution, what side was worse. The Whites or the Reds?

Both. They followed the will of man.

 

[prodromos]

Another reason why oil and water don't mix. The parasites of the secular world don't care who they feed off of. But Followers of Jesus do not play those games, or at least they shouldn't.

Huh?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Both. They followed the will of man.

Tell me also, during the Reconquista. Would you have served the Muslims in their effort to dominate Iberia or the Christian Kingdoms?

 

[timothyu]

Would you have served the Muslims in their effort to dominate Iberia or the Christian Kingdoms?

Again.. same answer. People always assume we need to take sides. The only sides Jesus taught to choose were the world of man OR the Kingdom of God. The two are separate and have always been separate. We can't claim to follow the governance (Kingdom) of God if we follow the governance of man.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Again.. same answer. People always assume we need to take sides. The only sides Jesus taught to choose were the world of man OR the Kingdom of God. The two are separate and have always been separate.

Okay, another question. During the Shimabara Rebellion would you have supported the Shogun in his effort to completely repress Christianity in Japan?

 

[timothyu]

Okay, another question. During the Shimabara Rebellion would you have supported the Shogun in his effort to completely repress Christianity in Japan?

Man does what man does. If we fall victim to it, so be it. In the end it is us and not them who will survive.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Man does what man does. If we fall victim to it, so be it. In the end it is us and not them who will survive.

Didn't answer the question.

Let's ask another one. Paul, a Jewish Pharisee needs help finding followers of this man called Jesus. These Christians are dangerous and need to be executed. He knows you, Timothy, are a fair person and completely impartial. Will you help him find the Christians he is searching for?

 

[timothyu]

Will you help him find the Christians he is searching for?

Again.. why would I take sides in the affairs of man? Even if people are vain enough to say that is a religious matter, it is still seen through the will of man, not God. Most of religion (Christianity included) is of the world, not of the Kingdom, and most fail to teach the difference.