Posted on 05/25/2013 4:22:36 AM PDT by NYer
I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “beating a dead horse.” It refers to something that has been said or done so many times that it has outlived its usefulness. This is especially true of arguments that are not only old but also untrue.
Like the proverbial horse, the Roman emperor Constantine has been beaten to death by anti-Catholics.
I make it a point to check all of the comments posted on our YouTube and Facebook pages at least twice a day. As sure as fish live in water, I have come to expect at least one message a day from a Christian Fundamentalist about how the Catholic Church was founded by Emperor Constantine sometime in the fourth century.
It’s almost unfathomable to me that in this day and age Fundamentalists still have not learned to verify the validity of their anti-Catholic arguments. But then again, with so many websites making claims like “Constantine founded the Catholic Church” living on in cyberspace, it’s no wonder some folks still cling to what blogger Mark Shea refers to as “pseudo knowledge.”
It would be nice if this falsity were confined to Fundamentalist circles, but sadly it is not. As atheist podcast host and blogger David Smalley explains on his website:
The Bible was 'canonized' around 325 C.E. (about 275+ years after Jesus' death) with Constantine in charge. . . . At the time Constantine was overseeing the canonization or 'building' of the Bible, if he didn't agree with the text, it was thrown out. There are tons of 'scriptures' that did not make it in. A quick research on the Council of Nicaea will prove this.
There’s no doubt that Constantine was favorable to Christianity. Still, many people mistakenly believe that he not only favored it but that he made it the state religion. He did not. He signed the Edict of Milan, which made it legal to practice Christianity and ordered that the Christians’ confiscated property be returned to them.
Another mistaken notion is that Constantine exercised complete control over the First Council of Nicaea in 325. The primary reason for the council was due to the growing Arian heresy. Jimmy Akin summarizes Arianism this way:
[Arianism was] founded by Arius, a priest of Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 300s. Arius held that originally the Son of God did not exist. There was a time in which there was a single divine Person who became the Father when he created the Son out of nothing. The Son was the first of all created beings and thus separate from the Father in beginning. The heresy was condemned at the first ecumenical council—Nicaea I in 325—but the controversy intensified and lasted much longer (The Fathers Know Best, p. 85).
Constantine did not fully understand why Arianism was so controversial, and he even endorsed many of Arius’s ideas. Historian Dr. James Hitchcock explains:
[W]hen Constantine also endorsed Arius’s ideas, there was an uproar that led the emperor in 325 to call the Council of Nicaea (Asia Minor) to settle the issue. After an intense struggle, the Council condemned Arius, declaring the Son to be “consubstantial” with the Father, that is, sharing the same substance (History of the Catholic Church, p. 83).
If Constantine held as much sway over the Council as many claim, then it is a peculiar thing that the Christology he favored was the big loser.
The next anti-Catholic claim is summarized in Mr. Smalley’s quote above: It is the idea that Constantine decided which books belonged in the Bible and that the ones he did not favor were left out.
The Council Fathers discussed many things besides Arianism, including the proper dating of Easter, the validity of baptisms administered by heretics, and more. One issue they did not discuss, however, is which books belonged in the Bible. They drafted a list of canons (ecclesiastical laws) that you can read for yourself here.
Mr. Smalley’s assertion that “quick research on the Council of Nicaea” will prove his claim in fact proves otherwise; unless, of course, you are getting your information from anti-Catholic websites that don’t provide any primary sources to back them up.
Finally, there is the claim that Constantine introduced pagan elements into what was “pure” Christianity up to that point. Many Fundamentalists will claim that doctrines like transubstantiation, the communion of saints, or the sacrifice of the Mass were pagan ideas. But all of these teachings and more can be traced back to the time of the Apostles through the writings of the early Christians.
To counter this claim, I highly recommend Jimmy Akin’s book, The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Christians, available from Catholic Answers. I also recommend getting a copy of the May-June 2013 issue of Catholic Answers Magazine, in which I tackle several of the supposed pagan parallels to Catholic practices.
Do you not notice that people in the scriptures receive the Holy Spirit, are indwelt by the Holy Spirit...Do Catholics not believe this...
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Phillip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Perhaps you figure the Eunuch went on to Ethopia being just as ignorant as when he confronted Philip without any guidance to lead his countrymen???
All Christians are inspired by the Spirit...The Eunuch was inspired by the Spirit afte he believed...
Certain Freepers are known for that kind of thread posting. It is a form of the game, "Let's you and him fight!"
If by the "book", you mean the sacred Scriptures that make up the Bible, then you are incorrect. These writings are God-breathed and "holy men of God spoke as they were moved along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). Now you and others may choose to ignore them and their authority, but you do so at your own peril. I do NOT recommend it.
He means because Luther rejected Rome as the supreme authority then that translates into the exaltation of the individual as the supreme authority on what the true Gospel is, versus Rome which has “infallibly” declared herself conditionally infallible. And and upon this premise the RC has his real assurance, not on the weight of Scriptural warrant or history, as evidence from such only have authority for an RC if Rome gives it.
However, to reiterate and expand, Robby’s polemic presumes that Luther was like a pope (the supreme exaltation of the individual), as are individual SS type Christians, presuming infallibility, and rejecting the church magisterium, but which they are not to do, except as being worthy of unconditional submission.
Moreover his model presumes that truth is determined by a perpetually infallible magisterium, rather than upon Scriptural substantiation, with truth being established among the elect due to that, like as writings were established as Scripture and truth preserved before there ever was a church in Rome. And thus the church began in dissent from those who, like Rome, presumed to “think of men above that which is written.” (1Cor. 4:6)
Basically, under the Roman model, the holy man in the desert in a hairy garment and eating insects was to be rejected, as was the Itinerant Preacher from Galilee, as they both reproved those who actually did sit in the seat of Moses and whom would not sanction the Baptist nor the Christ. Or the church that He began, with His and its claims being established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as it is the only tangible transcendent source that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God.
Rather than exalting a church that proclaims how great it is, and all other Christians are second class at best, this means of establishment of truth requires the church to persuade souls as those who have “renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:2)
This is much more difficult and thus the recourse to asserting you are infallible and calling for implicit obedience, and which is cultic unless you are God.
“The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question.”
“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned.” (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII)
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God’s Church on matters of faith and morals-——this is what all must give..”
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” (Henry G. Graham, “What Faith Really Means”)
Sorry, I was only trying to be helpful to Elsie, who complained there weren't enough biblical quotations being posted.
I reminded her of the opportunity to post on the thread's subjects -- of the Roman Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicaea -- noting that such arguments may or may not require biblical citations.
So what do you think, was my point a little too subtle for the average bear? ;-)
SCRIPTURE??? WHAT’S THAT??? >>
for the first 300 or so years after Christ, there was no bible as we know it today, and up to about a few hundred years ago, most Christians in the world did not know how to read. The Catholic Church has Sacred Tradition and the Papacy, the Catholic Church translated the bible, and if it weren’t for the Irish monks during the Middle Ages, there would be no bible today; follow the one and true church of Jesus, the Catholic Church.
You guys pull this out on every thread as if by rote.
Baloney.
Did you violate your own rule?
I thought the yawn came AFTER the cereal box?
Am I wrong?
They STILL don't!
Not that it matters; for a central authority has already read the book and told them what it REALLY means...
For those who must handle the word of God deceitfully in order to maintain their authority and power, will find they also have to convince their followers that to question their doctrines is in itself a sin and brings God's ire. Not only are people cowed into accepting whatever they say but the very act of having a doubt is condemned. What a racket!!!
Elsie is actually smarter than the average bear and is a "he". Sometimes, Elsie's posts must be read with a few grains of salt. I don't think your subtlety was missed. ;o)
You are making two different assertions here: that one only knows that the Bible is inspired if someone else tells us, and that one only knows what it means if if someone else tells them; both of which are false as absolute statements.
If one only knows that the Bible is inspired if someone else tells them, and by someone you mean the Catholic church, then the question is how did most of the writings we call Scripture become established as Scripture before there was a church?
For that matter, why should anyone believe a hairy man in the deserts eating insects and an itinerant Preacher from Nazareth ("can any good thing come from Nazareth?"), seeing both were rejected by the magisterium which sat in the seat of Moses?
The reality is that the same Holy Spirit that inspired the Scriptures, and which made them Scripture, also provided evidence that established among the nation that they were from God, based upon their heavenly qualities, effects and attestation in conformity with what was prior established as Divine, as He does in establishing that men of God are indeed just that.
Those in positional authority are to affirm this, but Scripture testifies that often they did just the opposite, and both writings of God and men of God are such regardless of the affirmation or rejection of men in positional authority. Thus the church began in dissent from the latter.
Regarding your second assertion, that we must have someone inspired by the Spirit to show us what Scripture means" and again, by his you mean the Catholic church, this is not true as a "must" and broad statement, let alone the Catholic claim to be that someone . For while God has made us interdependent to varying degrees, and the lost in particular need explanatory help - and the eunuch's question was on prophecy which is often more difficult - yet even some of them can understand some of the plain truths of Scripture.
In addition, the noble Bereans did not look to the apostles to interpret Scripture for them, but searched the Scriptures in order to determine their veracity.
But as SS affirms, not all of Scripture is alike in terms of its perspicuity, and it also surely affirms the gift, office, need and viability for teachers, but not as assuredly infallible, which is a novel doctrine foreign to Scripture.
The RC solution is the Roman magisterium, yet this source itself needs interpretation as it also varies in its degree of perspicuity, and like as RCs charge Prots in regard to their supreme authority, the RC does not have an infallible interpreter for their supreme authority, and degrees of disagreements are allowed and abound.
Hey, hey, hey:
Only a FEW?
Clear down to the sub-atomic level?
Luther was one of a number of imperfect men many who corrected Rome but which entity reacted according to the flesh, while you have simply ignored what i said in this issue regarding Luther and the establishment of truth under SS.
But I also think he took a wrong turn which was calamitous for Christendom. Because of him, millions died, in part because in repudiating the pope he left Christians in the hands of the civil authority,
The peasants war was unfortunate and had deep causes as a result of the state of Christianity under Rome, while Protestants had much to unlearn from her, and if Luther has slain his relative thousands then Rome has slain her ten of thousands.
Because Rome was the civil power, formally or effectively, far more died than thru Luther, with popes using of the sword of men to deal with theological nonconformity, and sanctioning torture even for witnesses, and death for many who in good conscience believed in some way that Rome found offensive, even if sometimes she latter conceded they were unjustly condemned. Yet in this case she blamed that on "her children," not the popes whom they followed.
The fact is that Christianity being the civil power, ruling over those without, and using its sword to deal with theological opposition, is not Scriptural. The NT Lord stated His kingdom was not of this world, else His servants would fight after the felsh, (Jn. 18:36) as Rome supremely exampled.
For in contrast to her, and early Prots which had yet to forsake her ways in this regard, the apostles did not seek to rule over "those without," as they did not "war after the flesh," but by spiritual means, and discipline of the church was the same means, as that realm is where the real battle is.
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) " (2 Corinthians 10:3-4)
"By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, " (2 Corinthians 6:6-7)
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. " (Ephesians 6:12)
"In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. " (1 Corinthians 5:4-5)
"For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. " (1 Corinthians 5:12-13)
"Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. " (1 Timothy 1:19-20)
To the state is the use of the sword of men sanctioned, (Rm. 13:1-7) and while it may indirectly support Christian faith in "the punishment of evildoers," (1Pt. 1:14) such as against theft, etc., yet the church is not to look to the state to deal with theological dissent or rely on the sword of men to do so (nor should the state have to stand where it ought not in dealing with sin in the church due to the failure of the latter to police itself), or be raising church armies to regain land etc. Its prayers ought to be able move the powers that be in the position to intercede, according to the will of God, versus the church being that civil power.
God has so constituted the church that it must have spiritual power, manifesting that it is the church of the living God, not its institutionalized counterpart, and not rely on the arm of flesh to fight its battle.
in every Protestant state, and indeed every Catholic the Church became more than ever a tool of the state.
Rather, the loss of the civil power of Rome, such as seen in the Inquisitions, with the state being a tool of Roman institution (not the one true church), and which loss you seem to lament, was not Scriptural to begin with, while following the Scriptural model of separation of powers worked contrary to your allegation, as the church gained more autonomy, while the state reflected its basic faith in its judgments, as seen in America for much of its history.
The modern declension is a result of the church losing it salt, and becoming more like the surrounding society, as Rome did in becoming like the empire in which it found itself. And today what Catholicism overall fosters is liberalism, being much less conservative than her evangelical counterparts.
In short, Luther caused a civil war in Christendom.
"For there must be also divisions among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. " (1 Corinthians 11:19)
As a precursor to the day when the chief shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. (Mt. 25:32) Considering even the moral state of Rome esp at the time of the Reformation, and her recalcitrance, division became necessary, though the EOs preceded the Prots, as Catholicism itself exists in sects and divisions.
But as God can raise up children to Abraham from stones, (Mt. 3:9) and the church is essentially a spiritual entity into which the Spirit baptizes members upon conversion, (1Cor. 12:13) with its authenticity not resting upon formal descent, it continued despite the poor condition of the church of the organic church and divisions, existing among a relative remnant.
And which true church as the body of Christ continues, because God raises up stones who profess the essential faith upon which the church is built - by extension that being Christ - even though those who sit in position so power often oppose them. For thus the church began and thus it is often preserved. Thanks be to God.
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.