Posted on 01/18/2002 6:11:04 AM PST by 1stFreedom
Folks, I'm reposting this article, edited so as to not appear to be attacking anybody.
I'd like your opinion, as this is an article in working progress. If you agree, disagree, have facts & figures, I'd appreciate your comments.
I've purposely left out the controversy over the OT beacause 1. I need to do some research, and 2. The focus of this article is on the agreed upon NT cannon. (It's more for discussion of NT amongst different denominations). I'll write another article on the OT, or incorporate it here.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE BIBLE
INTRODUCTION
Many schools of theology contend that the Church had a falling away, or went apostate, not too long after the death of the last Apostle. The approximate date varies, with 100AD for Jehovah Witnesses and 312AD for Calvinists and Mormons.
ERRANT CHURCH
If the Church had indeed fallen away from the faith, then this presents a very serious problem for the Church. The problem is so large it is a showstopper and it calls into question the validity of the faith itself.
The problem is this: If the Church was indeed apostate, then how could anything handled by the Church be trusted? Could any major (not minor) tenant taught or produced by the errant Church be considered valid? If so, then how can the modern Church accept a major tenant from an apostate Church?
EARLY CHRISTIANITY
Contrary to the current wide availability of the New Testament, the first believers did not have a copy of the New Testament.
The first Christians had the blessing of hearing the teachings of Christ personally. The apostles carried these teachings to various foreign lands for many years afterwards.
These Christians had no cannon of Scriptures, and in fact, some of the scriptures were being written during this period. (Such as the Epistles, which were letters to the various churches.)
Those who came after the time of the twelve apostles continued to teach the Gospel as well as the writings of the Apostles.
But there were also other writings that were considered to be inspired. One could even go as far as to argue that the Didichae or the Shepard of Hermas could be candidates for consideration of being divinely inspired. The early Church had to determine whether or not various writings were inspired. This didn't happen overnight.
Through the course of time, well after the earliest possible date (100ad) of a supposed apostasy, various writings were examined, tested, debated, and validated/invalidated by the Church.
THE CANNON IS RECOGNIZED
Thee first real recognition of the cannon of the New Testament came in the late 300’s (two synods, one in 382 and one in 392). This recognition is not the absolute “official” cannon, but rather just recognition of the NT cannon of Scripture.
NOTE: The Church rarely puts a stamp of official approval on anything until there is a serious dispute. This is why it wasn’t until the Council of Trent that the “official” cannon was “certified” – there was no serious dispute till that time frame (minor disputes? yes). The “unofficial” “official” cannon was recognized for centuries, but only certified at Trent.
THE ACHILLES HEAL OF AN APOSTASY
This formal recognition of the NT Cannon is the problem for believers.
If the Church was in error in the proposed range (100ad-312ad), then how could the errant church be trusted to be correct about the cannon of Scripture? How can one say for certainty that the cannon is correct. Maybe the Didichae belongs in there?
It's an error in logic, a paradox, to say that "An errant Church, misguided and corrupt, produced an infallible cannon of Scripture which is the foundation of the faith for non-Catholic believers."
While it is true that an errant church can teach valid truths, it is not true that an errant church can define the entire faith on which these truths rest.
CONCLUSION
A common reaction to the question of the cannon of the NT is that the Holy Spirit has confirmed it to individuals and the Church. If the Spirit indeed does confirm that the NT cannon is correct, then one has to admit that the either an apostate Church produced an infallible NT cannon (a contradiction) OR, that in fact, the Church wasn't apostate after all.
To reasonable people, the conclusion "that in fact, the church wasn't apostate after all or if it was then the NT cannon and the faith as well is in serious doubt", is inescapable.
-----
Comments??
You are presupposing Constantine murdered. You are attacking a strawman. I do not deny that he killed. He was a warrior king. Where is your evidence that he was a murderer? Or are you claiming that all killing is murder, in which case you are an absolute pacificist who does not believe in the potential justification of any killing, including the American war in Afghanistan and the application of the death penalty?
So how did Constantine start his own religion?
Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse things, but "fruit" I was referring to in Constantine's case was bad fruit (murder, etc). Bad fruit shows what kind of tree it is also, like good fruit does.
No one here is actually defending Constantine, that was not the premise of the original question.
How do you account for St. Paul? He was directly and indirectly responsible for a lot of atrocities - including the stoning of St. Stephen. St. Paul repented and followed Jesus. His works bore good fruit as we all know.
Do you condemn St. Paul for his acts previous to his conversion? How do you (or anyone for that matter) know what was in Constantine's heart and soul before he converted at the end of his life?
We can condemn the acts, but not the man.
BigMack
St. Paul had some bad fruit (pre conversion) and some good fruit (post conversion) - same thing for Constantine.
What do you do with that?
BTW, Jeffery Dahmer was "saved" before he died. I am not going to delve much into that, but I am not going to be the judge of him, either.
I think you should think about your inability to judge sin for what it is and hold those who do it responsible. This does not go against Christ's teachings. If it did he would not tell us "fruits" analogy (and many other things he said). I am not going to be anybody's judge, but you shouldn't follow leaders who have bad fruit, they will steer you wrong, this requires judgement, good judgement. You are trying to make "thou shalt not judge into the 11th commandement, it isn't one.
No one here is actually defending Constantine, that was not the premise of the original question.
Coulda fooled me, I still see RC sources calling him "Holy", on this thread if I'm not mistaken.
How do you account for St. Paul? He was directly and indirectly responsible for a lot of atrocities - including the stoning of St. Stephen. St. Paul repented and followed Jesus. His works bore good fruit as we all know. Do you condemn St. Paul for his acts previous to his conversion? How do you (or anyone for that matter) know what was in Constantine's heart and soul before he converted at the end of his life?
Paul did many evil things before he was a Christian, so dod Constantine. The difference, which you refuse to see apparently, is what they did after they claimed to have been converted. Paul proved by his actions he was, Constantine continued committing his evil acts.
We can condemn the acts, but not the man.
You can't condemn him because of his place in your church's history. The RC church does try very hard to condone his actions as well. (this thread is proof of that).
I ask you, how do you know that Constantine bore bad fruit after his conversion? Have they found new evidence (like more old scrolls) in the past few weeks?
"Let no one do any of the things which concern the Church without the bishop...Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." - Ignatius of Antioch, 2nd century
"The episcopate is a single whole, in which each bishop enjoys full possession. So is the Church a single whole, though it spreads far and wide into a multitude of churches as its fertility increases." - Cyprian of Carthage, d.258
In the Orthodox Church, we have an expression. We know where the Church is, but not where it isn't. We believe that the Orthodox Church is the direct descendent of the Church of the Apostles, indeed is the exact same Church. The Church is not a mere organization, but a living entity infused with the life of God. This is not due to any merit of the members of the Church, but due to the will of God. But, this does not necessarily mean that everyone within the visible Church will be saved. Thus the need for each of us to continually work out our own salvation. And it doesn't necessarily mean that those outside the visible Church will not also be saved by God.
But in my perspective, the burden seems to be on those who deny that the existence of Apostolic succession and deny the ability of the visible Church to endure through the ages. Where is the evidence that somehow Constantine created something that was not the Church, and that took its place? I just don't see it, and have yet to hear any claims to support this great overturning of God's stated purpose in establishing the Church.
All I've heard, I think, are two propositions:
1 - That because Constantine was irredeemably sinful, and leader of the state, the Church during his time became irredeemably corrupt. And even if I grant the first premise, which I have no reason to, I just don't see how this leads to the second.
2 - That by being legitimized by the state, and accepted as the religion of the state, the Church necessarily became corrupted and broke from the teachings and traditions of the Apostles. Again, I don't see the evidence to support this claim. Are you saying that the Church cannot exist except in a state of persecution? How does this square with Christ's command to make disciples of all nations?
No but they keep saying "we are not condoning Constantine's actions", while they try to tell us why his actions were OK, "we cannot judge him by our standards of today, we must put in they context of history", sound familiar?
Like chickens dancing on a hot plate. :)
BigMack
There IS NO UNITY of light [truth] with darkness [false doctrine/faith]. Why do you continue to make such inane statements???
It could only be because you didn't *really* read or comprehend what I wrote to you in answer to your questions.
As I've said, I'm not a Constantine expert. Neither, apparently, are you, since you've yet to produce any supporting sources for your claims that he was a murderer. I'm going to try now to find the source, but I've read in the past that his brother-in-law challenged his rule and attempted to overthrow him, and that despite the pleadings of his sister (his brother-in-law's wife) Constantine killed him. I haven't come across the story before of Constantine murdering a 12-year-old, so I can't answer the charge. Please provide supporting sources if you can. I have no idea if this applies, but as we've seen in Afghanistan where one of our soldiers was apparently murdered by a young gunman in an ambush, it is possible for the killing of minors also to be an act of war.
So my short answer is that yes, killing family members can be an act of war if the family members are in open rebellion. Happens in civil wars all the time.
Also, please note that the traditional story is that while Constantine had a Christian battlefield vision and began openly supporting Christianity, he himself was not baptized until his deathbed. Thus, in your comparison to Paul, an argument could be made that the acts of Constantine's rule should not be held against him anymore than Paul's complicity in the death of Stephen.
Please reread the posts regarding the current subject and tell me where anyone has defended Constantine? Is English a second language for you?
Can you do a little research to support your allegation that Constantine started his own religion and let me know what you come up with? Please post facts - don't just spout.
Peace.
"...It has consequently been asserted that Constantine favoured Christianity merely from political motives, and he has been regarded as an enlightened despot who made use of religion only to advance his policy. He certainly cannot be acquitted of grasping ambition. Where the policy of the State required, he could be cruel. Even after his conversion he caused the execution of his brother-in-law Licinius, and of the latter's son, as well as of Crispus his own son by his first marriage, and of his wife Fausta. He quarrelled with his colleague Licinius about their religious policy, and in 323 defeated him in a bloody battle; Licinius surrendered on the promise of personal safety; notwithstanding this, half a year later he was strangled by order of Constantine. During the joint reign Licinianus, the son of Licinius, and Crispus, the son of Constantine, had been the two Caesars. Both were gradually set aside; Crispus was executed on the charge of immorality made against him by Constantine's second wife, Fausta. The charge was false, as Constantine learned from his mother, Helena, after the deed was done. In punishment Fausta was suffocated in a superheated bath. The young Licinianus was flogged to death. Because Licinianus was not the son of his sister, but of a slave-woman, Constantine treated him as a slave."
As I think this makes clear, it is a mistake to state that Catholics defend Constantine uncategorically. Obviously, it seems that some nasty stuff occured during his reign. And as awful as these deaths appear, they are a drop in the bucket compared to the number that died on the bloody battlefields of the time. The general gist of the entry I just read seems to be that both Constantine and his time were very complex, and that he is revered for the role he played in halting the persecution of Christians more than anything else. I don't presume to judge the man personally. I still don't see evidence that he was guilty of murder.
Earlier, I mentioned the importance of taking in to account the understanding of justice during Constantine's time. Looking at the passage above, it seems to me that Constantine's killing was either in the persecution of war or in the application of the death penalty in a way that was consistent with the understanding of justice at the time. So again I ask, are you categorically equating the death penalty with murder? If you aren't, it seems like you need to produce a lot more evidence that Constantine killed for no cause whatsoever if you mean to accuse him of murder.
Christ Bless!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.