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.
Don’t know what that means.
So here we see how an RC deals with the problem of not being able to establish a doctrine as being Scriptural. Which is to demand we accept the authority of Rome. At least it is remarkable that, contrary to most RC apologists, rather than appealing to Scripture as if warrant from that was necessary or determinative of the veracity of your beliefs, which it is not, you actually contend for the very thing that is the goal of RC apologists, despite their attempt to appeal to Scripture.
Which goal is that of rejecting the weight of Scriptural substantiation as the basis for veracity, and instead to implicitly submit to Rome, as she has infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
And you talk about being "beguiled." Thus we have the counsel
And the fact is that Luther was neither a pope, nor novel in his views, regardless of what Catholics who are ignorant of history imagine. Nor do we follow him as a pope, and overall differ from him on certain things. For unlike RCs, we are not bound to accept what a man says, and can actually can, and are to, with honest hearts for truth, "prove all things" and search the scriptures daily, whether that which is taught conforms to it. (Acts 17:11)
It boils down to a question of authority. The Church claims to speak with an authority given it by Jesus Christ.
It does boil down to a question of authority. Those who sat in Moses seat presumed, like Rome, that no one could have authority without their sanction, and could teach mere traditions of men as doctrine, and thus rejected the Itinerant Preacher from Galilee who reproved them by Scripture. But they were wrong, else the church would be illicit, but which was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
Rome claims to speak with an authority given it by Jesus Christ, but that does not make it so, and we reject that claim based upon the fact that not only is Rome critically contrary to Scripture, but so is the idea of a perpetually infallible office as per Rome, and instead the church began in dissent from those who also basically presumed assured veracity.
You reject that claim, but that does not mean your right but only that you have your own claims to make, which is that you rather than the Church know what the true Gospel is.
Rather, it is the pope who supremely engages in the exaltation of the individual, as he presumes he can supremely determine what is right, and no one can oppose him. In contrast, rather than being as a bunch of individual popes who claim to infallibly determine what the true Gospel is, we are to establish truth upon Scriptural substantiation, which the Lord and the apostles supremely did , in word and in power: "But 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)
Like Luther you reject the authority of pope, bishops and councils and accept only the authority of the Bible
Rather, we do not reject all authority nor councils, but like the Lord, we reject any authority of man on earth as being assured infallible and warranting unconditional obedience, but hold Scripture as the supreme authority on truth on earth, and being the standard for obedience and by which truth claims are tested and established.
As Westminster (CHAPTER XXXI ) states, "For the better government and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils." " It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word."
Further that you are authorized to interpret the Bible by the Holy Spirit, although why you expect anyone to accept this is beyond me because you invoke an unseen authority who may not be in fact who you think him to be.
And you and your fellow RCs engage in interpreting your supreme authority to varying degrees, for which you have no infallible interpreter.
The Scripture teaches the spiritual man does discern things by the Holy Spirit who reveals truth, (1Cor. 2:12-15) but as you wrongly presume that 1Pt. 1:20,21 condemns relying upon the Holy Spirit for interpretation in rejecting Rome as infallible, while presuming we expect people to believe us as if we claimed assured infallibility like the pope, it is not surprising our reasons for expecting souls to concur with is is beyond you. The church began as souls saw Scriptural substantiation for truth claims in word and in power, for of such is the kingdom of God, not in self proclamation as per Rome. (1Cor. 4:20)
The fact is that historically evangelicals have long held to and contended for core truths, separating from liberals (which you are stuck with), many of which truths we share with Rome because they are Scripturally warranted. And likewise they have contended against unBiblical traditions of men, while not being alone in sects divisions as Catholicism also has these to a significant degree, and abound in disagreements. This does not
Regarding Indulgences, this is like that of a Presidential pardon—it absolves a person of the consequences of his actions but not his guilt.
Defining it was not the issue, but that an experience of purifying torments commencing at death to atone for sin and make one perfect enough is not what is seen in Scripture, versus believers postmortem experience (or at His return) that being with the Lord.
"Not many days after the victory, Licinius, having received part of the soldiers of Daia into his service, and properly distributed them, transported his army into Bithynia, and having made his entry into Nicomedia, he returned thanks to God, through whose aid he had ovecome; on the ides of June [June 13th], while he and Constantine were consuls for the third time, he commanded the following edict for the restoration of the Church, directed to the president of the province, to be promulgated:"
At the end of the chapter it says, "Licinius having issued this ordinance, made an harangue, in which he exhorted the Christians to rebuild their religious edifices."
So, yes, they did meet in Milan, but the edict was issued later in Nicomedia by Licinius after his victory over Maximin Daia.
Are you that ill informed? Someone's private view is right and true for you? I have to stop laughing for a bit to make this statement.
GOD'S Word has the ONLY Truth there is - for He IS Truth. He IS Who He IS and that makes HIM the ONLY Way and through Him ALONE is Eternal Life.
That's the reason HIS OWN are His Own - they obey and listen to Him ALONE and never to 'another'.
I'll just presume your children listen to others as 'your word' holds NO AUTHORITY in your house - since you apparently don't 'get it'.
All Christians are ONE for they are united in ONE - they are 'in Christ' together as ONE and His Word ALONE is their guide ALONE.
He is Our Rock and our rope goes straight to and tied to HIM alone. It IS the ONLY Way to be secure. 'Man' will never touch my rope - in spite of 'it's goal' to do so with telling me what God really did say with 'their words' for they attached their rope to a different rock - a 'man' rock and not a supernatural Rock.
And that 'iscool' to know, to think about and meditate on.
I thought that "the whole world groaned to find itself Arian" in those days.
Isn't that always the case???
SCRIPTURE??? WHAT'S THAT???
If one does not distinguish between Arian and semi-Arian. The bishops, many of them, tended to be “unsteady,” which is to say that not unlike the bishops of the Church of England in Henry’s day, they dithered.
Indeed God’s Word is supreme and that means Christ, not a book.
Last resort, 'may require'? When His Word IS The Authority in everything.
Jesus didn't come to start a religion and now you think His Word will defend it? He spoke to the 'religious' and called them hypocrites as their teachings are of man. So until that sinks in - consider yourself stuck while spinning your wheels. But kindly direct the exhaust in a different direction.
You are without the Spirit when you say that - which means you are unable to understand the things of God but only the things of man. Jesus is The Word made flesh. And "The Book" holds His inspired Words. And no one can KNOW Him without His Word nor cares to know Him when they get flippant like you did.
Tell us what 'book' you have that is ALIVE and ACTIVE and accomplishes this...
"For the Word of God is ALIVE and ACTIVE. Sharper than any double-edged sword, IT penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; IT judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Heb 4:12
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
You misunderstand my words.
Like you, Elsie complained that there weren't enough biblical quotes being posted, and I simply pointed out that the thread's subjects cover the historical question of whether Roman Emperor Constantine had undue influence over the Council of Nicaea.
In the snippet you quoted out of context, I was inviting her, and now you, to make that case if you wish -- and feel free to use whatever biblical references you feel appropriate.
presently no screen name: "He spoke to the 'religious' and called them hypocrites as their teachings are of man.
So until that sinks in - consider yourself stuck while spinning your wheels.
But kindly direct the exhaust in a different direction."
Sorry, but your insults are misdirected, FRiend.
Not this again?
The Bible is a book. If it is inspired we only know this from what others say. When we hold the Bible in our hands we are in the position of the Ethiopian official whom Phillip over heard reading Isaiah. “Do you understand what you are reading?” said Phillip. The Ethiopian replied,” How can I unless someone shows me?” We must have someone inspired by the Spirit to show us.
Either that or the cereal box, eh???
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.