question about Constantine

Associated Nutters

Associated nutter--an interesting idiom. Please define it for us dumb colonists across the pond.

You may have the last retort, Matthew.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Associated Nutters

Associated nutter--an interesting idiom. Please define it for us dumb colonists across the pond.

You may have the last retort, Matthew.

I may be looking at a new handle: Associate Nutter.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I agree with every word above in so far as what the broadest definition of "the church" would be. Only I would suggest that it's not true that she is not listed in the Yellow Pages. Attend any one of those churches listed in the Yellow Pages and chances are there will be at least one or two true Christians in the congregation, and if it's a church where the Gospel is preached and the Spirit moves then there may be more than a few. And that is true not only throughout this country, but in every nation of the world . . . ergo . . . the term "universal" church, that great congregation from every nation and every tongue who are knit and held together not by denomination nor yet even by doctrine but by this one thing . . . the indwelling presence of the Spirit of God in Christ.

Which brings me back to the subject at hand . . .

Bottom line . . . recognizing that "ye shall know them by their fruits" . . . the fruit of the Council of Nicea was the Nicene Creed . . . what say you? Do you agree with the Nicene Creed or not?

In Christ,
Deborah

 

Choice: not

The creeds of men and women are subject to serious error, mostly because of our depraved natures. The Nicene Creed of 325 has serious problems regarding baptism and universal church. Some of the idiom is ambiguous at best. The revised version of 381 was changed--enough to cause a split of east/west, so they say. NT churches were not involved in this--they do not need councils and creeds.

I have another basic problem with Nicea-325. It was convened at the direction of a pagan emperor who claims he found Jesus and now the empire would be Christian. What happened was a state supported religion which was basically a reformed paganism with a pseudo Christian facade was married to the state. It probably stimulated the icon business for sure. The Vatican still survives--she got the gold and the icons, plus the bones of dead men/women. Was the Virgin Mary translated?

No creeds please. The Bible is all sufficient without creeds and traditions of men and women(Eddy, White, etal).

I do not need a creed to tell me that God is triune. It is a plain teaching in scripture. That is what insensed the Jews when they asked Jesus who he was: He said: I AM that I AM. The High Priest said, "He makes himself to be God". Jesus is either God in the Flesh or He is the greatest of imposters.

I gotta believe there were many who did not sign up for this creed. There may be fewer today. We still be here.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Shalom,

Bro. James

 

Hello Bro. James,

>I do not need a creed to tell me that God is triune.

The purpose of the Nicene Creed is not to tell Christians that God is triune, we already know that. The Nicene Creed is a declaration of what Christendom believes about the nature of Christ. No one is compelled to accept it, but it’s noteworthy in my opinion that Christians have no difficulty in agreeing to it while pseudo-Christian organizations invariably stumble over the issue it represents . . . the divine nature of Christ. There are many ways of expressing belief in the triune nature of God, but none that I have ever read that surpasses the Nicene Creed in beauty of prose and clarity of meaning. And I disagree with you about any ambiguity. The words were weighed and chosen very carefully with special attention given to the terms "consubstantial" as well as the phrase "begotten, not made." In both cases the terms were accepted because they do express exactly the meaning that Christ is of the same substance as God but is not "part of" God, and also that Christ was begotten, not "made" in the sense of having been created.
There is nothing in the Nicene Creed that addresses baptism, so I'm puzzled about your meaning there.
And the use of the term "catholic and apostolic church of God" is common language in referring to the world-wide body of Christ, precisely as you defined in your own words. And it truly was a world-wide assemblage of men of God that attended that council. The pastors of three churches founded by the Apostles were present: Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, Eustanthius, of Antioch, and Alexander, of Alexandria. But here is the list given by Eusebius:

“The most distinguished ministers of God met together from every part of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The sacred edifice, as if enlarged by the pleasure of God, inclosed at the same time within its walls, both Syrians and Cilicians, Phenicians, Arabians, and inhabitants of Palestine; Egyptians, Thebeans, and Lybians, with others arriving from Mesopotamia. A bishop from Persia also was present. Nor was the Scythian absent from this assembly. Pontus, also, and Galatia (to whom Paul addressed one of his letters), Pamphilia and Cappadocia, Asia and Phrygia furnished representatives from their most able divines. Thracians too, Macedonians, Achaians and Epirotes, and those who resided at a vast distance beyond them, were convened. That illustrious Spaniard, who is so highly spoken of, took his seat with the others.” (Eusebius)

Allow me to limit my comments to just one of the churches whose bishop attended the Council of Nicea. The Coptic Church of Egypt, which can never be confused with the Roman Catholic Church, sent Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, to Nicea. But even more, Athanasius was the head of the Nicene Council and he took the leading role in the formulation of the creed, according to the Coptic Church’s own history, of which fact the Copts are very proud and the Coptic Church adheres to the Nicene Creed to this day.

But even more interesting, it was at Alexandria that the whole Arian heresy first began. Alexander, Pope of the Coptic Church, finally excommunicated Arius over the issue but the controversy didn’t die down. There is a letter extant written by Alexander and published to all the churches in which he describes the apostasy of Arius and lays out how the whole controversy came up and defends the Trinitarian view of Scripture. By that time, Eusebius of Nicodemia was actively promoting the Arian view and Alexander’s letter was an attempt to warn the churches of the heresy and whence it came. All these things preceded the convening of the council to settle the dispute.

This is the historical record of the Coptic Church itself, which is not and never has been under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, the Copts have been almost militant in maintaining their independence tracing their history back to their founding in 43 A.D. by the Evangelist Mark and claiming apostolic authority equal to that of the Vatican. So here we have a 1964 year old church which was present and active in the 4th century and participated in the Nicene Council and could easily “set the record straight” if history had played out the way you believe it to have, and yet the opposite is the case.

>I gotta believe there were many who did not sign up for this creed . . .

Only if you can believe that God left Himself without a witness to the truth. For all man's apelike shaking of his fist in the face of God, it is God after all who writes history.

In Christ,
Deborah

 

There is a reference to baptism: "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins"; credo-baptists such as Baptists and Anabaptists would I imagine have a problem with that since they don't believe that baptism actually 'does' anything.

 

Baptizo: to dip, plunge or immerse

Thank you Matthew. These "divines"(pseudo, sacrosanct--state supported apostates), were probably still immersing too--trying to wash away something which had already been done once for all by the shed blood of the Lord Jesus. He said,"It is finished".

Apparently the Arians were not the only heretics attending this "holy" conclave in 325. "Let God be found true and every man a liar". That is scripture. The creeds of men are extraneous and riddled with error--regardless of ex officio, ex cathedra, or whatever man-made delusion we may attach.

Millions of true Christians have been burned, hanged,drowned and sawn assunder, refusing to baptize their infants and never bowing to the Holy See. God still has kept a remnant. They have not been forgotten.

Sola Scriptura,

Selah,

Bro. James

 

The Church has always baptised for the remission of sins, including infants; the Early Christians knew no other practice. You might want to check this thread out on the subject.

 

Only the blood of Jesus saves--

You are helping my point, Matthew. The Church to which you refer probably has practiced infant baptism since their man-made inception. The Church to which I refer, The New Testament Church, started by Jesus, has never practiced such--in fact, many of the saints have been put to death, with their infants, rather than baptize them. Some one is confused.

Now what?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Baptism in and of its self does nothing to remit sin(s). It is the physical portrayal of the believers faith in the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
The believer confesses their belief in Jesus after the motivation of the Holy Spirit, goes down to the water, folds their hands upon the chest as in death, is buried by immersion, and is assisted up from the water just as God rose Christ from the tomb.

 

I would say since its inception by Jesus Christ. When you say 'man-made', which 'man' do you mean?

Incorrect

Not me!

According to Scripture and the ECFs, it does.

 

After reading all of the post and researching the histories of Constantine, I would like to point out that Constantine, as the Roman Emperor understood the need for controlling people. His beloved Rome was in civil war and was for generations. There was no peaceful transition of power and when he gained power he sought to stabilize his realm.
First of all he needed to resolve Pagan and Christian conflicts. Pagans already had influence and Christians were disenfranchised. Now he knew the only solution to control would be to get both sides to merge/join.
The Pagan (who worshiped many gods) could be named "Christian" by pseudo-baptism, a sprinkling. After all how can a few drops for water harm a person that believes in anything?
The Christian would be able to worship in peace. The Communion would be given and they could sing to their Savior. Afterwards, and I am not sure when, the Papal hierarchy was established and soon the laity was under priestly control. Nicolaitians anyone? Then came beatification and very soon iconism took on the similitude of idolatry. The Communion became an object of worship and Mary became more than admired but prayed to as if she were at the right hand of Christ.
Did Constantine organize Catholicism as it is today?
IMHO likely not. IMO it is likely the influence of both Christian and Pagan cultures living, worshiping and warring among each other for generations only to be brought together by compromise and mutual peace made by a unifying Emperor.
Eventually even a society such as Pagan Rome would become weary of war.

 

Thanks for replying Matt Black. Please do not quote me out of context. Baptism must be associated with repentance or you will not have conversion. Infant baptism does not convert the child. The child must confess/repent to effect baptism.

Mark 16:15&16
15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Now the child has no cognitive ability to believe or not to believe. As soon as the child can make this choice of their own conscience they must repent and be baptized.

 

um, the church began at Pentecost.

 

It's a two-fold requirement isn't it: JOhn 3:5 says we are born again by water and the Spirit. Baptism is necessary for the former, faith is necessary for the ongoing presence of the latter.

 

Clue:

Who was it preaching, teaching, baptizing and having communion before Pentecost? Who was commissioned--before Jesus ascended--before Pentecost?

Many were added that day--to what? You got a lot of Church-like things done in Acts Ch. 1 and early Ch. 2.

Pentecost was the day The Spirit The Holy came to indwell the first Church. Jesus kept His promise to send another Comforter--for power and leadership, in Jesus's absence. Jesus was the power and leadership in the Church before Pentecost.

"We do err, not knowing the scripture and the power of God."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Hello Palatka51,

>After reading all of the post and researching the histories of Constantine, I would like to point out that Constantine, as the Roman Emperor understood the need for controlling people.

Are you suggesting that Constantine lied about being a Christian in order to control people? That is a very harsh judgment of the man, and one I cannot agree with. I have found nothing in his letters and decrees or the writings of his contemporaries to suggest that his faith was anything less than genuine. His father was a Christian and, it appears, his mother Helena was born and raised in the Christian faith, and she exerted a lot of influence over her son. And Constantine's own words are those of a very powerful man who humbly acknowledged the providence of God as the source of his success in the empire.

>First of all he needed to resolve Pagan and Christian conflicts.

Exactly what "Pagan and Christian conflicts" are you referring to? In all his letters and decrees the only "conflicts" Constantine ever addressed were conflicts within the church, and then only those that rose to the level of "creating schisms and controversy among Christians and disrupted the peace and unity of the Christian Church" (in the vernacular of Constantine himself).

>Pagans already had influence and Christians were disenfranchised.

I will agree to an extent, but the means which Constantine used to "enfranchise" Christians was to end Christian persecution as a state policy, revoke the laws which had previously made Christianity illegal, and to order that the property of Christians which had been confiscated be returned.

>Now he knew the only solution to control would be to get both sides to merge/join

I disagree. First because I do not accept that a merger between Christianity and paganaism was the "only solution" to stablizing the Empire, and secondly because that was certainly not the solution Constantine applied based on his own decrees and letters as well as those of his contemporaries. The "only solution" to stablizing the empire that Constantine actually attempted was to promote the Christian faith by building and supporting churches everywhere and acting as an intermediary between disputing factions within the church. His letter to Arius and Pope Alexander in which he pleads with them to set aside their dispute and embrace one another in brotherly love that the Christian faith might not be put to ridicule by breaking the bonds of Christian fellowship is a perfect example of what "role" Constantine played in Christian affairs, and in my opinion he offered wise counsel indeed, even for us today.

>The Pagan (who worshiped many gods) could be named "Christian" by pseudo-baptism, a sprinkling

Are you suggesting that everyone who was baptized by "sprinkling" were therefore not genuine converts? Or are you suggesting that those who were baptized by the church at Rome were not genuine converts? Or was it just everyone that was baptized during this period of time?

>IMO it is likely the influence of both Christian and Pagan cultures living, worshiping and warring among each other for generations only to be brought together by compromise and mutual peace made by a unifying Emperor.

Again, I cannot agree with you conclusion. There is no actual historical evidence that Constantine ever attempted to unify Christianity and paganism. Indeed, the actual evidence says quite the opposite, that Constantine's goal was to stablize the Roman Empire by promoting Christianity over paganism, not compromising Christianity with paganism. It appears that view is based on a presupposition that the Roman Catholic Church is a paganized form of Christianity, again, a judgment with which I do not concur. And mind you, I am Baptist and do not agree with many of the doctrines of my Catholic brethren, but the charge that their doctrines and practices are adaptations of paganism are, in my opinion, without merit.

In Christ,
Deborah

 

Matthew, you are putting words in our mouths again.

Baptism is a beautiful picture to all those present of death, burial and resurrection--what Jesus did. We do it to show we are believers yea followers of The Lord. What this has to do with washing away sin, I have not a clue. Only blood washes sin.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Hello Bro. James,

>Baptism is a beautiful picture to all those present of death, burial and resurrection . . .

I agree. But is that all that it is? A beautiful picture? Isn't it possible that it can be more? For me, being baptized was a "public confession" of my acceptance of the Christian faith, made publically before the eyes of the whole world and recorded in my church's registry for posterity, which affirms that "I am a Christian," I have of my own free will joined myself forever with Jesus Christ in his death, burial and resurrection. My water baptism was more for me than just a symbolic picture, beautiful as it is in that respect, but it was also the first "step" (and glory! what a step that was!) in my "acknowledging Jesus Christ before men," and as such, it is even more beautiful, don't you think?

>Only blood washes sin.

Amen and Amen!

"What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
Oh, precious is the flow,
That makes me white as snow,
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus."

". . . without shedding of blood there is no remission." Hebrews 9:22

In Christ,
Deborah

 

Say what? "Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." Acts 22:16. For the life of me, I don't know why Baptists have such a hard time with this concept. Jesus understood it; Paul understood it; Ananias understood it; Peter understood it; even Constantine understood it. But Baptists just don't seem to get it.