Constantine didn't get saved until his deathbed.
Constantine was Baptised in the last period of his life, by Eusebius. Constantine had wanted to be baptised for some time, and was hoping that he might be baptised in the River Jordan, however he did not get to make the trip and the ill health precluded that altogether. There were at the time concerns about post baptismal sin, so many put it off as long as they could, and that may have been a factor in Constantine's delay in Baptism.
Who knows if it's even possible to get saved on your death bed without doing anything, according to ROMAN CATHOLICS?
I would have thought this was fairly evident and generally established Christian Theology. The Gospel account of the penitent thief on the cross should answer that for all of us. The truth is 'without doing anything' is indeed the issue, for be are saved
by grace through faith not of works. That you have found it strangely necessary to capitalise Roman Catholics is indicative of a partisanship that may not be helpful in this discussion. The term Roman Catholic as implied as to referring to a particular branch of Christianity does not make a lot of sense before 1054.
He sure loved Christianity. lol. I don't get Roman Catholicism.
In general it might be said that most Christians would have preferred Constantine to Diocletian or Licinius. Constantine did hold Christianity in high esteem, the lifelong faith of his mother, Helena. The new city , Nova Romanum that came to be called Constantinople was indeed dedicated to the Christian God, under the patronage of the Virgin Mother of God. I am not sure why we need to lol these things. I think most of us understood that you don't get Roman Catholicism, but thankyou for clarifying this point.
This idea that God did it and the Romans didn't manipulate things. It seems absurd to believe that it's the perfection of Jesus and the Apostles. That's why I don't like Eastern Orthodoxy also.. what is their proof? Apostolic succession? They can't even prove half of it with doctrine.
Constantine ordered and funded the production of 50 copies of the whole bible - in the days before printing and it is most likely that at least two of our most significant manuscripts for Biblical Research come from those copies. It is clear that Constantine saw a high value on the Scriptures. It is clear that both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church place a high value on scripture, and it forms part of the sloid basis of all their liturgy.
Sola Scriptura is the point of life. God may have lead Catholic councils to put the books together, but who cares? Martin Luther and the reformers managed to take the truth and dispel the garbage.
It is one thing to suggest that the purpose of humankind is to give glory to God, however to argue that Sola Scripture is the point of life is fanciful. God did lead lead the Councils and the Church to establish the Canon of Scripture, which you rightly describe as 'the books'. You ask, 'who cares?' Most Christians care, The Catholic Church cares, the Orthodox Church cares, the Anglican Church cares, the Lutheran Church cares. It seems hard to understand how you can say Sola Scripture and then ask Who Cares?. It appears to be a disjointed juxtaposition. I am not at all certain that Martin Luther would have described his contribution to the development of Christianity in the way that your do.
Thinking Apostolic Succession corrupted itself, then Eastern Christianity fixed it, proves Apostolic Succession to be a wish in the wind as far as continuing today.
I am not sure what your beef with Apostolic Succession is. I have never heard anyone suggest that it corrupted itself and Eastern Christianity fixed it. We stand in a tradition of faith that has history and continuity, and part of the expression of that unity in Christ is expressed in terms of Apostolic Succession. The ministry that Christ has handed to his Church is handed on from one generation to another. It is one faith, one body, and the idea of the historic episcopate is but one way of expressing it.
Look at what Luther rebelled against. Look what the Catholics of the time were saying. Sure, he didn't rebel against Eastern Orthodoxy, in a way.. so i'll continue to give them the opportunity to persuade me.
Luther rebelled (though I am not at all sure that was how Luther understood it) and the thesis nailed to the door of Wittenberg Cathedral give us good insight as to what Luther saw as key issues, together with his defence before the Diet of Worms. Central to this was the notion that Christian Life should be marked by repentance. To took issue with the idea of a treasury of merit, and the sale of indulgences which was being used as a method of fund raising for the new Basilica of St Peter in Rome.
Lutherans did have significant consultations with the Patriarch of Constantinople, however ultimately that came to nothing.
The Apostles set the foundation.. then what happened? I'm learning slowly. I'm just not grasping Constantine killing non-Christians forming "righteousness"... i know Protestants had a murderous history in some ways, but nothing you can't say "Sometimes people hold God accountable for man." God did some times destroy his creation, but justifiably. We are talking about the Pope, about all of it.. the righthand man to God. Eastern Orthodoxy is the reformation of Catholicism.. in a way.
Jesus is the cornerstone on which God has built the Church. Let me encourage you to keep learning, because sometimes there are distortions in many circles, let me encourage you to read widely, and to think critically, and don't forget to say your prayers.
(On a side note. Your post may have been easier to read if you employed the use of paragraphs.)
