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.
Both built upon the foundation of the institutions of man.But Constantine merely guaranteed freedom of religion giving finance for new churches. The real union of church and state came later in the fourth century.
While scripture sat comfortably safe behind the self serving institutions and doctrines of man.So not a mistake in terms of its fruit - canon, creeds and growth.
Where did God call the governance of the world backwards? Paul tells us that God instituted law and government for the benefit of even Christians. That they didn't bare the sword in vain and that they could righteously judge people for crimes. It has been part of the Christian tradition since the beginning to respect those in authority, to pay your taxes and do your duty, insofar as it didn't require one to forsake God.Th ideals of the Kingdom of God where God called the world of man and it's governance backwards. How do two opposing systems become one and maintain their opposing values? The Empire did not harlot itself to the Kingdom.
Constantine defeated the Latin side of the Empire, not enabled it or it's Latin church.I think many people are inclined to view Constantine as though that was the point at which modern Roman Catholicism was ratified officially.
You defined the result as successful.I'll admit I don't see things in such eschatological terms. Mainly because what you're suggesting didn't happen. In so far as the Church herself was corrupted by the State I simply don't see it, either theologically or morally. The inverse seems to have happened. If we can describe Rome as a beast then it's marriage with the Church changed it into a human being. Christianity was the official religion. Paganism was eventually outlawed and sacrifices to pagan Gods forbidden. Crucifixion ended and society drifted towards a more Christian direction. Why was this a bad thing?
As far as the Gospel being preached to the poor, it always has. But more importantly, if the Gospel limited itself to the poor alone and ignored those with power (or the rich) the Church wouldn't have been nearly as successful as it was historically. We would have had no educated members (who could afford a classical education then and be poor?) and with that the intellectual movement for Christianity within the Roman Empire wouldn't have even started off the ground. Books written by Christians, letter exchanges and the helping of other Churches. None of that would have happened had the Church been comprised of just the poor and the slaves. It seems more of a fetish to me, this adulation of the poor, rather than a serious consideration history.
Where did God call the governance of the world backwards?
You defined the result as successful.
What are God's criteria for being successful?
First and foremost in the Lord's Prayer where Jesus says, 'Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in Heaven'. Obviously mans self serving will and God's will are two opposing factors.
Oh but it did. 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.You assume that secular government can't align with God's purposes
Paganism would not have offered him the same benefits in winning the civil war, nor holding the two opposing parts of the Empire together afterwards. Christianity was a convenient tool of political advantage.I would ask. Was it wrong for Constantine to convert to Christianity? What should he have done? Favour paganism?
The context was a discussion of the State enforcing orthodox Christianity. States that prohibit or restrict Christianity aren’t really relevat to that discussion.The growth exhibited in the early centuries works well in a nation like Rome, where there were no policies aimed at a systemic reduction of Christian influence. Persecution on a serious level was sporadic rather than the norm and it was left to governors to decide what to do with Christians when they found them. It wasn't the policy of Rome to actively search out and destroy Christians. Only destroy them when found.
Oh but it did. 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.
Paganism would not have offered him the same benefits in winning the civil war, nor holding the two opposing parts of the Empire together afterwards. Christianity was a convenient tool of political advantage.
And Constantine was said not to have converted to Christianity, but knew a good thing when he saw it. The more likely scenario is Christianity became influenced by Constantine instead in order to please it's benefactor (being primarily gentile in thought pattern) and especially his mother, considering he already called himself three gods in one and the mother of this 'god' was worshipped and played a big part in formulating the secular side of the movement.
The context was a discussion of the State enforcing orthodox Christianity. States that prohibit or restrict Christianity aren’t really relevat to that discussion.
I think it was one of those things that was meant to be, possibly inevitable-which nonetheless resulted in a learning experience: that it's important that the church is disassociated from any direct involvement in the government. But...at the time it seemed as if heaven might actually be realized here on earth, a reasonable enough hope or expectation even if it seems naïve now. But Christianity had brought an extremely stabilizing force into a very chaotic and dark and warring society and world-and the Church was the one link that could and did bring feudal enemies, for example, together-on a moral basis. Also, the Edict of Milan which Constantine helped draft was for the purpose of legitimizing all religions and ending religious persecution, even as he favored Christianity itself. And his presence did not influence the Church's teachings as is evident by the fact that the Council of Nicaea, which he was instrumental in getting convened, ruled against his own pet belief in Arianism. And the teachings of the church in the west would continue to be conservative and orthodox if one seriously looks into the teachings, such as the councils following Nicaea, for example. And in any case the change allowed the faith to be spread on a much larger scale.This is a question for those who have a mostly negative view on the whole issue of Constantine the subsequent Constantinian shift within the Roman Empire towards Christianity. Many have a negative view about this history and I think it would be beneficial to ask two questions:
Why was it a mistake or mostly a mistake for the Church to associate with the Imperium?
Then the follow up would be:
What should the Church have done instead?
Both the secular and Christian concept were around in their differing formats for the same period of time. Homogenise the two and who knows who influenced who? One thing we know, no one including the church denied Constantine his ego boosting three gods in one identity he portrayed.Are you saying Constantine invented the doctrine of the Holy Trinity?
Who is justifying themselves and how? Again, everything you say is too vague to be taken seriously.Secular government of man using gods to justify themselves? No difference.
What are you talking about? Are you saying Constantine invented the Trinity? Be clear.Both the secular and Christian concept were around in their differing formats for the same period of time. Homogenise the two and who knows who influenced who? One thing we know, no one including the church denied Constantine his ego boosting three gods in one identity he portrayed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?