The Great Protestant Fallacy

To compare Constantine to the Apostle Paul is a real stretch of the imagination. Connie was a tyrrant throughout his life. He withheld being baptized until his death, thinking, perhaps, that somehow his iniquities would be washed away. There is no real evidence that he ever followed the Lord Jesus Christ in anything. Surely he changed the state religion for a time when he married the legalistic State of Rome to the pagan philosophy of Aristotle.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

It wasn't.

Hardly. The bishops who met for Nicaea I were the same individuals who had been persecuted under Constantine's predecessor, Diocletian. They were also the same people who were willing to risk martyrdom at the hands of Constantine's Arian sons. To describe Christians who were willing to thus shed their blood for the faith as 'pagans' in the grossest form of insult.

I assume you mean Nicaea I? That Council met in 325. Do try to get your facts right and then the rest of us might take your points a bit more seriously.

But, do go on:

Ah, now we're getting to the nub of things: the Radical Reformation rejects the Constantinian Settlement and some parts of that Reformation tradition consequently reject the Ecumenical Councils which followed as being likewise 'suspect' (or 'bogus'). This rejection has often led to a deformed Christology or Trinitarianism, whether it be the sub-orthodox Christology of the likes of Melchior Hoffman in the 16th century or the more recent Adoptionism espoused by some groups in the Exclusive Brethren in the last 100 years or so. Here we see the true fruits of sola Scriptura divorced from all reference to the Ecumenical Councils.

(Incidentally, David, that answers your point too - the Hoffmanites and the Brethren use the same Scriptures as you and, relying on these alone, have come up with a radically different - and heretical - Christology to yours and mine.)

 

Errata

Greetings, Matthew. Our paths cross at Mars Hill again. Welcome to the abyss of conjecture and supposition.

You may be correct about the chronology of some of the exploits of Constantine, the Great One. There is a lot of conjecture as to when some of these historic milestones occurred. Maybe 319 was when he got his "in hoc signo vinces" apparition. The main point: a vast majority of present day Christendom follows a religious system started by a Roman Emperor. Corollary: Constantine was a pagan before Nicea, during Nicea and after Nicea, albeit a "reformed" pagan. That which came from the unholy marriage of church and state in the fourth century is still pagan. How does one reform paganism ? No es possible.
Nihil ex nihil fit.

Are you guys on Greenwich Time?:BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Thanks for clarifying the Baptist-Anglican thing.

Back to ecumenical councils: Are you really saying that if "Trent" had included "Easterners", its decisions would be binding on all Christians? That raises a problem, for it was not just "Easterners" (I'm assuming you refer to those commonly called "Eastern Orthodox") who were not present. No non-Roman Catholics were there.

You see, having clarified that you are now an Anglican, not a Baptist, it seems that you believe as Eastern Orthodoxy seems to, that:

.... the voice of God can be heard in the seven ecumenical councils no less than in Scripture. The following councils “possess, along with the Bible, an abiding and irrevocable authority." (Quoted from "The Orthodox Church" by Timothy Ware)​

 

Which guys? If you mean Matt in Hampshire and me in Devon, both in England, the answer is "not for a few weeks." At the moment, we are still in British Summer Time, which is one hour ahead of Greenwich Mean Time. We revert to GMT for the winter on 28th October.

 

313 - just before the battle of the Milvian Bridge.

Please show how, by reference to the Church before Constantine and after, in terms of doctrine and organisation.

I'm not sure that that's quite correct. Constantine certainly converted to Christianity before his death and I'm not sure he really understood it prior to that (his main motive for convening Nicaea I was to preserve the unity of his empire; he didn't understand the niceties of the doctrinal controversies still less believe one or the other), but he was certainly favourable to Christianity which went a little bit beyond mere toleration which was his starting point in 313 with the Edict of Milan.

 

That's one of the big 'what ifs' of church history. With respect, it's kind of approaching the question from the wrong end: I would prefer to surmise that, had there been no schism in 1054 and East and West continued to meet, when necessary, for additional Ecumenical Councils, then the Reformation would not have been necessary and hence Trent would never have happened in the first place.

Yes, I do believe that, with perhaps the exception of the "no less than Scripture" of +Kallistos Ware. I don't see that as raising any 'cognitive dissonance' with my being Anglican; after all, the Book of Common Prayer has the Creed thrashed out at Nicaea I and Constantinople I in plain as day. [ETA, from Pedants' Corner - * Not quite correct: there were Lutheran observers present at the first session of Trent, much as there were non-Catholic observers at Vatican II. But I agree that in both cases neither had any say in the proceedings or the decisions reached]

 

hmm pagans in the church?

The church using rites derived from paganism?

Question: When arguing the Anglican view of history - are Catholics also "supposed" to know history or just Anglicans?

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic book "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century

"the clergy at first were not sharply differentiated from the laity..the clergy married, raised families, and earned their livelihood at some trade or profession. But as the practice grew of paying them..they withdrew more and more from secular pursuits, until by the fourth century such withdrawal was deemed obligatory"

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder (as they were really known) avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and, in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest[/b]. He (the real Christian leader) saw his primary function as the ministry of the word. ..but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character."

"[b]the more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantinian era, with its features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister[/b] as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule rather than the exception, for infants could not be preached to. "

"before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred (priesthood of all) as opposed to the profane world. After Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between the church and the world, the polarity between the sacred and profane was transformed into one between the sacred clergy and the profane laity"

"legislation to this effect was first passed at the local synod of Elvira, Spain and taken up by the popes beginning with Siricius (d. 399), who enforced clerical celebacy (which was adopted mainly on the grounds that sex was incompatible with the sacred character of the clergy)"
[/quote]
So there we have it on two short pages (49-50) of that telling work done by a Catholic historian - revealing the ongoing evolutionary process in the church that brings us to where we are today.

 

As always, contemporary primary source documents are welcome; attempts by later historians to stamp their own particular spin on things are not

 

specific details are given by bokenkotter - can you SHOW that these evolved into the church PRIOR to Constantine OR that they were not used in paganism BEFORE Constantine?

In other words - do you have any actual facts to back up your accusations against Bokenkotter? Or is your complaint that he is making inconvenient observations?

When asking for a 4th century source from Bokenkotter are you insisting that a 4th century source state "we got these ideas from pagans" before you will allow yourself to see what they did?

Conversly do you have a 4th century source saying "These new rites came from divine revelation not Paganism - pagans are not doing these things"


in Christ,

Bob

 

Eusebius would be a good starting point - he at least is contemporary.

 

I agree, Eusebius' Church History is well worth the read!:thumbs:

 

Books 8 to 10 are particularly illuminating of the period under discussion

 

I 'third' the recommendation of Eusebius' Church History :thumbs:

 

Upon suggestion to use church councils before 1054:

I do not agree with Arius, but that is irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

There is no evidence of "Apostolic Succession" in Scripture or evidence in Scripture for any intention for such. From what I see, if you believe in "Apostolic Succession," you should not be Anglican; Catholicism broke from Orthodoxy when the metropolitan bishop of Rome `excommunicated' the parts of the church that disagreed with him. Anglicanism is a breakaway from Roman Catholicism.

Basically, this has come down to `I follow my group and denominations I find acceptable because we all agree enough' and `I find my group reliable enough.'

If we are going to have a group tell us what to believe, there is no objective standard for which group to go with. My original fourth point stands. Individuals do need to make their own efforts to take care to Scripture.

 

Au contraire since Arius demonstrates the weakness of sola Scriptura

Firstly, you argue purely from a position of sola Scriptura, which, as I have already said elsewhere, I do not accept, for the ample reasons I have given. Secondly, even from an SS perspective, there is evidence in Scripture to support AS - eg: Paul's injunctions to Timothy and the Thessalonians to hold fast to what was handed down to them and preserve the deposit of the faith "through the laying on of hands".

Not quite. Anglicanism has preserved the AS and continuity with the Early Church. Here's something I posted earlier which touches and concerns that issue:-

Although Catholics do not consider Anglicans to have maintained AS, Anglicanism says otherwise

 

Was the Anglican Church birthed by Henry VIII after being refused a divorce from the Pope? Where did Henry get his authority to start a new church? Did not the Pope excommunicate Henry? How does the monarch of England fit into this story? Whence cometh his/her authority to head a church?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I know that we are on "shaky ground" with what-if situations, but my personal opinion is that the Reformation would still have been needed whether or not the schism of 1054 had occurred. I readily admit to being no expert on Eastern Orthodoxy, but from what I have read, it is very similar to Roman Catholicism, and greatly different to the churches of the Reformation. For example:

Both believe in prayers to and for the dead.

Both have the bible plus tradition as their authority.

Both have seven "sacraments", including confession to a human "priest".

Both have a human priesthood, distinct from the priesthood of all believers.

Both believe that baptism is necessary to salvation.

Both practise the veneration of statues and icons.

Both see value in monasticism.

Both believe in transubstantiation.​

Regarding "the Creed thrashed out at Nicaea I and Constantinople", yes, it is in the Book of Common Prayer, and in my opinion it is perfectly acceptable to evangelical Christians today. But of course, it makes no mention of the sort of things I listed above (bible plus tradition, seven sacraments, confession to a human priest, etc.) Here it is as in the 1662 BCP (Matt probably knows this, but to avoid confusion, "very" means "true", and "Catholick" there means "universal", not Roman Catholic"):

I BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten son of God, Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made: Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man, And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord and giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets. And I believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the life of the world to come. Amen.​

If that was all Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy believed, then perhaps there might have been no need for the Reformation.

 

You have to look more at the reforms of Henry's children Edward and Elizabeth for the 'birth of Anglicanism' ; Henry did not have the intention to found any '-ism' and his interaction with church affairs has more to do with ecclesiology and power than theology - he regarded himself as a staunch Catholic until the day he died but wanted to be in charge of the Catholic Church in England. That's very different from starting a new church and is more analogous with the Rome-Avignon split in 1378-1417 than with the actions of Luther and Calvin.