Where were New Testament Churches found in the 4th Century?

[John of Japan]

John, I would tend to agree with Edmond concerning the Donatists, but I don't think he told the whole truth. The Donatists were to the Catholic Church what the Puritans were to the Church of England, or perhaps more correctly what fundamentalists are to the Baptist Church. Not many doctrinal differences but dedicated to higher standards. The Catholics were inclusive; the Donatists (who regarded themselves as the real Catholics) were exclusive.

You're essentially right here. There were few differences in fundamental doctrine between the Donatists and the Constantine-led Catholics. But I'm not sure that they considered themselves the "real Catholics." Constantine himself invented the term, and led the unification effort. While the Donatists went along at first and even asked for arbitration from Rome in one instance, after the arbitration went against them they decided that church and state should be separate--somewhat of a convenient change in doctrine to be sure, but certainly an anti-Catholic belief.

Donatists believed in the sacraments, except they did not believe in the forgiveness of sins committed after baptism. They believed in the Catholic priesthood. They venerated relics. Not much of a forerunner to the Baptist faith.

These statements are, to me, too dogmatic (seeing we have so little evidence from the Donatists themselves) and somewhat misleading, since Christianity in the 4th century was so much different than it is in the 21st century. For example, my reading says that it was dire sins, not just any sin after baptism, that they exercised church discipline towards. And even then it didn't appear to be that such sins could never be forgiven, just that they left it up to God, not the church.

They believed in the priesthood, yes. So do I believe in the priesthood of the believers. However, I think you'd be hard put to prove that the Donatist concept of the priesthood was the same as that of 21st century Catholicism.

Concerning venerating relics, again this is a supposition. A rich widow Donatist named Lucilla did so according to Schaff. Did anyone else? My reading doesn't say this was a Donatist doctrine.

All around, to me the far greater heresy was that of Constantine in uniting the churches and instituting control from the top. As a good Baptist (I hope! ) I stand strongly for the separation of church and state, and against the top-down control of denominationalism. As a missionary I've suffered much from a denominational-type field council of another fundamental Baptist board. Unity is right--but only if it is voluntary.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Actually, in spite of his Edict of Milan and his conquering in the name of Christ, according to Schaff Constantine did not completely turn to Christianity until his deathbed in 337. Then he was evidently baptized by an Arian. But he hardly could be said to prefer any theology.

All of my Schaff quotes are from History of the Christian Church, "Third Period: From Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great, AD 311 to 590." I can't give page numbers since mine is a digital copy.

Anyway, note what Schaff says: "At all events Christianity did not produce in Constantine a thorough moral transformation. He was concerned more to advance the outward social position of the Christian religion, than to further its inward mission. He was praised and censured in turn by the Christians and Pagans, the Orthodox and the Arians, as they successively experienced his favor or dislike."

So Constantine was interested in political unity for the sake of the Roman Empire, not doctrinal unity. He knew or cared little about doctrine.

Concerning Arius, "Arius was banished; but, three years afterward, Constantine, who regarded the whole question as one of slight importance, restored him to his church at Alexandria." (World's Great Events, by Esther Singleton, vol 2, p. 525.)


I read many years ago that after seeing his vision with the Latin phrase In Hoc Signum Vinces, "Conquor in this Sign," meaning the cross, Constantine made the armies of his conquered rivals Galerius, Maxentius and Licinius, to bow to Christ under threat of death. However, I can't find this in my histories, so I have to back off on it.

At any rate, his unification of the churches was a terrible blow to true NT Christianity. Forced unity is no unity at all. It invariably leads to apostasy. A modern parallel is in Japan during WW2. The Japanese government forced all churches into one denomination ruled by the government, and enforced it with the Kenpeitai secret police. Christian opponents of this were thrown in prison. (I know personally two children of pastors thrown in prison, one in Heaven now.) The churches were forced to have a picture of Emperor Hirohito (said to be deity) in the church, and bow to it (an act of worship) before each service--bowing to a false god before bowing to Christ.

0

We both agree that Constantine may have been a pagan though to be fair we don't know. He definately had an affinaty to Arius who believed in Jesus as a Demurge. Though he doesn't become baptised by a follower of Arius until his death bed. The thing is and my point is that though the emperor wanted christians to stop having dicensions between themselves, it was the Bishops that made the determination. Constantine did not force his beliefs onto their decision making process. They did that on their own by an overwhelming majority. Also another error that many fall under is that he forced christianity to be a state religion but read the edit of Milan. He guarantees chritian acceptance into the empire. He dosen't force everyone else to become christian though he favors them. He donated the lateran palace to the bishops (bribery? unsure). Provided places of prominace for certain clergy, surely. But he permitted the worship of other deities as well. He allowed the christians to be self determined which they were. Now keep this in mind if christian laity did not take political office Leo would never have been able to delay barbarian invasion. Interesting to think about.

 

[Zenas]

John of Japan:

You're essentially right here. There were few differences in fundamental doctrine between the Donatists and the Constantine-led Catholics. But I'm not sure that they considered themselves the "real Catholics." Constantine himself invented the term, and led the unification effort. While the Donatists went along at first and even asked for arbitration from Rome in one instance, after the arbitration went against them they decided that church and state should be separate--somewhat of a convenient change in doctrine to be sure, but certainly an anti-Catholic belief.

Actually the first person to use the term "Catholic Church" was Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrneans about 110 A.D.:

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

John of Japan:

These statements are, to me, too dogmatic (seeing we have so little evidence from the Donatists themselves) and somewhat misleading, since Christianity in the 4th century was so much different than it is in the 21st century. For example, my reading says that it was dire sins, not just any sin after baptism, that they exercised church discipline towards. And even then it didn't appear to be that such sins could never be forgiven, just that they left it up to God, not the church.

You may be right on this, although it was widely held in the early centuries of the church that once sins had been forgiven by baptism, there was no more forgiveness of sins available. On that point I recommend a volume by J. N. D. Kelly called Early Christian Doctrines.
John of Japan:

They believed in the priesthood, yes. So do I believe in the priesthood of the believers. However, I think you'd be hard put to prove that the Donatist concept of the priesthood was the same as that of 21st century Catholicism.

To the contrary, the Donatist concept of the priesthood was exactly like that of 21st Century Catholicism. They believed priests were necessary for administration of the sacraments, which were the sine qua non of salvation. They simply thought their own priests were imbued with the proper graces to administer the sacraments and that those priests of the "mainline" Catholic church had unclean hands and lacked grace.

Clergy who were not virtuous could not properly baptise babies, turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of Holy Communion, or ordain other clergy. Since everyone's salvation depended on receiving God's grace through baptism and Holy Communion, Donatists had to make very sure that each of their priests were in a state of grace themselves, and had been properly ordained by bishops who were also in a state of grace. Neither unworthy priests, nor priests whose ordination had failed because it had been performed by an unworthy bishop could give the people the sacraments on which their salvation depended. Source: http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/Africa...ADonatism.html

John of Japan:

Concerning venerating relics, again this is a supposition. A rich widow Donatist named Lucilla did so according to Schaff. Did anyone else? My reading doesn't say this was a Donatist doctrine.

Maybe I pulled the trigger too quickly on that, but I think it is strange that Lucilla was criticized by the "mainline" Catholics for her veneration of relics but was embraced by the Donatists. The logical conclusion would be that Donatists venerated relics. We know they held the Christian martyrs is very high esteem.

 

[John of Japan]

0

We both agree that Constantine may have been a pagan though to be fair we don't know. He definately had an affinaty to Arius who believed in Jesus as a Demurge. Though he doesn't become baptised by a follower of Arius until his death bed. The thing is and my point is that though the emperor wanted christians to stop having dicensions between themselves, it was the Bishops that made the determination. Constantine did not force his beliefs onto their decision making process. They did that on their own by an overwhelming majority. Also another error that many fall under is that he forced christianity to be a state religion but read the edit of Milan. He guarantees chritian acceptance into the empire. He dosen't force everyone else to become christian though he favors them. He donated the lateran palace to the bishops (bribery? unsure). Provided places of prominace for certain clergy, surely. But he permitted the worship of other deities as well. He allowed the christians to be self determined which they were. Now keep this in mind if christian laity did not take political office Leo would never have been able to delay barbarian invasion. Interesting to think about.

I know that he didn't force anything. I know that he is said to have declared freedom of religion. But he involved himself directly in the process at Nicea, presiding in his robes of state according to Vedder's Short History of the Baptists (p. 68). And he wasn't even baptized at that point!

My point is not that he made Christianity the state religion, because that is disputed. My point is that he laid the groundwork and started the process going. He set up the government of the Catholic Church which allowed it to oppress so many, starting late in that century and continuing to the present day. (As we write, Protestants are persecuted by the Catholics in some Latin American countries--maybe not by official edict, but they are persecuted.)

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan: Actually the first person to use the term "Catholic Church" was Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrneans about 110 A.D.:

Did Ignatius mean it the same way Constantine did? I hardly think so. To Ignatius it was just an adjective (some Protestant confessions use the adjective), not an organization.

You may be right on this, although it was widely held in the early centuries of the church that once sins had been forgiven by baptism, there was no more forgiveness of sins available. On that point I recommend a volume by J. N. D. Kelly called Early Christian Doctrines.

I love to read and love church history, and would enjoy this one. Right now, though, I'm researching other areas and don't have extra book money.

To the contrary, the Donatist concept of the priesthood was exactly like that of 21st Century Catholicism. They believed priests were necessary for administration of the sacraments, which were the sine qua non of salvation. They simply thought their own priests were imbued with the proper graces to administer the sacraments and that those priests of the "mainline" Catholic church had unclean hands and lacked grace.

And here you have found the Achilles heel of my argument--the soteriology of the Donatists. So on that I'm up a creek looking for a paddle. The Donatists certainly didn't hold the Reformed and Baptist distinctive of salvation through faith by grace alone.

But I have to ask, where is your original source on the priesthood of the Donatists? That is what I am laboring against here: the histories I have don't give original sources from the early church, they just make these bald statements. A resource book of 4th century documents would be nice.

I'm going to move on. I leave for evangelism shortly. But I'm going to put out Patrick of Ireland (389-461) as an evangelical of the era. Also, there was another group which claims it began in the 4th century, though outsiders disagree, but I don't have time to look it up.