What should Constantine or the Church have done?

Ignatius the Kiwi · Feb 27, 2021

timothyu said:
The idea is to also do as He wills.

Well, yes. But what is against the will of God in someone like Constantine or Theodosius enacting a Christian political policy? You can point out their flaws and and the failures of Rome, but do those failures ruin the whole endeavour? In which case, was Israel a pointless endeavour because the Kingdom failed?

timothyu said:
Agreed, and the mainstream institution set them aside or made them saints to convince the masses they were better off sticking with and supporting the mainstream than enduring the hardships of living according to the Kingdom. It is not the masses that are at fault for denying the Kingdom. It is those who maintain their own institutions.

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

When Christianity became the mainstream viewpoint of the Empire it's difficult to then encourage people to adopt a harder life. Things became easier but the masses were in need of Christianity nonetheless. Yet I fail to see what the Church did during those early centuries as particularly bad. Did preachers stop preaching the Gospel? Do you have any examples?

Gregory Thompson · Feb 27, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Whose denying Hebrews 11 or the need for faith? What in particular in my post means conforming to the world? Are Christians to avoid doing anything similar to what non-Christians do? What specifically offends you about the Christianization of Rome and subsequent rulership of Christian monarchs?

Would you have preferred Rome remain Pagan?

When has there ever been a nation that has been born again? Individual people get born again. What is this Christianization you're talking about? Isn't that an social engineering format that features atheists reading bibles?

Christianity is an embassy to the nations for the kingdom of God, becoming the head of state and ruling over a nation basically is a conflict of interest.

This approach where we speak from a bullet proof booth brainwashing people, instead of the traditional approach is what lead to the present troubles.

However, we are only human - Judah and Israel went through the same thing.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Feb 27, 2021

Michael Collum said:
When has there ever been a nation that has been born again? Individual people get born again. What is this Christianization you're talking about? Isn't that an social engineering format that features atheists reading bibles?

Christianity is an embassy to the nations for the kingdom of God, becoming the head of state and ruling over a nation basically is a conflict of interest.

This approach where we speak from a bullet proof booth brainwashing people, instead of the traditional approach is what lead to the present troubles.

However, we are only human - Judah and Israel went through the same thing.

The traditional approach being what exactly? How would you prefer society be run? According to standards which are contra to the faith? Your criticism of Christianization has substance when it comes to persons as individuals but how do individuals even hear about the Gospel? They hear about it from people whom are organized to spread the message. You don't think Christianization of Rome had anything to do with why Europe became Christian? You don't think it was that organization which helped fortify Christianity and made it an attractive prospect for Kings of various nations to convert and bring their people with them to the faith?

If you're opposed to social engineering then you let your enemies have control of that domain, which is foolish. Why surrender your cultural capitol when you can contribute to it and let your influence be felt? The Early Church did this. They didn't oppose teaching the classics, they didn't oppose becoming learned in Rhetoric or any of the other disciplines for success and some of the greatest thinkers and contributors to the Church came from that stock. Augustine and the like. The early Church didn't spit in the face of rulers and tell them they were monsters, even if they were great sinners. Justin Martyr might have had a lot of criticism for the Emperor but he made his appeal in sincerity and respect.

What would you have preferred the Church to do? Not take part in education? Constantine give up his throne on his conversion? Christians just become utterly disconnected from society and give the Pagans even more reasons to hate them? The Church argue for respecting temples dedicated to false gods? You would only contribute to Christianity as a wider social phenomenon failing and being marginal and insignificant. Christianity would be a small sect with nothing to show for itself. Sort of like the Samaritans of today. Then the obvious question would be this, would either you or me be a Christian today, in such a world? Likely not, unless we were in that 000.0001 percent of the population born into a very minute community.

What exactly are you advocating that is better? That would be more effective in the spread of the Gospel? In actually reaching people? I only see cynical criticism from a place of privilege. A criticism that ignores what is owed to those who came before us and is woefully ignorant.

timothyu · Feb 27, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
But what is against the will of God in someone like Constantine or Theodosius enacting a Christian political policy? You can point out their flaws and and the failures of Rome, but do those failures ruin the whole endeavour?

Depends on whether they made God over in their own image., They certainly did not make themselves over in His. Post 45 still applies.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Did preachers stop preaching the Gospel? Do you have any examples?

Jesus' Gospel, or the gentiles' gospel?

timothyu · Feb 27, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
and made it an attractive prospect for Kings of various nations to convert and bring their people with them to the faith?

As a means of controlling the masses, yes. Their salvation was of no interest.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
What would you have preferred the Church to do?

What is the purpose of 'the time of the gentiles'?

hedrick · Feb 27, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
The Gospel as laid out in the Nicene Creed and confessed to by most we would generally term small o orthodox. I don't know what your gospel is since i can't see it anywhere in history, so how did the Church abandon it? By it's association with Rome? It was never an article of faith that one couldn't be part of Rome. Paul was a Roman citizen and made great use of that status. He didn't object to in principle even Governers or Kings coming to the faith.

So why do you?

As far as I can tell, Constantine didn't specifically want to enforce theological conformity. He wanted Christianity to unite the empire. If Christians had responded that differences of opinion weren't a problem for his purposes because they were united by Christ rather than by human philosophy, it would have done what he needed.

But of course by that time it wasn't true.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Feb 27, 2021

timothyu said:
Depends on whether they made God over in their own image., They certainly did not make themselves over in His. Post 45 still applies.

Well did Christians make God in their own image? You tell me. I don't believe so.

timothyu said:
Jesus' Gospel, or the gentiles' gospel?

How does this answer my question about whether preachers stopped preaching the Gospel? Do you have any examples from any of the thousand or so extant sermons we have left to us of preachers doing this en masse?

timothyu said:
As a means of controlling the masses, yes. Their salvation was of no interest.

I doubt it it was of no interest. But it wasn't their primary interest nor the task of the state authorities in general. If you're too concerned about the salvation of an opposing army and their forces, how could you bring yourself to fight them in defense of your own people? Such a person would have been regarded as having failed his commission to defend the territory given him.

So this isn't really a problem.

timothyu said:
What is the purpose of 'the time of the gentiles'?

What would you have preferred the Church to do? Answering me with another question is not an answer.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Feb 27, 2021

hedrick said:
As far as I can tell, Constantine didn't specifically want to enforce theological conformity. He wanted Christianity to unite the empire. If Christians had responded that differences of opinion weren't a problem for his purposes because they were united by Christ rather than by human philosophy, it would have done what he needed.

But of course by that time it wasn't true.

Constantine's priorities seem pragmatic as they were often mistaken. Constantine did care enough about theology to exile Arius but softened towards the heretic at the end when he allowed him to return from exile.

But I don't condemn Constantine for not being theologically pure. What I consider important his taking the first steps in Christianization. Favouring the Church and laying a foundation on which later Christian Emperors would build on in transforming the Empire from a Pagan entity to a Christian one.

timothyu · Feb 27, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Well did Christians make God in their own image? You tell me. I don't believe so.

With the rejection of the Gospel of the Kingdom, both church and nation were making God fit into their human institutions built upon self.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
How does this answer my question about whether preachers stopped preaching the Gospel?

And I'm asking you .. which gospel... Jesus' Gospel, or the gentiles' gospel?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
If you're too concerned about the salvation of an opposing army and their forces, how could you bring yourself to fight them in defense of your own people?

Constantine used this very strategy when his cross emblazoned army gave enemy Christians pause in whether they should fight brethren or defect. A military move, not a Christian one.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
What would you have preferred the Church to do? Answering me with another question is not an answer.

What is the purpose of 'the time of the gentiles'? That is why the church did what it did, most likely unknowingly, having their self serving ways used against them for God's will.

timothyu · Feb 27, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
But I don't condemn Constantine for not being theologically pure. What I consider important his taking the first steps in Christianization.

Is he to be praised ... or God for executing a plan that would lead to His Kingdom, not an institutional kingdom in earth? Christianity is the carrier of the Gospel of the Kingdom message. Christianity in itself is not the message.

hedrick · Feb 27, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Constantine's priorities seem pragmatic as they were often mistaken. Constantine did care enough about theology to exile Arius but softened towards the heretic at the end when he allowed him to return from exile.

But I don't condemn Constantine for not being theologically pure. What I consider important his taking the first steps in Christianization. Favouring the Church and laying a foundation on which later Christian Emperors would build on in transforming the Empire from a Pagan entity to a Christian one.

I don't blame Constantine. I blame the Christian (?) leadership.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Feb 27, 2021

hedrick said:
I don't blame Constantine. I blame the Christian (?) leadership.

For what? Not tolerating Arians? Why should the Church have done so? Given outcome I would say they were wise to object to integrating Arianism into Christianity.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Feb 27, 2021

timothyu said:
With the rejection of the Gospel of the Kingdom, both church and nation were making God fit into their human institutions built upon self.

You keep saying that the Church rejected the Kingdom of God. I keep pointing out this isn't in evidence. When you then point to a bad action or apparent self-interest it's one sided and devoid of any historical context. I would recommend you stop repeating yourself. On the one hand you condemn the Church for taking part in this world, yet I presume you don't object to many practices done by Christians that is taking part in this world. Many Christians buy houses, have families, get jobs and pay taxes. Are you against these worldly actions as well?

timothyu said:
And I'm asking you .. which gospel... Jesus' Gospel, or the gentiles' gospel?

I have no idea what those terms mean. Your Gospel is unknown to me. It's unique to you and you alone so I have no grasp on what it's contents are. When compared to the Gospel which Jesus preached and the Church which received that Gospel, it pales in significance doesn't it? Who for instance was preaching the Gospel you apparently believe in, in the fourth century? Was there anyone? Or are you alone the only one to have received the true Gospel of Jesus Christ in over 2000 years that you apparently want to call that 2000 year old history one in which a 'gentile' gospel was prominent?

Are you Messianic? Gnostic? Don't say "I believe in the Gospel only,' because it tells me next to nothing about what that phrase actually means.

timothyu said:
Constantine used this very strategy when his cross emblazoned army gave enemy Christians pause in whether they should fight brethren or defect. A military move, not a Christian one.

I addressed this already and you had no response. Stop repeating the same points.

Produce evidence that Christians actually participated in the army to be that big of a concern for Constantine. So far as I am aware Christians were not part of the legions.

timothyu said:
What is the purpose of 'the time of the gentiles'? That is why the church did what it did, most likely unknowingly, having their self serving ways used against them for God's will.

Self-serving ways as opposed to what? Is it self-serving to favour the Church over the Imperial cult? The devotion to the gods? Does it matter in that case the motive of the action is not pure, so long as Christ was glorified? What would you have wanted the Church to do? This is the one point you keep avoiding, probably because you have no actual recommendation that's of merit. You condemn the Church for associating with the worldly powers and then offer nothing in return.

Yours is an ideology of destruction and relentless criticism of all that exists rather than anything beneficial.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Feb 27, 2021

timothyu said:
Is he to be praised ... or God for executing a plan that would lead to His Kingdom, not an institutional kingdom in earth? Christianity is the carrier of the Gospel of the Kingdom message. Christianity in itself is not the message.

Is English a second language to you?

Gregory Thompson · Feb 27, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
The traditional approach being what exactly? How would you prefer society be run? According to standards which are contra to the faith? Your criticism of Christianization has substance when it comes to persons as individuals but how do individuals even hear about the Gospel? They hear about it from people whom are organized to spread the message. You don't think Christianization of Rome had anything to do with why Europe became Christian? You don't think it was that organization which helped fortify Christianity and made it an attractive prospect for Kings of various nations to convert and bring their people with them to the faith?

If you're opposed to social engineering then you let your enemies have control of that domain, which is foolish. Why surrender your cultural capitol when you can contribute to it and let your influence be felt? The Early Church did this. They didn't oppose teaching the classics, they didn't oppose becoming learned in Rhetoric or any of the other disciplines for success and some of the greatest thinkers and contributors to the Church came from that stock. Augustine and the like. The early Church didn't spit in the face of rulers and tell them they were monsters, even if they were great sinners. Justin Martyr might have had a lot of criticism for the Emperor but he made his appeal in sincerity and respect.

What would you have preferred the Church to do? Not take part in education? Constantine give up his throne on his conversion? Christians just become utterly disconnected from society and give the Pagans even more reasons to hate them? The Church argue for respecting temples dedicated to false gods? You would only contribute to Christianity as a wider social phenomenon failing and being marginal and insignificant. Christianity would be a small sect with nothing to show for itself. Sort of like the Samaritans of today. Then the obvious question would be this, would either you or me be a Christian today, in such a world? Likely not, unless we were in that 000.0001 percent of the population born into a very minute community.

What exactly are you advocating that is better? That would be more effective in the spread of the Gospel? In actually reaching people? I only see cynical criticism from a place of privilege. A criticism that ignores what is owed to those who came before us and is woefully ignorant.

I think the route where the church didn't follow the same story route as the nation of Israel would have at least been entertaining. I mean, they were not born again, and we were - so you'd expect more, isn't that reasonable?

Everything's kind of locked in if you choose to participate, and nothing good is waiting down this story line, it's already in the bible.

timothyu · Feb 27, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Given outcome I would say they were wise to object to integrating Arianism into Christianity.

Too bad they missed the Kingdom into the world of man.

timothyu · Feb 27, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
On the one hand you condemn the Church for taking part in this world, yet I presume you don't object to many practices done by Christians that is taking part in this world.

Depends on whether in doing so they follow the two commandments of Jesus or prefer to follow the self serving traditions of man.

timothyu · Feb 27, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Your Gospel is unknown to me.

Yet is was the only one Jesus taught and is mentioned in about 70 verses and in reference to Paul three times , the Gospel of the Kingdom.

timothyu · Feb 27, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Produce evidence that Christians actually participated in the army to be that big of a concern for Constantine. So far as I am aware Christians were not part of the legions.

Then why paint crosses on the shields?

timothyu · Feb 27, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
You condemn the Church for associating with the worldly powers and then offer nothing in return.

You skip over the fact they were two opposing systems and kingdoms. Jesus had to tell Pilate His Kingdom was not of this world. The threat was in the future and not imminent. Yet you fail to see the separation.

What should Constantine or the Church have done?

Dissident

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Dissident

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Dissident

Dissident

Dissident

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency