Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: JAKraig
The problem is that it was an unbeliever, certainly an unbaptized person who made most of the decisions. This Emperor made decisions which made sense to him and it strengthened “the church” substantially.

The Emperor convened the Council, but did not take part in its deliberations or cast any vote. He did banish the Arians at its conclusion, though. What sources say otherwise?

16 posted on 05/08/2017 10:55:20 AM PDT by LimitedPowers (Citizenship is not a Hate Crime!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: LimitedPowers

The Emperor convened the Council, but did not take part in its deliberations or cast any vote. He did banish the Arians at its conclusion, though. What sources say otherwise?

________________________________________________________

Constantine did convene the council but also ran it. He was the head of the council. It was him that banished those who couldn’t accept the definition of the Trinity as proposed by the Greeks but he was not secure in that doctrine and only banished the unbelievers because of the Bishop of Alexandria, his good friend begged him to. In the end shortly after the council Constantine relented and let the banished bishops back and gave them their positions back. It was not until the next council in 385 that they were banished for good and threatened with death.

While I am someone who believes that if you want to know the doctrines of a church you must ask the church. If you want to know the history of a church, it can be found outside the church. Churches have a disposition to see their history through rose colored glasses. Secular history can be biased in the opposite direction, that is why it is good to read many sources to get an answer.

I am old and have studied this for a lifetime. I will not recite my sources, suffice it to say they are very many.

While Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, Constantine was the savior of the church. The Christian church was called catholic before Constantine but it was a hodgepodge of many beliefs depending on the local bishop. It isn’t important to believe that Constantine was right but he was certainly successful in turning a bunch of ragtag bishops into an organization that had power, great power for over a thousand years.

There are many many books on the council of Nicea and many differing opinions of who did what but there is general agreement and written documentation that the council was convened by Constantine and that he guided the discussions. Many say he had no input into matters of doctrine except to settle arguments. This is what happened to the doctrine of the Trinity we have today. The Greek churches supported the Trinity as we now have it but the western and middle eastern churches did not. Constantine as Emperor was the head of other religions in the Empire and a plurality of gods suited him, I believe that when presented with the Greek version of the Trinity it made sense to him and therefore it was codified. It very nearly created a schism even before the new “Catholic” church got off the ground.

Constantine was good for the church but not every emperor after him supported the church. It took several decades before the church was really secure.


18 posted on 05/08/2017 1:39:12 PM PDT by JAKraig (my religion is at least as good as yours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson