In Reference To CyBs Statement of Faith - Christian Forum

[StanJ]

Aw shucks.....for goodness sake let's call it a wrap and stop trying to be the 'victor'.

Don't forget that you do have the option of the ignore feature on this forum.

 

[OzSpen]

My faith is based on what God implants into the "fleshy tablets of my heart", and the media which he uses is not limited to the 'bible'.
Hymns, for example are often used by God accordingly.
Mine is a Spirit led 'Faith'.....yours is a Text Book led 'Religion'.
As Paul said of the Galatians "who has bewitched you?"

Oneoff,

You wouldn't have a clue about my kind of 'Religion'. What you have stated here about my faith is false. Would you please quit being so opinionated about something about which you have no knowledge - where my faith receives its impetus.

'Fleshy tables of the heart' is as subjective as any individual experiences. How do I objectively know that your Religion is true?

Oz

 

[StanJ]

It seems YOU are saying that Constantine was trying to minimize Arianism....unless I am not reading your statement correctly?
Constantine actually supported Arianism (Arius). The Council of Nicaea condemned or rejected Arius's doctrine (Arianism) which in effect they rejected Constantine. He wasn't trying to minimize the Arians, he was trying to uphold or support the belief.

Not exactly accurate as the following article will reveal.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-85/how-arianism-almost-won.html

 

[OzSpen]

What I struggle to tolerate is the view that "everyone who believes differently is wrong".
For my part I'm even prepared to accept that you might (very heavy emphasis) be right.

I can accept your significant scepticism about my beliefs.

However, to this point we have not discussed the pros and cons of the standards we use to determine if our teachings are correct or wrong. I do not accept subjectivism, whether that be allegedly Spirit-inspired or not, as the means for determining right or wrong Christian teaching. Why? It is no more substantive than the next one who comes along and maintains the same subjective standard but reaches different theological conclusions.

Oz

 

[BjornFree]

Don't forget that you do have the option of the ignore feature on this forum.

I've got one of those options built into my personal software and I guess the time has come to bring it into effect.
I'm now wearied of those who will say one thing in order to 'win' a discussion at a particular point, then say something contrary at a later date in order to 'win' differently as the discussion develops.
Knowing from past experience that they will never leave a discussion without having a 'last word' attempt at 'victory' does place a time-limit on the 'fun' that I enjoy at their expense.
But I'll hang around and respond to others.

 

[BjornFree]

Not exactly accurate as the following article will reveal.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-85/how-arianism-almost-won.html

The article seems to substantiate my own thoughts on the origin and purpose of Constantine re the Council of Nicaea.
But then my thoughts were gleaned many years ago and 'Christianity Today' could well have been the source that triggered those thoughts.
Is the article a true description or just one of many conflicting opinions?
It is so difficult (nay 'impossible') to know for certain in respect of things that occurred so long ago.
I'm always chastened by the fact that the most controversial history is almost entirely written by the dominant victors and endorsed by those whose prejudices are upheld by the opinion.
It's all part of my soft-pedal approach to creeds, theological dogma, statements of faith, etc.

 

[BjornFree]

Here is an extract from another opinion which is more likely to have been read and to have shaped my thoughts many years ago:

“Despite his supervisory role in the Council of Nicaea and his self-appointed role as bishop, Constantine postponed his baptism until 337, when he was on his deathbed.
Baptized or not, he played a major role in shaping traditional Christianity.
While Eusebius looked approvingly on Constantine’s actions as a demonstration of true Christianity, more reflection on his part might have produced a different perspective.
Re-evaluating both Christian and pagan sources of that time, we might rather conclude that Constantine used Christianity to serve his own purpose of unifying and controlling his empire.
The early New Testament church in apostolic times existed apart from the empire until Constantine made his Roman Christian church hostage to the state, so that now it would serve the needs of emperor and empire.
By the end of the fourth century, that church was modelled on the political structures of the Roman Empire it served.”
[SIZE=11pt](Extracted from http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/biography-constantine/165.aspx)[/SIZE]

 

[tom55]

"Well said" meaning he agrees with you.
My word you are sooooo 'closed-shop' to all but your own belief.
Surely this is a forum that offers just a little bit of credibility to the vast range of theological conviction that pertains to Christianity.
If not I'm 'off'.

My own belief?

Of course he (OzSpen) agrees with me. So do all legitimate historians because what I wrote is a fact.

No one, including this forum, can lend credibility to a flat out changing of history and the historical record. What you have said has nothing to do with theological convictions.

You do know that we still have documents from that time and of that event? It is not a matter of my own belief. It is a matter of historical record. What I have written is historical fact. What you have written is what you think to be fact which in turn makes it a fantasy.

 

[tom55]

Not exactly accurate as the following article will reveal.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-85/how-arianism-almost-won.html

I don't read articles written by people with an agenda. I read history. You should try it.

 

[StanJ]

The article seems to substantiate my own thoughts on the origin and purpose of Constantine re the Council of Nicaea.
But then my thoughts were gleaned many years ago and 'Christianity Today' could well have been the source that triggered those thoughts.
Is the article a true description or just one of many conflicting opinions?
It is so difficult (nay 'impossible') to know for certain in respect of things that occurred so long ago.
I'm always chastened by the fact that the most controversial history is almost entirely written by the dominant victors and endorsed by those whose prejudices are upheld by the opinion.
It's all part of my soft-pedal approach to creeds, theological dogma, statements of faith, etc.

From what I have read in many articles, this is the prevailing historical account.

 

[StanJ]

I don't read articles written by people with an agenda. I read history. You should try it.

Everybody has an agenda, including yourself. The following is a historical account but you can accept it or reject it I really don't care. http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsreligion/p/aa082499.htm

 

[BjornFree]

From what I have read in many articles, this is the prevailing historical account.

I'm grateful to you for the pointer....It certainly seem to have gained prominence without me having 'cottoned on'.

 

[StanJ]

I'm grateful to you for the pointer....It certainly seem to have gained prominence without me having 'cottoned on'.

It is consistent with the character of Constantine that he vacillated. He may have been an emperor but he was also a man and therefore susceptible to changing his mind. Maybe not as much as women, do but men are not immune to that either. :)

 

[tom55]

Everybody has an agenda, including yourself. The following is a historical account but you can accept it or reject it I really don't care. http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsreligion/p/aa082499.htm

The article you provided was not a bad article. I, tom55, would rather read/believe history books that have been vetted by a majority of scholars than on a article on a biased website written by an unknown person. (which is what you provided and what you accept as fact). But since you have an agenda you found an article/website that fit that agenda to TRY and prove your point.

By briefly reading it I don't see much I would argue with except one OBVIOUS fact that is not historically accurate:

It said that Constantine "had recently made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire." If you, StanJ, were to do your own research and read The Edict of Milan you would see that it gave Christianity legal status which made it legal to practice Christianity AND it ordered that the Christians’ confiscated property be returned to them but it DID NOT make Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire.

"we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity of any religion." Edict of Milan

But why take the time to read it and know the facts.....You have www.ancienthistory.about.com to fit YOUR agenda.

Respectfully...Tom

 

[OzSpen]

My own belief?

Of course he (OzSpen) agrees with me. So do all legitimate historians because what I wrote is a fact.

No one, including this forum, can lend credibility to a flat out changing of history and the historical record. What you have said has nothing to do with theological convictions.

You do know that we still have documents from that time and of that event? It is not a matter of my own belief. It is a matter of historical record. What I have written is historical fact. What you have written is what you think to be fact which in turn makes it a fantasy.

Tom,

Thank you for your encouragement.

Today I've been reading Harvard church historian, the late Kenneth Scott Latourette, and his details on Arius, Athanasius, Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicea. He made these historical points:

• The controversy at Nicea was a Council called by Constantine and about 300 bishops;
• It was dealing with Sabellianism (anti-Trinitarianism where God was regarded as operating in 3 different modes - Father, Son & Holy Spirit), and
• Arius, supported by Eusebius of Nicomedia (not to be confused with church historian Eusebius of Caesarea), taught that the Son had a beginning but God was without beginning and the Son is not a part of God.
• By contrast, for Athanasius the issue related to the salvation of people which can be accomplished only if the true God is united with the true man: 'He [Christ] was made man that he might be made God'.
• Constantine was no philosopher or expert theologian and he regarded the dispute as 'of a truly insignificant character and quite unworthy of such fierce contention' and it was 'intended merely as an intellectual exercise'.
• On his dying bed Constantine was baptised by Eusebius of Nicomedia who was now back from exile. Was he still an Arian and was Constantine baptised into an Arian faith? Latourette doesn't seem to answer that question. (Latourette, A History of Christianity, vol 1, 1975:150-158).

Oz

 

[StanJ]

It said that Constantine "had recently made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire." If you, StanJ, were to do your own research and read The Edict of Milan you would see that it gave Christianity legal status which made it legal to practice Christianity AND it ordered that the Christians’ confiscated property be returned to them but it DID NOT make Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire.

What the article actually said, was;
Emperor Constantine may have been a Christian at the time (although this is a matter of dispute: Constantine was baptized shortly before he died). Despite this, (it can be argued that*) he had recently made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire. This made heresy akin to revolt, so Constantine exiled the excommunicated Arius to Illyria (modern Albania).

If you're going to quote something it's best that you quoted in context and not out of context. You also know if you take a look at it carefully that they cited several Publications to support their conclusion.

 

[OzSpen]

What the article actually said, was;
Emperor Constantine may have been a Christian at the time (although this is a matter of dispute: Constantine was baptized shortly before he died). Despite this, (it can be argued that*) he had recently made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire. This made heresy akin to revolt, so Constantine exiled the excommunicated Arius to Illyria (modern Albania).

If you're going to quote something it's best that you quoted in context and not out of context. You also know if you take a look at it carefully that they cited several Publications to support their conclusion.

Stan,

That wasn't Tom's point. He emphasised the content re Constantine that he found to be incorrect.

However, he also stressed the importance of using historical material that has been vetted by other scholars. This is called peer-reviewed scholarship and is a safe-guard against personal bias that can creed into one's writing.

Oz

 

[brakelite]

The article you provided was not a bad article. I, tom55, would rather read/believe history books that have been vetted by a majority of scholars than on a article on a biased website written by an unknown person. (which is what you provided and what you accept as fact). But since you have an agenda you found an article/website that fit that agenda to TRY and prove your point.

By briefly reading it I don't see much I would argue with except one OBVIOUS fact that is not historically accurate:

It said that Constantine "had recently made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire." If you, StanJ, were to do your own research and read The Edict of Milan you would see that it gave Christianity legal status which made it legal to practice Christianity AND it ordered that the Christians’ confiscated property be returned to them but it DID NOT make Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire.

"we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity of any religion." Edict of Milan

But why take the time to read it and know the facts.....You have www.ancienthistory.about.com to fit YOUR agenda.

Respectfully...Tom

True...Christianity never became the religion of the empire. However, Catholicism did, through the edict of Vespasian, declaring the bishop of Rome the officially recognized head of all churches. Of course the vast majority of Christendom rejected this idea, which resulted in persecution by the papacy through the sword of what then was Constantinople, or the eastern arm of the Roman empire. The Heruli, Vandals, and Goths, Christian tribes purported to be Arian, were wiped out because of their refusal to bow to papal "authority". Add to that the Albigenses, the Waldenses, the Lombards, the Celtic church of early Britain founded by such as Columbanus, Dinooth, Aiden, Patrick....all this a long time before the reformation, which adds to the list the Hussites, the Heugenot..which simply continued the persecutions....I do hope you are getting the picture.

 

[OzSpen]

True...Christianity never became the religion of the empire. However, Catholicism did, through the edict of Vespasian, declaring the bishop of Rome the officially recognized head of all churches. Of course the vast majority of Christendom rejected this idea, which resulted in persecution by the papacy through the sword of what then was Constantinople, or the eastern arm of the Roman empire. The Heruli, Vandals, and Goths, Christian tribes purported to be Arian, were wiped out because of their refusal to bow to papal "authority". Add to that the Albigenses, the Waldenses, the Lombards, the Celtic church of early Britain founded by such as Columbanus, Dinooth, Aiden, Patrick....all this a long time before the reformation, which adds to the list the Hussites, the Heugenot..which simply continued the persecutions....I do hope you are getting the picture.

Brakelite,

I do wish you would document your sources.This is what happens when you gather your information from 'somewhere' and don't provide the bibliographic details.

When I checked with Encyclopaedia Britannica, I got a rather different picture to the one you attempted to draw:

• 
  The Heruli, 3rd century, Scandinavia and Germanic (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  Vandals, 5th-6th Germanic people (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  Goths, 2nd century Germanic (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  The Albigenses were from 12th-13th century in southern France (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  The Waldenses were early 12th century in France (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  
• 
  The Lollards originated in the late 14th century England, followers of John Wycliffe (Encyclopaedia Britannica);
  

You state: <<Christianity never became the religion of the empire. However, Catholicism did, through the edict of Vespasian, declaring the bishop of Rome the officially recognized head of all churches.>> Would you please provide substantive, historical documentation for such a statement?

I am aware of the "Edict of Vespasian on physicians' and teachers' privileges" in AD 74 (see Allan Johnson et al, Ancient Roman Statutes (2003).

In what sense are you using Catholicism? Roman Catholicism?

Oz

 

[brakelite]

I will elucidate on the various groups I mentioned later, in the meantime....

THE CODE OF OUR LORD
THE MOST SACRED EMPEROR JUSTINIAN.
SECOND EDITION.

BOOK 1.

TITLE 1.
CONCERNING THE MOST EXALTED TRINITY AND THE
CATHOLIC FAITH AND PROVIDING THAT NO ONE
SHALL DARE TO PUBLICLY OPPOSE THEM.
1. The Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to the people of the City of Constantinople.
We desire that all peoples subject to Our benign Empire shall live under the same religion that the Divine Peter, the Apostle, gave to the Romans, and which the said religion declares was introduced by himself, and which it is well known that the Pontiff Damascus, and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, embraced; that is to say, in accordance with the rules of apostolic discipline and the evangelical doctrine, we should believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Deity, endowed with equal majesty, and united in the Holy Trinity.
(1) We order all those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic Christians, and considering others as demented and insane, We order that they shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the Divine vengeance which they merit has been appeased, they shall afterwards be punished in accordance with Our resentment, which we have acquired from the judgment of Heaven.
Dated at Thessalonica, on the third of the Kalends of March, during the Consulate of Gratian, Consul for the fifth time, and Theodosius.
2. The Same Emperors to Eutropius, Praetorian Prefect.
Let no place be afforded to heretics for the conduct of their ceremonies, and let no occasion be offered for them to display the insanity of their obstinate minds. Let all persons know that if any privilege has been fraudulently obtained by means of any rescript whatsoever, by persons of this kind, it will not be valid. Let all bodies of heretics be prevented from holding unlawful assemblies, and let the name of the only and the greatest God be celebrated everywhere, and let the observance of the Nicene Creed, recently transmitted to Our ancestors, and firmly established by the testimony and practice of Divine Religion, always remain secure.
(1) Moreover, he who is an adherent of the Nicene Faith, and a true believer in the Catholic religion, should be understood to be one [pg. 10] who believes that Almighty God and Christ, the son of God, are one person, God of God, Light of Light; and let no one, by rejection, dishonor the Holy Spirit, whom we expect, and have received from the Supreme Parent of all things, in whom the sentiment of a pure and undefiled faith flourishes, as well as the belief in the undivided substance of a Holy Trinity, which true believers indicate by the Greek word These things, indeed do not require further proof, and should be respected.
(2) Let those who do not accept those doctrines cease to apply the name of true religion to their fraudulent belief; and let them be branded with their open crimes, and, having been removed from the threshhold of all churches, be utterly excluded from them, as We forbid all heretics to hold unlawful assemblies within cities. If, however, any seditious outbreak should be attempted, We order them to be driven outside the the walls of the City, with relentless violence, and We direct that all Catholic Churches, throughout the entire world, shall be placed under the control of the orthodox bishops who have embraced the Nicene Creed.
Given at Constantinople, on the fourth of the ides of January, under the Consulate of Flavius Eucharius and Flavius Syagrius.
3. The Emperor Martian to Palladius, Praetorian Prefect.
No one, whether he belongs to the clergy, the army, or to any other condition of men, shall, with a view to causing a tumult and giving occasion to treachery, attempt to discuss the Christian religion publicly in the presence of an assembled and listening crowd; for he commits an injury against the most reverend Synod who publicly contradicts what has once been decided and properly established; as those matters relative to the Christian faith have been settled by the priests who met at Chalcedony by Our order, and are known to be in conformity with the apostolic explanations and conclusions of the three hundred and eight Holy Fathers assembled in Nicea, and the hundred and fifty who met in this Imperial City; for the violators of this law shall not go unpunished, because they not only oppose the true faith, but they also profane its venerated mysteries by engaging in contests of this kind with Jews and Pagans. Therefore, if any person who has ventured to publicly discuss religious matters is a member of the clergy, he shall be removed from his order; if he is a member of the army, he shall be degraded; and any others who are guilty of this offence, who are freemen, shall be banished from this most Sacred City, and shall be subjected to the punishment prescribed by law according to the power of the court; and if they are slaves, they shall undergo severest penalty.
Given at Constantinople, on the eighth of the Ides of February, under the consulship of Patricius.
4. John, Bishop of the City of Rome, to his most Illustrious and Merciful Son Justinian.
Among the conspicuous reasons for praising your wisdom and gentleness, Most Christian of Emperors, and one which radiates light [pg. 11]as a star, is the fact that through love of the Faith, and actuated by zeal for charity, you, learned in ecclesiastical discipline, have preserved reverence for the See of Rome, and have subjected all things to its authority, and have given it unity. The following precept was communicated to its founder, that is to say, the first of the Apostles, by the mouth of the Lord, namely: "Feed my lambs."
This See is indeed the head of all churches, as the rules of the Fathers and the decrees of the Emperors assert, and the words of your most reverend piety testify. It is therefore claimed that what the Scriptures state, namely, "By Me Kings reign, and the Powers dispense justice;" will be accomplished in you. For there is nothing which shines with a more brilliant lustre than genuine faith when displayed by a prince, since there is nothing which prevents destruction as true religion does, for as both of them have reference to the Author of Life and Light, they disperse darkness and prevent apostasy. Wherefore, Most Glorious of Princes, the Divine Power is implored by the prayers of all to preserve your piety in this ardor for the Faith, in this devotion of your mind, and in this zeal for true religion, without failure, during your entire existence. For we believe that this is for the benefit of the Holy Churches, as it was written, "The king rules with his lips," and again, "The heart of the King is in the hand of God, and it will incline to whatever side God wishes"; that is to say, that He may confirm your empire, and maintain your kingdoms for the peace of the Church and the unity of religion; guard their authority, and preserve him in that sublime tranquillity which is so grateful to him; and no small change is granted by the Divine Power through whose agency a divided church is not afflicted by any griefs or subject to any reproaches. For it is written, "A just king, who is upon his throne, has no reason to apprehend any misfortune."
We have received with all due respect the evidences of your serenity, through Hypatius and Demetrius, most holy men, my brothers and fellow-bishops, from whose statements we have learned that you have promulgated an Edict addressed to your faithful people, and dictated by your love of the Faith, for the purpose of overthrowing the designs of heretics, which is in accordance with the evangelical tenets, and which we have confirmed by our authority with the consent of our brethren and fellow bishops, for the reason that it is in conformity with the apostolic doctrine.
The following is the text of the letter of the Emperor Justinian, Victorious, Pious, Happy, Renowned, Triumphant, always Augustus, to John, Patriarch, and most Holy Archbishop of the fair City of Rome:
With honor to the Apostolic See, and to your Holiness, which is, and always has been remembered in Our prayers, both now and formerly, and honoring your happiness, as is proper in the case of one who is considered as a father, We hasten to bring to the knowledge of Your Holiness everything relating to the condition of the Church, as We have always had the greatest desire to preserve the unity of your Apostolic See, and the condition of the Holy Churches of God, as they [pg. 12] exist at the present time, that they may remain without disturbance or opposition. Therefore, We have exerted Ourselves to unite all the priests of the East and subject them to the See of Your Holiness, and hence the questions which have at present arisen, although they are manifest and free from doubt, and according to the doctrines of your Apostolic See, are constantly firmly observed and preached by all priests, We have still considered it necessary that they should be brought to the attention of Your Holiness. For we do not suffer anything which has reference to the state of the Church, even though what causes difficulty may be clear and free from doubt, to be discussed without being brought to the notice of Your Holiness, because you are the head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert Ourselves in every way (as has already been stated), to increase the honor and authority of your See.
[pg. 125]

One Hundred and Thirty-First New Constitution.
[Novella 131 was issued in 545 A.D.]
The Emperor Justinian to Peter, Most Glorious Imperial Praetorian Prefect.
PREFACE.
We enact the present law with reference to ecclesiastical rules and privileges and other subjects in which holy churches and religious establishments are intrusted.

Chapter I.
Concerning Four Holy Councils.
Therefore We order that the sacred, ecclesiastical rules which were adopted and confirmed by the four Holy Councils, that is to say, that of the three hundred and eighteen bishops held at Nicea, that of the one hundred and fifty bishops held at Constantinople, the first one of Ephesus, where Nestorius was condemned, and the one assembled at Chalcedon, where Eutyches and Nestorius were anathematized, shall be considered as laws. We accept the dogmas of these four Councils as sacred writings, and observe their rules as legally effective.

Chapter II.
Concerning The Precedence of Partriarchs.
Hence, in accordance with the provisions of these Councils, We order that the Most Holy Pope of ancient Rome shall hold the first rank of all the Pontiffs, but the Most Blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, or New Rome, shall occupy the second place after the Holy Apostolic See of ancient Rome, which shall take precedence over all other sees.
Source: Corpus Juris Civilis (The Civil Law, the Code of Justinian), by S.P. Scott, A.M., published by the Central Trust Company, Cincinnati, copyright 1932, Volume 12 [of 17], pages 9-12, 125.