a lesson from church history

[daughterofGrace]

It is true that, when Constantine made Christianity the official religion, pagans joined the Christian ranks. Roger E. Olson in his The Story of Christian Theology puts it this way:

"Hordes of unconverted pagans flooded into Christian churches merely to gain status in the eyes of the imperial court and the bureaucracy under Constantine" (p. 139).

This meant that some Christians regarded the new imperial church as apostate.  Some took to the desert to live a life of "meditation and asceticism" to use the words of Justo Gonzalez in his History of Christianity (p. 124).   But others stayed to fight against anything brought into the church that didn't line up with the Bible. 

Gonzalez suggests that the biggest change that came in the wake of Constantine's declaration of Christianity as the official religion (apart from the end of persecution) was in the area of worship.  Whereas people had met primarily in houses, now churches were being built.  Incense, which was used as a sign of respect for the emperor, was now used in churches.  Those in positions of ministry had always worn everyday clothes, but now they started to wear more luxurious garments.  Services were now started with processionals.  Choirs were formed.  And, gradually, congregation members took less and less part in the services. 

Churches were often built at the site of a martyr's grave.  If a church was built where there was no grave, they would dig up a martyr and bring his or her bones to the church to reside there.  Eventually, some people saw miraculous powers in these bones and the introduction of relics began.  And the churches became larger and more ornate as time went on.

All of this came in the aftermath of Constantine declaring Christianity to be a state religion and these changes represented, in some respects, a copying of the way emperors did things in a grand style.

Perhaps the worst thing that came of it all was this:  People started to think that one only had to be a member of the church and follow its rules to be saved.  It's an erroneous belief that we can find down through the centuries in a variety of churches.  For example, 19th-century philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, attacked the Church of Denmark (Protestant) for just that reason, calling for a relationship with Jesus to be at the centre of the Christian life, not membership in a sterile institution that paid no attention to the Lord. 

Edited May 30, 2017 by daughterofGrace
correct typos

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

4 hours ago, daughterofGrace said:

It is true that, when Constantine made Christianity the official religion, pagans joined the Christian ranks. Roger E. Olson in his The Story of Christian Theology puts it this way:

"Hordes of unconverted pagans flooded into Christian churches merely to gain status in the eyes of the imperial court and the bureaucracy under Constantine" (p. 139).

This meant that some Christians regarded the new imperial church as apostate.  Some took to the desert to live a life of "meditation and asceticism" to use the words of Justo Gonzalez in his History of Christianity (p. 124).   But others stayed to fight against anything brought into the church that didn't line up with the Bible. 

Gonzalez suggests that the biggest change that came in the wake of Constantine's declaration of Christianity as the official religion (apart from the end of persecution) was in the area of worship.  Whereas people had met primarily in houses, now churches were being built.  Incense, which was used as a sign of respect for the emperor, was now used in churches.  Those in positions of ministry had always worn everyday clothes, but now they started to wear more luxurious garments.  Services were now started with processionals.  Choirs were formed.  And, gradually, congregation members took less and less part in the services. 

Churches were often built at the site of a martyr's grave.  If a church was built where there was no grave, they would dig up a martyr and bring his or her bones to the church to reside there.  Eventually, some people saw miraculous powers in these bones and the introduction of relics began.  And the churches became larger and more ornate as time went on.

All of this came in the aftermath of Constantine declaring Christianity to be a state religion and these changes represented, in some respects, a copying of the way emperors did things in a grand style.

Perhaps the worst thing that came of it all was this:  People started to think that one only had to be a member of the church and follow its rules to be saved.  It's an erroneous belief that we can find down through the centuries in a variety of churches.  For example, 19th-century philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, attacked the Church of Denmark (Protestant) for just that reason, calling for a relationship with Jesus to be at the centre of the Christian life, not membership in a sterile institution that paid no attention to the Lord. 

My case in point. 

[simplejeff]

5 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

So IF this is all true than how can the body of Christ fall into heresy for 1400 years. Leading 1400 years worth of Christian to hell. This doesn't sound like the gates of hell not prevailing and it doesn't sound like the Holy Spirit leading the Body of Christ. 

Very good observation. 

So while the body of Christ was in "hiding", (or in great minority i.e. "few on the narrow road to life") ,

  who was leading the visible worldly government church then ?

[Marilyn C]

7 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

Here's why I have a problem with Protestant theology. Jesus tells us the gates of hell will not prevail and he's sending the Holy Spirit to guide his Church. 

Before the reformation there is no Protestant theology being taught. 

Show me a Church in the 1400's teaching the sola's

Show me a Church in the 1000's teaching the sola's

show me a Church in the 600's teaching the sola's

show me. Church in the 100's teaching the sola's

So IF Protestant theology is correct that means for 1400 years, heresy took over Jesus's Church and lead 1400 years of Christians to hell. There are many here that claim any gospel other than the one preached by Protestants is a false gospel. Some here refuse to acknowledge Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as Christians. 

So IF this is all true than how can the body of Christ fall into heresy for 1400 years. Leading 1400 years worth of Christian to hell. This doesn't sound like the gates of hell not prevailing and it doesn't sound like the Holy Spirit leading the Body of Christ. 

Just my assessment. 

Hi Judas Machabeus,

Now those are fair questions, if it is just a Catholic or Protestant view. However I believe God`s word shows differently.

The Apostle Paul speaking to the believers, his disciples, at Ephesus -

`...I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.` (Acts 20: 27)

Then he warns them -

`For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, sparing not the flock. And also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.` (Acts 20: 29)

Now we know that the Apostle Paul was sent to the Gentiles while the 12 disciples spoke to the Jews. The 12 did not have the revelation of the Body of Christ and were only concerned in telling the people of Israel that Jesus was the Messiah.

Now as time went on the believers in the different house groups established by Paul had to contend with those who rose up and wanted to Lord it over them. Thus divisions came with those following the Lord and those following man. Over the centuries it continues to be the same, those who follow the Lord and those who follow man.

It was man who established many different organisations throughout history and to just say Catholic or Protestant is not a true picture of the Body of Christ or the systems of man. 

regards, Marilyn.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

6 hours ago, simplejeff said:

Very good observation. 

So while the body of Christ was in "hiding", (or in great minority i.e. "few on the narrow road to life") ,

  who was leading the visible worldly government church then ?

Here's my problem. There is no evidence of this Church in "hiding"

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

7 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

Now we know that the Apostle Paul was sent to the Gentiles while the 12 disciples spoke to the Jews. The 12 did not have the revelation of the Body of Christ and were only concerned in telling the people of Israel that Jesus was the Messiah.

You've mentioned this before, and its a foreign concept for me. Can you explain this to me?

1 How do you know the 12 had no knowledge of the body of Christ?

2 The 12 only ministered to the Jews.

7 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

Then he warns them -

`For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, sparing not the flock. And also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.` (Acts 20: 29)

I'm not disputing this, all of Paul's letter to the Churches are dealing with people within the Church going astray. I would argue that is why his letters were circulated to other Churches as a way to keep others from falling into the same errors. He also address this in Titus 1:5

Quote

Titus 1:5

This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I direct you,

Paul was already dealing with errors and took steps to correct them and to make sure they do not continue. This is evidence of the Holy Spirit guiding and protecting the Church. Protecting against the wolves and ensuring that they do not take over. Amend what was defective... correct the errors, appoint elders in every town as I direct you.... put those in charge that will be faithful to the truth.

Scripture warns about wolves but it never says the wolves will take over and the Church will become apostate, that is Mormon theology. They teach the Church became apostate and Joseph Smith through revelation from an angel revived the true church. Protestantism isn't much different in what they claim. They say that the Church became corrupt (apostate) and that the reformers rose up and revived the true Church.

That's simply not scriptural. For that to be true (that the Church became corrupted) than the gates of hell did prevail for 1400 years and the Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church. Amend what was defective.... fix what is broken. So Paul and the elders he had appoint in every town failed. The Holy Spirit failed. The Church became corrupted and taught a false gospel. Sorry but scripture does not support that, and if you (royal you and not Marilyn specifically) believe that the Church truly became corrupt than how can scripture tell us that the Holy Spirit guide us.

Jesus establishes a new Church (Matt 16:18), we see that this is a visible (Act 15:30, Eph 2:19-20) church with leadership (Titus 1:5, 1 Tim 3:1, Phil 1:1, Eph 4:11, Eph 2:19-20, and Acts 20:28). We are told that the Holy Spirit will be sent and guide His Church (John 14:16, 16:13). We are told this leadership will be passed on (Titus 1:5, 2 Tim 2:2, Acts 14:23).

So we see a visible Church being formed with leadership. And the argument is that this Church founded by Jesus, promised to be guided by the Holy Spirit and built up by the Apostles.... became corrupt and the body of Christ became a secrete underground invisible church. This simply does not line up with history or scripture. I'm sure most if not all will disagree with me. And I understand that, I do know where I am. But for me, I can't accept that. There is no evidence to support this.

Cheers

 

[daughterofGrace]

I have some further thoughts on Constantine and the effects of making Christianity the imperial religion.  Scholars debate whether Constantine really was a Christian or not.  He certainly didn't behave like one when he had members of his family executed.  I have read that he replaced Passover with Easter because he was anti-Jewish and that he promoted the incorporation of pagan practices in the Christian church to appease those subjects who weren't Christian.  My apologies to you, Judas Machabeus, because I can't remember where I read that.  I appreciate the fact that you want reliable sources.  I'm that way, too.  I like to assess sources because some aren't as reputable as others. 

So I went to a book entitled Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity by Mark Noll to see what I could find out from him about all of this.  He notes that, for the first three centuries, the church was a "pilgrim community".  He elaborates on this, saying that the church "was not at home anywhere in the world since the power of the state could be turned at any moment, propel them into exile, or disrupt the regular order of worship and Christian service."

When Constantine made Christianity the official religion, this changed.  The church now had stability and could spread far and wide promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ without fear of persecution.  That was one of the blessings that came with Constantine's declaration.

But there is always the bad with the good.  Noll purports that we had the beginning of the intermingling of state and church here because Constantine was so involved with the church and the result was that "the sphere of worldly concerns he stood for gradually assumed greater and greater importance in the church".  As that happened, the church strayed further and further away from its Biblical foundations.

But that has always been true of God's followers.  How many times did the Israelites stray from God in the Old Testament times?  Paul's letters to the early churches involved correction because they were going astray -- and this only a matter of decades after Christ's death and resurrection.  Straying seems to be part and parcel of the church in any era.  But the Lord always made sure there was a remnant, that is, a group of devoted followers who kept the faith so that it was never lost no matter what happened down through the centuries. 

This is why, as Judas Machabeus rightly pointed out, the Mormons are shoveling a boatload of hooey (my words, not his!) when they say the church was totally lost.  It never was.  God did indeed preserve it and he did it with men and women from a variety of backgrounds in a variety of situations in a variety of different places at a variety of different times.  And we should be grateful to all of them.

Edited May 31, 2017 by daughterofGrace
corrected typos as usual!

[Marilyn C]

10 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

 

Jesus establishes a new Church (Matt 16:18), we see that this is a visible (Act 15:30, Eph 2:19-20) church with leadership (Titus 1:5, 1 Tim 3:1, Phil 1:1, Eph 4:11, Eph 2:19-20, and Acts 20:28). We are told that the Holy Spirit will be sent and guide His Church (John 14:16, 16:13). We are told this leadership will be passed on (Titus 1:5, 2 Tim 2:2, Acts 14:23).

So we see a visible Church being formed with leadership. And the argument is that this Church founded by Jesus, promised to be guided by the Holy Spirit and built up by the Apostles.... became corrupt and the body of Christ became a secrete underground invisible church. This simply does not line up with history or scripture. I'm sure most if not all will disagree with me. And I understand that, I do know where I am. But for me, I can't accept that. There is no evidence to support this.

Cheers

 

Hi Judas,

Thank you for your polite reply. My first point regarding the 12 disciples would be a good thread for a  discussion, and I will be pleased to talk there, as we may get off on too many tangents here.

Now I am not saying that the Holy Spirit failed to guide the `called out ones,` the believers,  over the centuries. Believers from the early days of the Ekklesia, the Body of Christ, have been martyred for the truths God has said. And we are very blessed to be able to receive these truths today from God`s word available so freely in many parts of the world.

As to the Body of Christ having to be a visible man made organisation, I do not read that in God`s word. I do however see that the believers were highly esteemed by those around them, which means a visible demonstration of the life of Christ in a believer. 

`And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were in one accord in Solomon`s Porch. yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly. And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women,....`(Acts 5: 12 - 14)

It is in the everyday of life that people see how believers live a Christ life, and are thus drawn to inquire and be `added to the Lord.` but NOT to man`s organisation/s that lord it over the believers.

regards, Marilyn.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

23 hours ago, daughterofGrace said:

But the Lord always made sure there was a remnant, that is, a group of devoted followers who kept the faith so that it was never lost no matter what happened down through the centuries. 

Who are these people? Where are their writings? Why would the Holy Spirit allow His Church to fall into corruption? Scripture says the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into truth and does not say this applies to a group of devoted followers. Paul says to appoint elders and to fix what's defective. 

What Im hearing is the Holy Spirit abandoned the entire Church that was founded by Jesus and built up by the Apostlses. And kept the truth hidden except for a small group of devoted followers?

as for Constantine. He made Christianity a legal religion. He did not make it the state religion. Also this claim that he meddled with the Church to  appease the pagans again is unfounded. 

What did Constantine change to appease the pagans?

[daughterofGrace]

4 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

Who are these people? Where are their writings? Why would the Holy Spirit allow His Church to fall into corruption? Scripture says the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into truth and does not say this applies to a group of devoted followers. Paul says to appoint elders and to fix what's defective. 

What Im hearing is the Holy Spirit abandoned the entire Church that was founded by Jesus and built up by the Apostlses. And kept the truth hidden except for a small group of devoted followers?

as for Constantine. He made Christianity a legal religion. He did not make it the state religion. Also this claim that he meddled with the Church to  appease the pagans again is unfounded. 

What did Constantine change to appease the pagans?

Hi, JM!

This is what I wrote:

This is why, as Judas Machabeus rightly pointed out, the Mormons are shoveling a boatload of hooey (my words, not his!) when they say the church was totally lost.  It never was.  God did indeed preserve it and he did it with men and women from a variety of backgrounds in a variety of situations in a variety of different places at a variety of different times.  And we should be grateful to all of them.

I don't see how you thought I was saying that the Holy Spirit had abandoned the entire church when I actually said the exact opposite.  And I don't see how you thought I said the church fell into total corruption when, again, I said the opposite. 

There has never been a time in history when there were not internal problems in the church with people getting off-track.  Nor was there ever a time in history when the church was totally lost. 

You're putting words in my mouth, words I did not say.  My post is there for you to re-read in full so that you can see what I really did say.

The people who helped keep the faith in the church are many.  They include people like Athanasius, the Cappodician Fathers, and Tertullian who all played a part in fighting off attacks against the Trinity (although Tertullian himself did stray when he joined the Montanists late in life).  There is Theodore of Mopsuestia who faced off against those who were trying to interpret the Bible only as allegory with nothing literal in it.  There was Jerome who translated the Bible into Latin and was one of Christianity's earliest apologists.  And of course there's Augustine -- I surely don't have to tell you how he blessed the church.  And those are only a few.  There are many more, but I do not have time to list them all along with how they helped preserve the Gospel of Jesus Christ down through the centuries.

Here's the thing:  As a Protestant, my church history doesn't begin with Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.  It begins in the New Testament and my heritage includes all the same people that the RCC include in their church history.

I don't have time to go into great detail about Constantine right now.  However, I repeat -- he made Christianity the imperial religion.  That is a historical fact, one I learned in both my History of Theology course as well as my History of the Christian Church at Seminary.  The three sources I quoted are respected scholars and their texts are widely-used.  Noll was, at one point, the Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame.  I don't use bogus sources.  It is possible for me to misunderstand things, but I haven't misunderstood Constantine's action re: the Christian church. 

I am willing to engage you further in this discussion, but if you are going to misinterpret what I say and simply deny that what I have said isn't true without providing reliable sources for your own statements, then I don't see a lot of future in continuing.