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.
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.
Where were New Testament Churches found in the 4th Century?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Thinkingstuff, Jul 3, 2008.
Page 2 of 2
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
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. -
John of Japan:
John of Japan:
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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.
Page 2 of 2